From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Oct 3 08:32:16 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 11:32:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: <1db301d45b2e$43dda750$cb98f5f0$@com> Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz? (not sepharadim) I was surprised to see it done. Sources? Thanks, 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/ ======= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 2 22:30:47 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 01:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3e882718-3c29-80fa-6211-ff7172a97fba@sero.name> On 30/09/18 14:13, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. I think you meant the Ramban. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 23:18:08 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 09:18:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:23 AM Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. So > go figure out how /he/ understands the idea that 2 were not taught via > Moshe. > According to the Rambam, the first diber _is_ one of the 613, and this gemara is his proof text -- see Sefer Hamitzvot Mitzvot Ase #1. Assuming that "Rambam" is a typo for "Ramban", see his hassaga on the Sefer Hamitzvot. Ramban holds that the second diber includes two of the 613 (don't make idols; don't worship them). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Wed Oct 3 00:23:19 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:23:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:43:14 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine" > From Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra ... >> In 1921 the great bibliographer (and much more) Yitzchak Rivkind >> .... On Simchas Torah they would open the Aron Kodesh >> when saying Aleinu, both at night and during the day, and while singing >> the Niggun of Mussaf of Yom Kippur would bow on the floor exactly like >> we do on Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur. When he asked for the source of >> this Minhag he was told it comes from the Gra... Interesting. The Robshitse Rov had a similar practice, falling on his face during the hakofos. (It is reported that one year, after bowing during hakofos [the first time?], he commented that only he and his son Yaakov [of Melits] understand the secret. After Yom Tov, it became known that R' Yaakov too had participated in this rite.) (Another story tells of how the grandson of the Kosnitse Maggid, R' Elo'ozor, spoke lightly of this minhag [made fun?] to the Robshite Rov's son, R' Eliezer of Dzikhov, whereupon R' Eliezer protested vehemently, saying all his father's customs have a very high source. On his return, R' Elozor's wagon tipped and he was thrown out of his carriage, falling, as we do on Yom Kippur, on his face. He saw this as a retribution for having spoken lightly of the minhag.) From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Oct 3 09:16:33 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:16:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra Message-ID: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 01:17 PM 9/30/2018, R. Zalman Alpert wrote: >The kluiz of the GRaA in Vilna was essentially the only place in Vilna >and all of Lithuania that followed minhage HAgra to the kotzo shel yud >Chaim Grade a lost talmid of the Chazon Ish and a Vilna native mentions >this in his wonderful novels about shil life in Vilna > >Because the Jslm settlement in early 19th cen was started by disciples >of the GRAthe Rivlins,etc these minhogim becamr and remain the standard >for at least the yishuv hayoshen of Jslm and beyond that group > >And thats how we know these customs in realism rather than from seforim >The Litthuanian yrshivas did not follow these customs nor did kohol,and >certainly not the chassidim of Lithuania who after WwI played an impt >role in Jew rel life in greater lita including Vilna My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and are practiced by many there. Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the Torah? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 3 14:51:19 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 17:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For > example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the > Torah? Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim of the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 14:46:37 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:46:37 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >are practiced by many there. >Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >Torah? It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the original Minhag. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 3 15:32:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:32:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading : the Torah? While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does make a similar point. ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. 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 JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 3 15:42:28 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 22:42:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. > _______________________________________________ This is a description of the fact but not an explanation of why this was a halachically acceptable result (ie where is this exception to the minhag hamakom rule) Kt Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 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 Wed Oct 3 15:54:51 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <16705774-1a3c-c42c-0f78-317676dc6114@sero.name> On 03/10/18 17:46, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >> My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >> practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >> find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >> are practiced by many there. > >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >> Torah? > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. That is a different issue, and one that was once controversial and that one can still question. Here the issue is much simpler, because when Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 18:16:02 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:16:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> Message-ID: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. Because if there was, each returnee would have to adopt the Minhag Hamakom the moment he hit an inhabited city. In contrast, there were no religious Jews left in England after the expulsion, so the newcomers can (and should) follow their old minhagim. The same would presumably apply when Jews started coming back to Spain a few decades back, and unlike Moroccans in France a few decades before. But, as I wrote before, it seems that the Minhag is to follow whatever Minhagim you were used to, especially if you have enough landsmen to create a breakaway community. On October 3, 2018 2:51:19 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading >the >> Torah? > >Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim >of >the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they >now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those > >minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed >the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably >French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? > >-- >Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all >zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you >prosper >_______________________________________________ >Avodah mailing list >Avodah at lists.aishdas.org >http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 21:54:40 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 21:54:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 3, 2018 3:32:20 PM PDT, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. What does he hold about Sefardim moving to France or Germany (which had a continuity - Germany going back well, at least a thousand years and France, while it had a break, did have a religious Ashkenazi community before and after the war). On October 3, 2018 3:54:51 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >o Here the issue is much simpler, because when >Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local >minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in >England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed >them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, >there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to >adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 4 06:19:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:19:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. _______________________________________________ The gemara (Bava Metziah 83b) discusses what hours a worker gets paid for based on the Torah "standard." The gemara queries why not just find out what local practice is? The first answer is it's a case of a new city which was nkutai. Rashi defines nkutai as meaning its residents came from multiple other cities, with multiple other practices. Perhaps this is a model for minhag? New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care what we do? 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 Thu Oct 4 10:17:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:17:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181004171737.GA32625@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:19:57PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a : preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard : for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care : what we do? BM 83b is talking about norms for business, which is likely an entirely different use of the word "minhag" than in issur veheter. For example, when we say "minhag mevatel halakhah" in CM discussions, we are relying on the presumption that both parties would take compliance to local business norms for granted, and a deal can have any conditional both parties agree on. In this CM sense of minhag, there is no reason to assume that halakhah would have problems with other norms emerging, since they are based on the agreement of all parties. But that's a whole different topic than Ashk vs Seph differences in the other 3 Turim, which is where we started. That's minhag in the sense of: 1- Rgional pesaq when other regions hold differently (eg bet yosef meat); or 2- Extra-halachic accepted prohibitions or obligations (eg avoiding qitniyos). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 09:16:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:16:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: <20181003205226.GC17060@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181004161626.GF25881@aishdas.org> Moving this from Areivim. On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 4:28pm -0700, Rabbi Meir Rabi wrote on Areivim: : The Beis Hamikdash wasn't inclusive. More than that, (according to some : opinions) there were professions which weren't obligated to do Aliyah : LeRegel because they smelled bad and couldn't be Oleh Regel with everyone. The beraisa (Chullin 4a) says that dog fertilizer gatherers, tanners and copper smiths are "peturin min hare'iyah". The Rambam tells them get get cleaned up and go (Hil' Chagiga 2:2), the Mechaber (Kesef Mishnah ad loc) explaining that we hold like the Rabanan, not that beraisa. But even if we held like that beraisa that's whether they have a petur for not coming, not an issur to come. In fact, inclusivity might be the whole reason /why/ the Rabanan don't hold like the beraisa. But lo ra'isi eino ra'ayah, so to speak, so naniach someone else does take a harder line, what would that mean? Kehunah is not inclusive of all baalei mum. But attending... The BHMQ is inclusive on the basis of things not dependent on the person's own decisions. No one, not even a nakhri child of an eishes ish, is excluded by virtue of who he is. (In the nakhri's case, up to the soreg, but still, that's true of all nakhriim.) You're talking about someone excluded because of what they chose to do. (Again, given said "some opinions".) Admittedly, too many people lack options. But someone who really wants to be oleh regel who is still forced by circumstance to an unpleasant job would choose a different one. Or beg, if they value aliyah laregel more than the protection from sin offered by "yafeh salmud Torah im derekh eretz". My point is, it's a choice, and not the same kind of exclusion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call micha at aishdas.org life which is required to be exchanged for it, http://www.aishdas.org immediately or in the long run. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:46:34 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:46:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <1b84de96-ba9a-be08-b14f-3941c6ca49ec@sero.name> On 03/10/18 21:16, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the > Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. No, there was not. The First and Second Crusades utterly destroyed the communities that had survived the Roman and Arab occupations, and the communities that started resettling EY in the Ramban's day were all immigrants who brought their chu"l minhagim with them, including the minhagim of paskening like the Bavli, keeping two days of Rosh Hashana, and not benching lulav when the first day of Succos falls on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:51:23 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:51:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0f6cfe7e-6504-98a8-c784-c122f84a59ca@sero.name> On 03/10/18 18:32, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? > : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading > : the Torah? > > While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY > community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does > make a similar point. > > ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to > switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. > He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old > minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi > Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 4 12:10:49 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:10:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rabbi wrote: 'When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways.' Agreed. Yerushalayim didn't have continuity as we know via the Ramban finding less than a minyan there when he arrived, but Chevron AFAIK had continuity from Chazal to 1929. I think Teverya did too. The museum of the old yishuv in the Old City refers to the 'mustarvim' as one of the communities in 19th century Jlem, those who were culturally pretty Arab and claimed descent from the pre-crusades community. For more info this wikipaedia page: History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel is well footnoted. So if there's well documented continuous Jewish presence and even communities in EY throughout, how did the SA set minhagim in EY such that ROY held they were obligatory on new arrivals? What happened to pre-existing customs? Or is it that the disruption and wax and wane of communities over EY with continuous small scale aliya meant there was no such such thing as minhag hamakom? Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 14:48:15 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 17:48:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181004214815.GD14160@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:10:49PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not : countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume : such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? I think it has more to do with communication and transportation changes than a change in principle. The new metzi'us is that we're much more aware of what people five towns over are doing. On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 02:51:23PM -0400, Zev Sero replied to my post: : >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to : >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. : >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old : >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi : >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. : But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his : whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all : the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there : were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument : works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? Well, you might have a question about Edot haMizrach, but EY? Didn't you just write about how the Jewish settlement of EY in the 15th cent wasn't all that dense? But I don't think this is relevent, anyway. Let's say they were wrong to take their minhagim with them. Even if the change in minhag was wrong, the normal practice in EY did indeed change. Unlike the situation once that norm was lost and no new consistent minhag emerged (on all but a few issues). So, I could see ROY saying that right or wrong about its establishment, the SA's minhag still stands as the minhag hamaqom. OTOH, invoking the SA means that he is bringing a textual component to the establishment of minhag. IIRC, ROY frames it in terms of the fact that the SA was written in EY, not that the Mechaber got there due to one of the first large yishuv in centuries, nor the yishuv itself. So perhaps we need to know more about ROY's model of minhag before spending so much time on guesses like the one above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 20:13:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 23:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem Message-ID: On Areivim (subject line same as here), several people have bemoaned how difficult it is to use a wheelchair (and many other assistive devices) in the Old City in general, and the Kotel area in particular. In terms of absolute, quantifiable, objective fact, I can't imagine how anyone could dispute that. I am bringing the topic to Avodah in order to discuss what our feelings and attitudes should be towards this situation. Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I often remark that we are fortunate to live in a time when the technology has allowed us such efficient wheelchairs. Our economy has allowed us to make building codes that require ramps and such, which would have been laughably expensive just a few decades back. Ditto for "kneeling buses" and the like. But it seems to me that you don't need technology or wealth to realize that if the shul is built at a median altitude, it will be easier for *everyone*. And yet Chazal thought it is a better idea to make the shul look impressive. Surely I'm missing something here. Can someone please set me straight? Thanks Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 19:04:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 22:04:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim > on chol hamoed in chutz la?aretz? (not sepharadim) > I was surprised to see it done. > Sources? I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 21:10:16 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 00:10:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/18 15:10, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > > Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not > countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to > assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Perhaps the first post-Talmudic book on halacha was a booklet on the differences between minhag EY and minhag Bavel. So the concept of minhag EY goes back to at least the time of the geonim. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 05:01:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:01:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna?s instruction[1] and codified by the Shulchan Aruch,[2] world Jewry started reciting ?Gevuros Geshamim B?Tchiyas HaMeisim?, better known as the formulaic insert ?Mashiv HaRuach U?Morid HaGashem?, in the second bracha of Shemoneh Esrei. This addition, showcasing the Might of G-d by mentioning the fact that He is the only One who has the power and ability to make rain, is considered so imperative that one who forgets to insert it must repeat the whole Shemoneh Esrei.[3] As there are no vowels in the Gemara or Shulchan Aruch, an interesting question arises: what is the proper way to pronounce the Hebrew word for rain (???) in this sentence? Is it Ge shem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel; eh sound) or is it Ga shem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel; uh sound)? Although the word for rain is pronounced Ge shem when saying the word by itself, still, its proper pronunciation might be changed when part of a sentence. Contemporary halachic authorities used various rules of Hebrew Grammar (dikduk) to come up with the proper solution. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 5 05:28:54 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:28:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 8:01 AM >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 >> On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction... With all due respect for the many great g'dolim who weighed in on this issue and came up with explanations about what the proper pronunciation should be, they came late in the game, after grammarians had already started changing the pronunciation. The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 07:37:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 10:37:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:01:40PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 I have yet to see a discussion that starts at the beginning. Bemechilas kevod everyone who holds "gashem", and who am I to argue against the Gra, the Netziv, the CC, R' Aharon Kotler, R YS Elyashiv, or Rav Moshe? But this article gets closer, by mentioning Sepharadim and the Levushei Mordekhai. Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:28:54PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : they came late in the game, after grammarians had already : started changing the pronunciation. : The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the : rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, : Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be : no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. But this doesn't prove that our mesorah was necessarily that there was a significan pause after "umorid hagashem". Yes, the Teimanim say "Jafen" on wine, and yet still say "geshem" here with a segol. Their mesorah is that is is not a pause. But for Ashkenazim, those older manuscripts do not prove whether or not there is a pause, since the diqduq they used would have "geshem" either way. As for Nusach haAri, Lubavitch's Alter Rebbe liked R Wolf Heidenheim's (Ravah's) siddur and diqduq, so his Nusach Ari was one of the early adopters of these language innovations. Interestingly, this means that most Ashkneazim today are davening in a nusach that is primarily a haskalisher attempt to reconstruct an authentic nusach, that is based on some ahistorical assumptions of what "authentic" was, to boot. And R/Dr Mandel is the only person I know who unwound that shift from Mishaic to Biblical Hebrew across all of davening. Unless you're willing to take that drastic step ("sabe'einu mituvakh, vesamcheinu biyshu'asakh"), saying "geshem" when most of your Hebrew is Mishnaic could something different than it did in those manuscripts, depending if a pause was intended. And, depending on whether the phrase might even be an exception to the usual rules of diqduq. (See R Spitz's article.) We simply can't know. R' Spitz concludes: Postscript: This is just one of a number of places where the majority consensus of Poskim maintain that dikduk decides the proper reading of tefillos.[30] Although many Gedolim through the ages spoke about dikduk's importance,[31] unfortunately its study at present is much neglected. In the words of Rabbi Yisroel Reisman in his excellent book Pathways of the Prophets:[32] "The myth of the lack of importance of (at least) a minimal amount of knowledge of dikduk must be dispelled. This is an area where a small amount of time and effort go a long way. Let's do it!" But to some up this post, we also need to know *which* diqduq. To provide the footnotes for that last quote: [30] See at length Rabbi Yisroel Reisman's Pathways of the Prophets, "Rules of Dikduk" starting on pg. 312. [31] For example see the Rambam's Peirush HaMishnayos (Avos Ch. 2, 1), Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim 142, 1), Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah (Ch. 5, 3), Shu"t Chavos Yair (124), Shu"t Sheilas Ya'avetz (vol. 1, 10), and Bnei Yisaschar (Introduction to Igra D'Kallah and Mayon Ganim 13, 6), all cited in the aforementioned chapter. [32] Pathways of the Prophets (pg. 325). L'iluy Nishmas the Rosh HaYeshiva - Rav Chonoh Menachem Mendel ben R' Yechezkel Shraga, Rav Yaakov Yeshaya ben R' Boruch Yehuda, and l'zchus for Shira Yaffa bas Rochel Miriam and her children for a yeshua teikef u'miyad! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Fri Oct 5 07:14:32 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:14:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An interesting discussion on this is given here by Dr Shnayer Lehman https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm YUTorah Online Online study of the Jewish holidays, Parsha, Halakha and Talmud by Yeshiva University www.yutorah.org From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 5 04:54:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 07:54:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When Sefardi and Ashkenazim Meet Message-ID: <56.57.22391.E4157BB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Rabbi Eli Mansour discusses the convergence of Sefardi and Ashkenazi traditions in contemporary Israel. Please see the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgoo.gl%2FWT2Hjq&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C97625655127d4ae2115708d62aad6b61%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636743321668910329&sdata=qGd8srOfQuC0kDFzrWfAVXfNbcQiB%2BvvgPyGWe3HehQ%3D&reserved=0 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 04:45:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:45:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5310ADD1-3CFE-455E-A5FD-9847E3F075C7@sibson.com> > > I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. > > Akiva Miller > > > _______________________________________________ > But do they duchen at shacharit on yom tov? 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 Fri Oct 5 08:00:43 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:00:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> References: , <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 10:37 AM ... > Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal > form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs > "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, > or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei > Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). > The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because > they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And > Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. ... A slight correction to R Micha's post: as far as we can tell, Chazal Hebrew DID have pausal forms. But they were not based on trop, of course, nor even on on the end of a sentence. They are used consistently in a case of parellismus membrorum in L'shon Chazal, and I am pretty sure in some other situations as well, according to the evidence from the oldest mss. with vocalization, such as the famous Kaufmann ms. of the Mishnah. But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: ??? ???? ?????? ?????, ???? ?? ?? ??????? ...? ?????? ????? ???????? ??????, ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? [For those in digest text mode and therefore can't see the Hebrew, this quote begins "LaKeil Barukh, ne'imos..." -micha] To the best of my knowledge, all old nuskah'ot have "yittenu." Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 06:14:47 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 13:14:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3252f45264ff47778db42a4dcee99b7d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I---------------------------------- IMHO Thomas Kuhn?s thoughts on paradigm shift are applicable here. Western liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be (e.g. I might like to do the avodah but I?m not a cohain) So yes, it could really be (but I?m not qualified to say it is) 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 seinfeld at daasbooks.com Fri Oct 5 08:40:01 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:40:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: 7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY: 1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts scientific History, that?s not a kasheh on the Torah, it?s more like a sha?elah - ?Why did HKBH write this? What?s He teaching me here?? 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no significant debate about that. 3. We don?t know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek ? sounds a lot like the descriptions we have of the Big Bang. 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round. They really do look that way. So either HKBH made them looking old for some reason, or they really are old. A person can ignore the question and say, ?It?s enough for me just to believe,? but the Gemara (and plenty of Rishonim and Acharonim) says that we have an obligation to study Nature to the best of our ability. 6. There are plenty of things that the smartest scientists admit they don?t know. For instance, they think that right after the moment of creation (Big Bang), the entire universe inflated instantly, like someone blowing up a balloon. Just to make this clear. There are patterns in the universe that defy logical explanation. In order to explain these patterns, it has been proposed (and accepted by many but not all cosmologists) that from 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second until 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second after the Big Bang, the universe expanded at an exponential rate (in that short moment it got 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and then the expansion slowed down. They have good reasons for believing this theory. It helps explain some of the bizarre things that we see when we look through our telescopes, chiefly, the fact that the universe appears to be the same in all directions. Yet they have no idea what could have caused this inflation. Worse for them, the current rate of expansion has been proven to be accelerating, but again they have no idea what invisible energy source could be causing this. It would be far simpler to say, ?It looks the same in every direction because it was created at the current size; there was no Big Bang and no expansion and no inflation.? But wait, we see that it is indeed currently expanding. Doesn?t that prove the Big Bang? - Expansion doesn?t prove anything. It?s a fact that requires a theory to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously expand. - Maybe this bizarre things accelerating expansion that we see, along with hypothetical inflation, are just the artist?s signature on His artwork? For after all, the only thing that can cause acceleration is more energy. The best rational explanation for this invisible ?dark? energy is that Hashem continues to be mashpia on the world and wants us to know it, without being too obvious. But wait, we also know that the stars are zillions of miles away from us, and given the known speed of light, their starlight should have taken millions or even billions of years to reach us. Doesn?t that prove at least that the universe is mighty old? - No, it doesn?t: see #5 above. 7. Yet to constantly answer, ?Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, ?What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with ?Hashem does it? without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. So what?s the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, or was it just made to look that way? I don?t know, but I?m personally completely comfortable with either answer. Neither answer can (to my understanding) be proven nor disproven. I suspect they are both true. That, as my grandfather z??l would have said, is my 2-bits. Your critical feedback welcome. Good Shabbos Alexander Seinfeld jewishspirituality.net From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 08:25:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:25:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on Marriage Message-ID: The following are excerpts from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 1:28 28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. "????????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ????????????: 28 God blessed both of them, and He made both of them responsible for the fulfillment of mankind?s mission. ??????? refers to marriage, the union of the sexes for production of human fruit ? children. Just as the choice energies and saps of the tree become ?free? in its fruit as an independent germ (see above, v. 11), so the noblest traits of godliness and humaneness of the father and mother unite to produce an independent human germ. ?????? refers to the family. r'vah = to multiply. Begetting children is not sufficient in order for the human species to multiply. Even in the case of many species of animals, increase of the breed is dependent on care of the young; and in the case of the human species, such care is absolutely essential ? even if viewed only from a physical standpoint. A human child has no chance of survival at all, if his parents do not provide him with care from the moment of his birth and do not continually promote his bodily well-being and development. Not the birth, but the care is the true cause of human increase. But r'vah includes more than this. The parents are obligated to reproduce themselves through their children: They must recur in the image of their children; and the children are to resemble their parents ? not only physically, but spiritually and morally. The parents are to plant and nurture in their children the best of their spiritual and moral powers. In short, their duty is to form and educate their children spiritually and morally. Only then will they recur in the image of their children and fulfill the mitzvah of ?????? . ?????????? refers to property (see Commentary, v. 26). Man is commanded to master the earth and subdue it. His task is to acquire the products of the earth and to transform them, so that they become fit for his purposes. Acquisition of property is prerequisite for the tasks of home and society. Property serves as an instrument with which home and society achieve their aims. Thus, the acquisition of property becomes a moral duty. The mitzvah of ??????, however, is written here last, which implies a limitation: There is no moral value to property, unless it is devoted to home and society. It is a person?s duty to acquire material assets, in order to build a home and to further the society. He should not build a home and support the society in order increase his assets and his wealth. The mitzvah of ???????????? is given at once to both sexes; they are to collaborate in harmony so as to fulfill this mission of man. Nevertheless, before establishing his home, man must first acquire material assets, and this duty ? subduing the earth, so as to further man?s aims ? is primarily incumbent only upon the male. For this reason the duty of marriage and of establishing a home is assigned directly only to the man, and only to him is it given as an unconditional duty. To the woman it is given as a conditional duty; it applies to her, only when she joins her husband. (See Yevamos 65b.) These commands place the Divine imprint on every aspect of familyand communal life. The Torah does not recognize the compartmentalization of life into God-oriented or ?religious,? on the one hand, and profane, untouched by things Divine, on the other. God claims all of life for His service and for the fulfillment of man?s mission as adom. This applies, first and foremost, to family and communal life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 11:59:27 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:59:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <20181005185927.GB26105@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 02:46:37PM -0700, RMR wrote: : It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they : vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, : they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. : So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter : Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the : Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the : original Minhag. I think it's more that minhag hamaqom is about the community, not the geography. If so many new people move in that they overhwelm the old community, they also overwhelm the old minhag. However, when Edot haMizrach got to the US in the late 20th century, many of them moved into existing communities and neither drowned out the old minhag nor did they adopt it. I think they should have done the latter, since minhag avos is only a "thing" when there is no minhag hamaqom. (Except in places like Deal, NJ, which is predominantly Syrian) And for many minhagim, the existing community -- from Yekkes to Vizhnitzers -- did have a single practice. This gets me to an issue left unresolved in a previous discussion of minhag hamaqom: Does minhag hamaqom apply piecewise, or only when there are so many practices that are consistent that there is a general feeling of unity of pesaq. For example, we talk about there being a "minhag hamaqom" in EY about things like saying Shir shel Yom after Shacharis even when there is a Mussaf, or Hakafos after Hallel. But the list of things in which the vast majority of the observant communities of Israel agree upon is quite small. Heterogeneity is the norm. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 12:31:12 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:31:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99B66C72-E111-47AA-ABA5-8E2A753AE7A4@opengemara.org> On October 5, 2018 8:40:01 AM PDT, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: >7 things every Jew should know about Ma'aseh Bereishit, even if it was >not taught in BY: >1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras >Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts >scientific History, that's not a kasheh on the Torah, it's more like a >sha'elah -- "Why did HKBH write this? What's He teaching me here?" ... >4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the >descriptions we have of the Big Bang. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work -- according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). >7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit >facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, >"What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem >does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we >would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving >us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how >to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things >work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Oct 6 11:38:57 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 21:38:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:13 PM Mandel, Seth via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have > at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that > "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, > and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, > in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei gever" in birchot hashahar? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 15:42:10 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C9B4494-797A-437D-B042-3D7AAD5FEFBD@opengemara.org> 1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? 2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). 3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 7 05:56:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 08:56:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181007125626.GC4739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 06:22:12PM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they : also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla : for geshem. I think that's the usual. After all, in Tefillas Geshem we don't just continue the list "mashiv haruach umorid hageshem, mekhalkeil chaim bechesed..." The pause before "Livrakhah velo liqlalah" is less of a question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From isaac at balb.in Sun Oct 7 00:22:12 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 18:22:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I say Geshem (as per R' Soloveitchik et al) I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla for geshem. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sun Oct 7 12:30:33 2018 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:30:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] BDE Moras Shulamith Bechhofer Message-ID: Information from RYBG on facebook: Kevurah for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h,will be at Har HaMenuchos. My brother, Horav Yochanan Meir shlita sitting shiva for 2 days from Monday night after the kevura until Wednesday afternoon in Ramat Shlomo, number 37 Shtefenesht Street by the Schaefer family. Shiva for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h will be at my mother's apartment 146 Beach 9th Street, apartment 4D, Far Rockaway, New York. Beginning Monday morning, Shacharis at 7:30 am, Mincha and Maariv at 6:05 pm. Please try to come be menachem avel before 10:00 pm. I will be returning to Monsey for Mincha Gedola on Friday at 1:15 pm, Maariv Motzoei Shabbos an hour after shekiah, and Shacharis on Sunday morning at 7:30 am, at our house, 3 Zabriskie Terrace. Besuros Tovos. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Sun Oct 7 13:03:01 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 20:03:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message Message-ID: I thought Alexander Seinfeld?s post on this subject was very interesting. I would, however, make one small change. Instead of writing ?7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY,? I would say: 7 things I and some other Orthodox Jews believe about ....? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 01:34:52 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:34:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant past. For example, in the recent controversy over Judge Kavanaugh the following appeared in a world street journal article Christine Blasey Ford was believable and sincere when she told her story of being assaulted by a young Brett Kavanaugh. So was Judge Kavanaugh when he categorically denied her claims?and none of her purported eyewitnesses have any memory of the gathering she describes. They can?t both be telling the truth, but it is possible neither is deliberately lying. The article then goes on to describe how one's memory is affected by (unconscious) attempts to heal emotional wounds. This leads to repression of embarrassing memories or memories becomes less clear over time Furthermore, the adolescent brain (9 to 25) is not fully developed. Middle adolescence (14 to 17) is a time when teens have little connection to the past or future and think only of the present. (In Israel at least 14-17 year olds are very conscious of their future and especially army service at 18) ----------------------------- I don't personally agree with all the details of the article but the total impression is that two people in their 50s testifying about an event in their teen years should be taken with a big grain of salt. Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so would probably pass "drishot"; As an aside I am aware of dayanim questioning witnesses. Is their anyting in halacha about the defendant giving his version and being questioned by the dayanim? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Oct 7 19:16:55 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2018 22:16:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi thanks for your comments. >1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? Not necessarily. Meaning, at times it does, but not always in the way that secular people use the term History. So we should not compare the two. I?d rather say, ?It contains historical information? >2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as >the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no >plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and >there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or >you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the >world was created old). We don?t have to make it work. The point is that most people frankly have no clue what cosmology says about origins (other that it?s complicated and somewhat mystical), and they often dismiss Torah because it appears to them so unsophisticated. Peeking at the Rambam gives one a clue that we have a Mesorah of a extremely sophisticated, complicated and mystical Bereishis. >3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So >hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a >source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted >from Gan Eden)? No I don?t. But I believe I saw in Rav Hirsch that Adam was first created outside Gan Eden and only put in there for the test. From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 8 05:24:45 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:24:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46de6a96-5987-0a36-1097-b2c09f3d0ebd@sero.name> On 08/10/18 04:34, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note > that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so > would probably pass "drishot"; She certainly wouldn't. The most glaring problem with her claim was precisely that she could not fulfil the most basic drishot: "when and where did this allegedly happen"? Without being able to specify these it becomes "eidut she'i ata yachol lehazima" -- it's impossible to claim that the accused was elsewhere that day, let alone the witness. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 06:26:27 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:26:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700, Rabbi wrote: The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes > are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that > nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan > Eden)? *Yes, Chazal and the Rishonim all understood that the six day creation process was not a natural one.* ''All of creation was created fully formed''. At *ma?aseh b?reishis* the ox was created not as a calf but as an adult [Rashi in *Rosh Hashanah* 26a s.v. *shor sheh-hu par*]; and Adam was likewise created as an adult standing fully erect, the Talmud reports, within the same 24-hour period. The idea that Creation was anything less than a totally miraculous process, not conducted through natural processes at all, ''accelerated? or otherwise, is rejected by the *Maharal* (*Be?er HaGolah*, p. 83, *Be?er Four*): Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory?not by means of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. The *Rambam* explains in *Moreh Nevuchim *that it is illegitimate to base conclusions about the origin of the world by examining how the world looks now and assuming that the processes that would now produce such results were responsible, because the nature of things at their origin is different. EVERYTHING produced comes into existence from non-existence; even when the substance of ?a thing has been in existence, and has only changed its form, the thing itself, which has gone ?through the process of genesis and development, and has arrived at its final state, has now ?different properties from those which it possessed at the commencement of the transition from ?potentiality to reality, or before that time. Take, for example, the human ovum as contained in the ?female's blood when still included in its vessels: Its nature is different from what it was in the ?moment of conception, when it was met by the semen of the male and began to develop. The ?properties of the semen in that moment were different from the properties of the living being ?after its birth when fully developed. It is therefore quite impossible to infer, from the nature ?anything possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the ?condition of the thing had been at the time this process commenced. Nor does the condition of ?a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and ?attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually ?existing, you will fall into great confusion: You win reject evident truths and admit false ?opinions.? Let us assume, in our above instance, that a man born without defect had after his birth been ?nursed by his mother only a few months; the mother then died, and the father alone brought him ?up in a lonely island, till he grew up, became wise, and acquired knowledge. Suppose this man ?has never seen a woman or any female being: he asks some person how man has come into ?existence, and how he has developed, and receives the following answer: ''Man begins his ?existence in the womb of an individual of his own class, namely, in the womb of a female, which ?has a certain form. While in the womb he is very small; yet he has life, moves, receives ?nourishment, and gradually grows, till he arrives at a certain stage of development. He then ?leaves the womb and continues to grow till he is in the condition in which you see him.'' The ?orphan will naturally ask: ''Did this person, when he lived, moved, and grew in the womb, eat ?and drink, and breathe with his mouth and his nostrils? Did he excrete any substance?'' The ?answer will be, ''No.'' Undoubtedly he will then attempt to refute the statements of that person, ?and to prove their impossibility, by referring to the properties of a fully developed person, in the ?following manner: ? When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and remained alive, able to move?? ? If any one of us would swallow a living bird, the bird would die immediately when it ?reached the stomach, much more so when it came to the lower part of the belly; if we ?should not take food or drink with our mouth, in a few days we should undoubtedly be ?dead! How then can a human being remain alive for months without taking food?? ? If any person would take food and would not be able to excrete it, great pains and death ?would follow in a short time--and yet I am to believe that man has lived for months ?without that function?!? ? Suppose by accident a hole were formed in the belly of a person, it would prove fatal, ?and yet we are to believe that the navel of the fetus has been open?!? ? Why should the fetus not open the eyes, spread forth the bands and stretch out the legs, if, ?as you think, the limbs are all whole and perfect?!? This mode of reasoning would lead to the conclusion that man cannot come into existence and ?develop in the manner described.? We, the community following in the footsteps of Moses and Abraham, believe that the world came into being IN such-and-such a form, and BECAME such-and-such FROM such-and-such (*haya kach mi-kach *), and such WAS CREATED AFTER such. Aristotle comes to uproot our words, bringing proofs against us based upon nature in its stabilized, perfected and active state. As for us, we declare against him that this is legitimate evidence [for determining processes that must have occurred] after nature?s having settled down in its fully developed stage; but in no way does this correspond to something?s characteristics at its being brought into existence, and produced out of absolute non-existence (MN 2:17). Shabbos marks the cessation of a process that was ongoing beforehand. If G-d's method of development of the world was through the same natural laws and processes in effect now, what ceased on the first Shabbos? None of the things mentioned above [the creation of Eve from Adam, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge, the history of the serpent and the events connected therewith] is impossible, because THE LAWS OF NATURE WERE THEN [UNTIL THE END OF THE SIX DAYS] NOT PERMANENTLY FIXED (Ibid. 2:30). The Ralbag uniquely understands specific statements by Chazal to be saying that Hashem created virtually everything simultaneously and instantaneously on the first day, all in their fully developed form (with the exception of the growth of vegetation of the fifth day) and that therefore the ?days? of Creation are ?categories.? This makes the creation process even less natural. It is noteworthy that the approach of the Ralbag is to build the understanding through the teachings of *Chazal*, and not through rejecting them on the basis that they differ with the science of the day. Zvi Lampel > > > > > [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/08/18, 9:21:07 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Oct 8 07:38:02 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 10:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Noach An Interesting Insight Message-ID: Last week God created the world. This week (some 1,656 years later), God destroys the world. Interestingly, the Baal Hatanya (Shneur Zalman of Liadi) writes that the flood has never ended and continues until this very day. We are all subject to the floods in life. We are flooded with all sorts of problems, issues, conflicts, etc. ? some more, some less. The world is still chaotic but when we do our part to minimize our personal floods, we help to minimize the floods of the world. The flood of money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy. Theodore White (American political journalist and historian) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 11:37:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:34:52AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. : Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by : many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant : past. Chaqirah is the ability to answer specific questions about the when and where of the event: 1- Which shemitah cycle 2- Which year in the cycle 3- Which month 4- Day of month 5- Day of week 6- Hour of day 7- Where And the SA discusses what we do now when we don't use 1&2 as the primary means of identifying the year, if the person is off by a day in the month, but has the correct day-of-week so that it's an obvious calendar mistake not error, etc... There is also the regular notion of cross examination, derishah. Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, asked of each eid separately. And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. So let's talk more about dinei mamonos, where neither hasra'ah nor eid echad neeman be'isurim apply. Still, we confabulate memories. Especially emotionally laden ones like something a heated argument is churning over. But can two eidim confabulate identically when they can't hear eachothers' cross-examination? But I would like to really focus on is: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. If so, why would we hold terei kemei'ah? After all, if dozens of people say the same thing, why would we believe two holdouts equally? For that matter, what would eidus be more trustworthy than even "smoking gun" level evidence? I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. But I fear that more than one paragraph on this topic would annoy people who didn't go for the idea in prior iterations. So, unless there is interest expressed, I will stop here. 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 larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Oct 8 14:39:41 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 17:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben Shapiro's take on abortion. YL Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when he speaks and is being interviewed. On Sunday, at the conclusion of the latest edition of The Ben Shapiro Election Special on the Fox News Network, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro used the last segment of the show to mount a powerful assault on abortion that was unlike any seen on a network news show before. Shapiro showed pictures from ultrasounds and illustrations of babies at various stages in utero to support his case, aware that when women see ultrasounds of the babies they are carrying, they are much less likely to consider having an abortion. Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. The later the abortion takes place, the more brutal the procedure, but no matter the brutality of the procedure, it is obvious that abortion is not some mere optional surgery to be performed for convenience. And it?s even more obvious that those who want to protect the lives of the unborn aren?t trying to control women?s bodies. Those who cherish abortion are trying to control and dismember the bodies of the unborn. Think about that next time you see a radical feminist in a Handmaid's Tale outfit suggesting that you?d better respect her right to carve apart an unborn baby in the womb or you?re some sort of fascist. No more euphemisms. See https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F36835%2Fwatch-shapiro-gives-fiery-unprecedented-assault-daily-wire&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=%2Bqenj6TOK0BiMopCLwHGel5WMFGPn5BJJ7Onf2R6yuM%3D&reserved=0 and especially the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Ftime_continue%3D27%26v%3DpoB8aIXI0Yo&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=kLq3f6Bo%2F9X3rP4HXORP3uhB5Wo6hC1ifHM%2BVBGt9j4%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 19:50:38 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:50:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181009025038.GA29143@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 05:39:41PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: :> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of :> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. Well, Rav Moshe holds as much, but most posqim do not. Shapiro is conflating the fact that Yahadus considers abortion a serious avlah with Pro-Life rhetoric that the avlah happens to be retzichah. Halachipidia has the following list (my translitations): What is the Prohibition? 1. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein - abortion is considered murder. However, this murder does not come with a death penalty. There are some cases of murder when the murderer does not get the death penalty. One of these cases is someone who murders one who is terminally ill. [4] 2. Rabbi Issar Unterman - abortion is considered abuzraihu deretzichah akin to murder.[5] 3. It is a violation of the positive commandment of peru urvu Part of the commandment is to allow every potential soul to come into being, and if one does abortion, they cannot do this. [6] 4. Spilling the seed/Onanism. The fetus is more similar to the basic seed than to a human, so destroying the fetus would be like destroying the seed.[7] 5. Aborting the fetus is injuring the mother (Chavalah). Exodus 21 says that if two men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and there is no death, but the fetus is miscarried, then they have to pay a monetary payment. So the fetus is more a part of the mother than a separate life. [8] 6. It is a Rabbinical prohibition. There is no clear prohibition in the Torah, so our only real sources are the rabbinical sources.[9] 7. According to the Zohar, one who kills a fetus is guilty of destroying God's handiwork. [10] it is unclear if this constitutes a different view of the technical prohibition, or if this is just a reasoning explaining the severity of abortion. A punishment unlike that for murder is detailed. Notes: [4] Iggros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat, Part 2, Chapter 69 [5] I.Y. Unterman, Noam VI (1963), 1-11 as cited in David Feldman, Birth Control In Jewish Law [6] Yevamos 63b [7] Talmud Bavli: Niddah 13a; Chavos Yair, Siman 31 [8] Exodus 21:22 [9] Sanhedrin 72; Tzitz Eliezer, Jerusalem, 1963, volume VII, number 48, p. 190. [10] Hok L'Yisrael, Shemot for Monday, Zohar, Shemot 3b Note how most shitos do say the fetus is not a person. #5 in particular is based on the idea that the fetus is an organ of the mother. (Which is also consistent with pen paqua.) No.s 3, 4 and 7 are about stopping the process of later producing a person. Likely #2 (abuzraihu deretzichah) as well, although it could be some other near-retzichah connection. And as for #6, it depends which deOraisa the deRabbanan is supporting. But even so, not retzichah, no human life yet. As the Bach explains the Rambam's position... You can abort a fetus to save the life of the mother a moment before it would have crowned, because it is kerotzeiach -- LIKE a rotzeiach. But it's not actually a rotzeiach, which is why in the same situation but a moment later, once the baby did crown, one could not commit infanticide to save the mother. A fetus before crowning is not subject to the same issur as after. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 9 11:04:42 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:04:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 Message-ID: In June 1990 Light Magazine published an article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer dealing with "his life in perspective; what is Torah Im Derech Eretz? ; his attitude toward modern Hebrew; and his mida of emess and bitachon. The article is at Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 9 15:26:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> References: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181009222604.GA27505@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 02:37:57PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, : asked of each eid separately. : : And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim : had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they : had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. .... REMT, kedarko beqodesh, gently corrected me in private. The eidim testifying need to have witnessed hasra'ah, and didn't have to have given it themselves. Which means that the tail of my post applies to sin/crim as well, not only dinei mamunus (as long as it's not eid echad ne'eman be'isusim). I think what I said about confabulation vs indepent derishah vechaqira of each eid separately, and (more importantly) my argument for not assuming that the neemanus accorded eidus isn't because we necessarily consider it the least fallible both still stand. Chodesh Tov! 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Thu Oct 11 01:20:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:20:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom Message-ID: << But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? >> The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a sefardi community and ROY's claim is that the Ashkenazim should have followed the existing sefardi customs. Obviously the talmidei hagra and the chassidim didn't agree. How far one goes back is part of a responsa by RMF that one who davens "chassidic" can change to Ashkenaz but not the other way since the original minhag was Asjkenaz and changed by the early chassidim. So according to RMF the fact someonepnes great...grandather 10 generations ago davened in nusach Ashkenaz has halachic meaning As to minhag EY and minhag Yerushalayim most date back about 100 years ago and a few to the days of takmidei hagra and the early chassidim. Almost none to earlier than that. The minhag of having a single drummer at a wedding in Jerusalem has mostly been replaced by a single organ player that can simulate a whole orchestra. Others claim that it holds only in the old city or that it was established by the old yishuv some 100 years ago and they are not part of that community One widespread minhag EY from the talmidei hagra and hasidim is not to wear tefillin on chol hamoed. Even in this case I have heard of some olim who put on tefillin after they return from shul. One really ancient minhag in Yerushalayim refers to not leaving a corpse overnight and so having funerals in the middle of the night. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 03:01:59 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:01:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fish With Legs?! In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: In Parshas Noach, we read about how Hashem brought the Great Flood and destroyed all living creatures, save for those inside Noach?s Ark and the fish in the oceans, who were spared as well. It would be fascinating to find out on which side of the Teiva a ?fish with legs? would have been. Would it have been considered a fish or an animal? Far from being a theoretical question, this actually happened when... To find out the full story, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Fish with Legs?!" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 02:58:05 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:58:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach Message-ID: The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both immorality and dishonesty?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 09:49:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011164903.GC19398@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 09:58:05AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach :> It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality :> than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. : : I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both : immorality and dishonesty?" The Meshekh Chomah notes... Pausing here for a shameless plug: I am now giving a quick (15-20 min) talk on Facebook Wed nights 9:30pm EDT. This comment is from that. So, the MC notes... That the dor hamabul sinned both - sexually - ki hishchis kol basar; and - financially - chamas. And he writes about the opening pasuq, based on a Rashi on the Gemara (AZ 6a): tamim -- anav ushefal ruach tzadiq - [bemaasav -gemara] - belo chamas RMShK writes that Noach "bedorosav" -- his 2 doros -- had very different challenges. Living in the pre-flood dor, being a tzadiq bemaasav and not influenced by the general dishonesty and sexual license around him, was the greater challenge. (How often does someone cut ethical corners because "that's how business is done now?") However being tamim in his midos, his anavah, was easy. The culture didn't value his tzidqus. However, in the post-flood dor, everything existed becaus of him. And the people around him had learned from the experience of tending to the animals for a year. Little challenge from peer pressure, but a much bigger challenge keeping his ego in check. This is a point the MC makes on "Malki-Tzedeq melekh Shaleim" -- the year in the midbar was a lesson in sheleimus, and that's his part of the foundation of Y-m. Avrahama added "behar Hashem Yeira'ah" to make Yerushalayim. (And thus the "-ayim", pair, in the name.) See MC Bereishis 22:14. Back to the point, it would seem that chazal attribute both difficulties to Noach's pre-flood life. It too was an "age of both immorality and dishonesty". 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 llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 08:58:19 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:58:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood ? make the ark [to consist] of enclosures for animals ? and cover it inside and out with pitch. In any event, a tavah is shaped like a box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ has no relationship to the one Noach built. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 11 07:06:55 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:06:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/10/18 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole >> Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other >> countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing >> communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and >> not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? > > The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established > community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new > minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a > sefardi?community But this isn't the case. After the crusades destroyed the original EY community with its minhagim, a new community was established by olim, who brought their mihagim with them from chu"l, and by the time the grushei Sefarad arrived there was already an established community. And what about the rest of the Mediterranean, where there were thousand-year-old communities? Leshitaso shouldn't the Sefardim who settled in each of those countries have adopted the local mihagim? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 11 06:10:16 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:10:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices Message-ID: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were an ongoing situation? 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 Thu Oct 11 07:29:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:29:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching Torah to Women Message-ID: Although throughout the ages there were Jewish women who were learned and revered1 the concept of formal education for women is barely a century old.2 Before this time, they would learn whatever was necessary from their parents.3 Girls generally did not go out of the home, and were often illiterate.4 The modern school system teaches many subjects to the girls, including Chumash, Halachah, Navi and Mishnah. Some even teach Gemara.5 Girls learn Chumash in depth with Ramban, and study more halachah than boys in yeshivah.6 The Bais Yaakov movement was spearheaded by Sarah Schenirer with just twenty-five girls in 1917,7 as a reaction to many factors8 which had changed the status quo.9 Since then, hundreds of girls? schools have been created. For more on this topic Click here to download "Teaching Torah to Women" For information about the history of the Bais Yaakov movement see https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note the curriculum of the Bais Yaakov Seminary in Krakow starting on page 77. In particular, Five Books of Moses: This included the study of the Five Books of Moses in the original and in its entirety with the commentary of Rashi and Rabbi Samuel Raphael Hirsch. and German: Instruction in the correct oral and written use of the language. The goal of this course was to provide the teachers with the ability to read by themselves the important religious literature of Hirsch and others which were written in the German language, as well as selected classical works such as the poetry of Schiller, Goethe, Nathan the Wise by Lessing, Zweig, and Beer-Hoffman. Times have indeed changed, have they not! YL study times. of the Five -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 10:04:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:04:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: <20181011170422.GD19398@aishdas.org> I got to the Arukh haShulchan's discussion of Chazal changing the entire definition of qinyan. MideOraisa, paying would be the qinyan. But Chazal were afraid that sellers wouldn't properly safeguard the item between payment and handing it over to the buyer. After all, any loss or damage is the buyers, ownership was already transfered. So, chazal made various qinyanim that demonstrate the buyer taking the item. The Torah gives the halakhah. Chazal realize that given the low state of the people around them, the halakhah would have cons that outweigh the pros. So, they change it. Reminds me of pruzbul or heter isqa, cases where in order to help someone who needs a loan get one, we allow suboptimal loan arrangements. In each case, a different validation for doing so: - Qinyan in general allows custom and agreement by both parties override the default law. - Similarly heter isqa was always technically allowed; our rabbanim just standardized a means of utilizing this alternative financial arrangement. - Pruzbul is violating shemittah derabbanan. So, while the gemara requires the motive of helpoing the poor get loans to even violate the ke'ein deOraisa, tHillel didn't rewrite Torah. But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and limit the damage. So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:01:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:01:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011190137.GG27474@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 03:58:19PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 :> In any event, a tavah is shaped like a :> box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward :> the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut :> through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. : Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ : has no relationship to the one Noach built. True; it's just the reconstruction of some Xians, given the text and the assumption that it was build not to capsize. RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis for Noach et al not to have capsized. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Oct 11 13:34:12 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:34:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Again read RSRH's commentary and you will see how he arrives at his conclusion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:14:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011191454.GA19331@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:13:44PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else : being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. : I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a : location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and : elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities : of young folks. RJR suggests that the advantage to the tzibbur would indeed trump the disadvantage for the individual. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 1:14pm UCT, he wrote: : ... Western : liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish : thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role : and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be... The comment RAM was replying to (I think) was my discussion of the advantage to the majority of the community of being pushed to think about those who need more help. IOW, not accessible shuls for the sake of those who need accessibility, but for the sake of those who need practive remembering as they pursue qedushah they they must consider others. (Especially leshitas RSShkop, where qedushah is /defined/ as commitment "leheitiv im hazulas". Not exclusively so.) I think it's simply that the hill wasn't thought of as a major inconvenience. And perhaps an obstacle likely to keep someone from coming wouldn't be a proper place for your elevated shul. Or, possibly that yes, this halakhah was only speaking "when all else is equal". Tir'u baTov! -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 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 13:10:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:10:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 01:10:16PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan : once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), : which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were : an ongoing situation? I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood of feeling anything. 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 Oct 11 16:42:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 19:42:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 09:38:57PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei : gever" in birchot hashahar? I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing But look at the Kaf haChaim OC 46 s"q 18. So I know they did in 19th cent Baghdad. However, ROY is recorses in Qol Torah vol V pg 20 as promoting gaver and aved. But in the cases we started with -- gefen and geshem. Also, Rav Pa'alim vol II, OC #25. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 12 04:36:37 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 07:36:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. > >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, >including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is >where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the >fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when >you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below >with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis >for Noach et al not to have capsized. First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because HaShem kept it afloat. Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different before the flood than after it. In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the flood were the same as they are today? If they were different before the flood, then your physics analysis does not hold water! >:-} ( have no basis for asserting that the laws of physics were different before the flood, but it is possible in light of the different climatic conditions.) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 12 05:26:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:26:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7285ED0D-3270-486A-9AD2-8DBA569E7AF4@sibson.com> [Micha:] > I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. > Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give > priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning > to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. > But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all > that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can > have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. > Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an > abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood > of feeling The question of relative priorities is always complex. I don't think this question has an algorithmic response Other than if you say all other things are equal, Which of course they never are. Kt Joel Rich From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 12 05:33:15 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:33:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> , <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Transliterations mine, but I tried to be more consistent with RSM's already present transliterations. -micha] From: Micha Berger Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:42 PM > I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing Since my name was mentioned, I think R. Micha was inviting me to add my ha'penny's worth. The Ashkenaz mss. all have gover. As due Yemenite mss. I do not remember what most S'faradi mss. have. One thing that people are only partially aware of, including many rabbonim who decided to comment on grammatical matters without the necessary study, is that L'shon Chazal is a different language than Biblical Hebrew, but that Chazal grew up knowing T'NaKh by heart, and so sprinkled their language with Biblical quotations, just as English writers leaven their language with quotations from Shakespeare or the Bible. Those quotations are in the archaic dialect of English that was spoken in the 16th-17th Century when Shakespeare lived and the King James translation was done. and do not represent the language spoken by a 21st Century writer. Similarly the language of T'filla as composed by Chazal uses their spoken Hebrew, which we call L'shon Chazal, but it is as full of quotations from the T'NaKh as a raisin bun is of raisins. Which makes it often difficult to distinguish what is L'shon Chazal from what is a quotation. I am writing a treatise about this, which God willing I will publish one of these days, which will contain proofs and various strategems to distinguish what is what. But if the language is found in a posuk, you can be sure it is a quotation. And the phrase ????? ??? [mitz'adei gaver] appears twice, once in T'hillim 37 and once in Mishlei 20, once at the beginng of a phrase and once at the end. It seem fair to me to assume that they used the form at the end of a phrase to put in the b'rokho, and so I would argue that the b'rokho is incorporating the language of ?????? ?????????-?????, ??????? ???-??????? ????????? [MeiYY mitz'adei-gover, ve'adam mah yovin darko.] and so it would be "gover," as the mss. I saw have it. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com Fri Oct 12 07:20:01 2018 From: loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com (Looking ForInspiration) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: Hello! This is my first post to aishdas.org, so forgive me and direct me if needed. Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both? Thank you in advance. Mordechai From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 12 08:20:24 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181012152024.GE12524@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 07:36:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: : >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. : >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, : > .... It would be another neis : >for Noach et al not to have capsized. : : First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the : animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen : in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed : have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because : HaShem kept it afloat. Which I noted. However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compell him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about apparence except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. : Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the : flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that : there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a : much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different : before the flood than after it. : In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the : flood were the same as they are today? Saying the world had a different climate doesn't mean the laws of nature changed. It could mean the earth changed. There is no reason to believe science itself changed since; and in fact some reason to believe it hadn't. After all, "mikol melakhto asher bara E-lokim la'asos" was before the first Shabbos. The notion that the universe changed in a new fundamental way since isn't 100% in concert with that. Although I realize "nishtaneh hateva" has numerous explanations, I don't know if any require believing the laws themselves changed. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 12 09:57:31 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:57:31 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Welcome on board! I didn't look up that sugya itself, but it could be that it was a Mishna Rishona Mishna Achrona thing. Like the reason that the Halacha in Machlokes VeAchar Kach Stam is different than in a Stam VeAchar Kach Machlokes. Also, regarding who actually wrote the Mishna - it's a Machlokes Rashi (who said (in Eiruvin, in the Samechs on the sugya of More Halacha Bifnei Rabbo) that the Mishna wasn't written in the Gemara's time) and the Rambam (who said that Rebbi wrote the Mishna). I heard that it boils down to the two Girsas of Rabbi Sherira Gaon's famous letter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 19:31:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 22:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people > on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in > reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in > the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, > halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) I think your cases are great examples of how Hashem deliberately left room for us to "improve" the Torah somewhat, thereby partnering with Him, exactly as you've explained. > And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. > Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is > not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into > account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and > limit the damage. > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted > keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be > when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than > the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged > YhR? Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her (unless he follows the prescribed procedure). That's what is meant by "lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR." The only solution is the one prescribed by the Torah itself; there is nothing for Chazal to add. Alternatively: D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. Chazal can forbid shofar on the years when RH is on Shabbos, but they can't ban it entirely on Yom Tov because of musical instruments being muktzeh. So, given that the Torah DOES allow one to take the Yefas Toar (after following the prescribed procedure), how might you word your proposed d'rabanan? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 12 14:16:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 21:16:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which Actions Have Value Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:16 You shall make a light for the ark and finish it within one cubit of the top, and set the entrance to the ark in its side; you shall make it with lower, second and third stories. God chose one man who was to save himself, his family and the animal world; he would be able to save them and himself ? only if he would do everything just as God had commanded him.?Gadol ha-mitzuveh ve-oseh me-me she-aino metzuveh ve-oseh (Kiddushin 31a) is a fundamental principle in Judaism. Contrary to prevailing opinion, a person?s actions have value only if they constitute the performance of God?s Will. What a person does on the basis of his own judgment, and the like, is of secondary, uncertain importance. During the 120 years that passed between God?s announcement to Noach and the actual onset of the flood, Noach could have done so many things: he could have built a hundred arks, and so forth. Scripture?s sole intent, however, is to say that Noach did exactly as God had commanded him; the rest he left to God. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 14 09:02:01 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 16:02:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] In sight Into Korbanos Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 8:20 20 Then Noach built an altar to God and took of every pure animal and of every pure bird, and offered ascent offerings upon the altar. la Shem; our offerings are directed to the aspect of God?s rule that desires not destruction, but life. '? is the source of all life and of all future existence, and He is ready at all times to grant new life, new vigor, and a new future. Symbolically, one offers his own life in order to win new life from God; one offers oneself up to God in order to be consecrated by God and to be elevated to a holy life on earth. One does not bring an offering to a vengeful, angry, bloodthirsty god. Rather, one who brings an offering devotes to God?s Will every pulsebeat, every nervous impulse, all muscular strength. To make an offering means to win from God eternal life. One does not offer up an animal; one offers up himself through the animal. When a person offers an animal before God and leans his hand upon it; when he slaughters it, collects its blood, dashes its blood upon the altar, and surrenders its head, legs, breast, and carcass to the flames ? in doing so he offers to God his own blood, his own mind, his own muscular strength, and surrenders himself completely to the fire of God?s Will, as set down for Israel in the Torah. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 14 20:08:41 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 23:08:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lech L'cha "Go For It" Message-ID: <406EA56D-CA2C-4FE0-B5F1-5C237B5152BE@cox.net> 12:1 Vayomer HaShem el Avram: "Lech L'cha," etc. The gematria of Lech L'cha is 100. So Avram was being told that life is a compromise: 50/50. And if he lives with give and take (50/50), he ends up with 100%. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 00:53:35 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:53:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: < Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. >> Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. Killing a fetus is not murder and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 01:12:31 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:12:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: << I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. >> First anything I brought from the Kavanaugh case was simply it was that stoty that made me think of the issue. The details of that story are immaterial. The basic question was that recent studies demonstrate false memories and especially from years ago and when the wirnesses may have been teenagers when they are not yer completely developed. On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered neveilah. The Taz doesn't like such a scenarion but many others disagree with him. They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:45:24 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89a90ad8-4240-fb55-2d1d-fba96a91819b@sero.name> On 15/10/18 04:12, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to > death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Mon Oct 15 05:49:36 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <0A43202F-B23C-41DE-A4E7-8002ED599973@tenzerlunin.com> ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses. * * * They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport).? ISTM that there should be a significant difference between executing someone when you have definitive information (I won?t use the word evidence) that he is innocent and eating a piece of meat that, although it in fact came from a non-kosher animal, is treated halachically as kosher. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 07:16:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:16:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015141643.GA20844@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:12:31AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death : even though the facts might not be true. : More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of : modern techniques versus two witnesses I didn't think I was implying that. If there is evidence -- regardless of DNA's own issues -- but not eidim, the facts are not established to the point of chiyuv misah. If there are eidim to convict, but the evidence points otherwise, the dayanim can't close derishah vechaqirah until they resolve the conflict to their own satisfaction. Given the whole bit about "achas leshev'ah / leshiv'im shanah", perhaps their own satisfaction should be to a "beyond reasonable doubt" kind of standard. (Maybe the person had a mum exactly where the knife entered would probably be considered by most of us "beyond unreasonable doubt".) : I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In : particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem : was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it : can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of : the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered : neveilah... The case in the SA that I remember : They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif : and not the metzius. That is a misphrasing. I said that pesaq relies on how we perceive the world -- and in fact this perception is the meaning of the word "metzi'us". (Which, I will note again, comes from "matza", which doesn't imply theoretical objective existence.) The nearest I come to the way you put it would be to say that matters like probability go into how we think about an unobserved unknown. Evidence is a matter of changing the odds, not of establishing definitive metzi'us. ------------------ And my pet theory is an extension of R' Aqiva Eiger's teshuvah (#136) explaining the difference between kol deparish, where rov matters, and qavu'ah. RAE makes is a chiluq between rules of birur when the reality is unknown (kol deparish) and ones where the reality was established but the halakhah is unkown. Treating this as a very broad kelal, eidus changes a kol deparish type question into a qavu'ah. Which is why rov no longer epplies, and terei kemei'ah. Evidence without observation keeps it a kol deparish question, although it does shift the odds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:40:52 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:40:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15/10/18 03:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life.?>> > Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. > Killing a fetus is not murder According to some. > and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. And as Ronald Reagan pointed out, if you're not sure whether something is murder, then committing it is at least reckless endangerment. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 08:50:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:50:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 06:40:52AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is : : With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. Except that the Bach explains that's is NOT what the Rambam holds. Which is why Rotzaiach 1:9 distinguishes between aborting to save the mother before crowning, and not committing infanticide a fraction of a moment later after the baby crowns. If abortion were murder, there would be no shift in priorities between the mother's and baby's lives before and after birth. Or: A "KErodeif" (as the velad isn't doing anything itself to risk the mother) who isn't a full person may be killed, but once born, ein dochin nefesh mipenei nefesh. Rashi (Sanhedrin 72b "yatza rosho") says that the unborn fetus isn't subject to "ein dochin NmPN" because it isn't a nefesh yet. The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 09:01:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:01:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> References: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015160131.GB26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:50:59AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the : contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam : cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? The Arukh laNeir (Sanhedrin 72b) writes that the chiluq is that in the second case we cannot isolate whether the child (once crowned) is the mother's rodeif, or the other way around. The IM (CM 2:69) writes similarly. But neither deal with the Bach's question of how that means "ein dochin" is the principle in particular invoked to explain why we cannot kill the baby after crowning, but not the fetus a moment before. Also, how is it true that we always know before crowning that it's the fetus in the mother's way, but if the head is partly out, we don't? Balebatishe question.... Let's say it's the umbilical cord vs the mother's blood loss -- does that dynamic change with crowning? But in any case, my point was that the Bach means that we cannot say as a certainty that there is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam about whether a velad is a person. Just that some acharonim take him to say so. And once you look at acharonim, variants on the theme that is definitely Rashi's abound. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 06:48:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 09:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: *Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400* *From: Looking ForInspiration >* *To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org * *Subject: * *Hello!* *This is my first post to aishdas.org , so forgive me and direct me **if needed.* *Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that **when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, **it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this **mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author?* *I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, **Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone **can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible **as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it **would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, **the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba **Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of **Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write **the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both?* *Thank you in advance.* *Mordechai* This should be helpful: >From Rambam's Letter to R. Pinchas HaDayyan (In R. Sheilat's edition, Teshuva 140): ...every decision that he [Rebbi Yehuda HaNassi] presented without attaching an author's name originated [not with him, ?but] with other sages. And those other sages as well were not the originators of those decisions, ?but [merely stated how they understood what they] obtained from the mouths of others, and the ?others from still others, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. .. [T]hey ...explicitly stated in so many places, ?Rebbi ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue A, and presented them anonymously; but he ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue B, and presented them anonymously.".This ?openly states that whatever Rebbi endorsed as final halacha, and considered the proper ?practice to follow, he stated without associating anyone?s name with it. And in so many places ?the Gemora says, ?This anonymously-stated halachah is an individual?s opinion [and not the ?majority?s]?--Rabbeynu did not mentioned the names of any of them [--neither that of the ?individual whom the halacha followed, nor that of the majority]. ? ?[Only] when it came to matters that Rebbi did not consider settled, but still debatable, and ?about which he did not lean one way or the other, did he state both opinions in the names of ?their proponents (?R. So-and-so says this, and R. So-and-so says that?) mentioning the names ?of those sages, or of recently living ones, from whom he heard those opinions--but [still] not of ?their mentors or mentors?-mentors' names. For at the time, many people still followed one ?opinion, and many still followed the opposing one. Suffice it to say that he [himself] told us ?explicitly why, in some of the mishnas, he attached names:? And why do we mention the words of Shammai and Hillel only to negate them [by ?adding that the majority of sages disagreed with both and decided differently]??to ?teach the following generations....? ? And why do we mention the dissenting words of ?individuals along with those of the majority...???So that if a Beis Din will agree with the ?individual?s opinion and rely upon it....[R' Yehuda (ben El'ai) added:] And why do we ?mention the words of the individual together with those of the majority only to negate ?them??So that if a person reports receiving a teaching other than that which was ?accepted by the majority....?? ...it was only necessary to mention opposing opinions during those times ?that some practiced one way, and others practiced a different way, when some obtained the ?law according to one sage?s opinion, and some according to another sage?s opinion. End of quote from Teshuva. Regarding stam mishnayos that contradict, each mishna had its own author and, following Rambam, Rebbi placed them in the order he did. One explanation is that he changed his mind, and his pesak is identified by the rules of stam v'acher kach machlokess (machlokess meaning a mishna with an opposing view, not necessarily a mishna contaning two views), and vice versa. However, the majority of Tannaim in Rebbi's day did sometimes differ with him. And in cases where the Beis Din Gadol did not put the issue to a formal vote, later authorities, even Amoraim, did not necessarily follow Rebbi's decision. Regarding the last point, check out Rambam's payrush, followed also by the Rav MiBartenura, on the mishnayos at the beginning of Eidiyos, and see how it differs from that of the Raavad and Tosefos Shantz Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/15/18, 9:02:19 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Sat Oct 13 20:23:41 2018 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 23:23:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Moving this aspect of the discussion over from Areivim. Subject line is mine. -micha] On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM Micha Berger via Areivim wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 01:26:50PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: >: I am surp[rised that you did not suggest that men begin wearing >: tephillen the entire day as was apparently the custom in ancient >: times... > For people who had desk jobs. > Laborers didn't, for pragmatic reasons. And in an agrarian society, that > was most men most of the day, except in the winter. My impression was that the heter to not wear tefillin (issur to wear tefillin) only applied to particular cases, such as one who was carrying a burden (of a particular size or content, i.e., excrement) on their head, but that a normal farmer/craftsman/laborer would generally wear tefillin the entire day. A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did not wear tefillin, but it is critical of this practice, and although the gemara appears to give a justification of such (while still maintaining its objection to the reality), it is not along the white collar/blue collar axis. Josh From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 11:18:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015181859.GE5656@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 11:23:41PM -0400, Joshua Meisner via Avodah wrote: : A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did : not wear tefillin... The context is, any mitzvah, like milah, that people were moseir nefesh for when there was a government deceree is still muchzeqes beyadam. Tefillin was given an example where there never was such a history, and therefore our commitment remains less. It says "merupeh beyadam", not that people weren't wearing them at all, which is what you say here. Nor, more on-target for our discussion, that people were wearing them just for davening instead of all day. Possible referants: Tzeduqim wore their tefillin on the bridge of their noses (bein einekha). So many Jews were nikhshal. Or maybe there were sects who believed like the Qaraim or R that there are no physical objects involved at all to keep the ideas in sight and at hand. But it just struck me -- most likely, that they weren't careful to keep a guf naqi. After all the gemara reads: ... kegon tefillin, adayin hi berufah beyadam. DEamar R' Yanai: tzerichim guf naqi... What's that dalet doing there in "de'amar" if R' Yanai wasn't discussing said ripui? RGS writes : Here's a question for you: Why don't men wear tefillin all day long? The mitzvah is not just during morning services; it is throughout the day (cf. Tur, Orach Chaim 37). So why don't we wear them all day? The answer to this question is historical... There is textual evidence that already in Talmudic times there were many people who did not wear tefillin.... His argument here is the same as yours. ... The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 13a) specifically condemns those who never wear tefillin. This laxity by many on wearing tefillin continued into the Middle Ages. Tosafos (Shabbos 49a sv. ke-Elisha) write that one should not be surprised that at that time people were lax in tefillin, since they were in the times of the Talmud also. This is attested to in many other places, and in the times of the Geonim there are even implications that almost no one in the land of Israel wore tefillin. The Beis Yosef (Even Ha-Ezer 65) quotes the Kol Bo who suggests that in some communities ashes are not placed on a groom's forehead because the community members do not wear tefillin. There was even a responsum by R. Sherira Gaon, copied in many medieval works on halakhah, answering a question about whether it is yuhara (haughty) for a yeshiva student to wear tefillin when no one else does. It seems that in order to defend this practice, some rishonim utilized the idea that one who wears tefillin needs a "guf naki - clean body". The Shibbolei Ha-Leket (Buber ed., p. 382) quotes one view that "guf naki" means that a person is clean of sins.... Sefer Ha-Chinukh (no. 421) states that "guf naki" does not refer to someone who has no sins or impurity, implying that someone else had suggested that it did. The author explicitly condemns those who are strict on the holiness of this mitzvah and thereby deprive the masses of the mitzvah. Rather, "guf naki" refers to the ability to refrain from passing gas and thinking improper thoughts while wearing the tefillin. R. Moshe of Coucy (Semag, mitzvos aseh no. 3) tells of how he would travel around thirteenth-century Europe, preaching to people that they should wear tefillin during the morning prayers. Even if they cannot control themselves all day, people can certainly maintain a guf naki for the prayer services (that is the view of Tosafos [Pesachim 113b sv. ve-ein]; Rosh [Hilkhos Tefillin, no. 28 and Beis Yosef [Orach Chaim 37]; footnote 8 in the Schlesinger edition of Semag assumes the Semag agrees). Evidently, this practice of wearing tefillin only during morning prayer services took hold and the prior practice of widespread abandonment of the mitzvah slowly turned into minimal performance of it during the morning prayers. However, someone who cannot control himself and cannot maintain a guf naki may not wear tefillin. Despite the biblical obligation, someone in a definite situation such as that should not wear tefillin at all (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 38:1). For this reason, the Arukh Ha-Shulchan (Orach Chaim 38:6) rules that those who are not obligated in the mitzvah of tefillin -- such as women -- should never place themselves in even a doubtful position of not maintaining a guf naki. ... 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 Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il Tue Oct 16 00:45:18 2018 From: Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il (Ezra Chwat) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:45:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> References: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <85b0325c428741fcb0a9d98b30ef7206@Ex1.Nli.loc> [Micha] wrote: > Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the > water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the > fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity > is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Great insight, it's pshat in [Beresheet VII: Vateilekh hateivah al penei hamayim] meaning, all of it above surface, as in Gen I 2. Although there are a plenty (majority) sources in [lehon miqra] and [lehon chaza"l] where the meaning clearly infers partial immersion below the water surface. [Doq vetishkach] search and see. In any case this also sheds literary light on the two images presented for [lechem hapanim] (Menahot 94b): [sefinah roqedet] vs [teivah perutzah]. Why these images instead of description? Perhaps theres a message here about [teivat Mosheh] or [teivat Noach] Here's Rashi's drawing (source ) Dr. Ezra Chwat |Manuscript Bibliographer Department of Manuscripts The National Library of Israel, Jerusalem Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, P.O. Box 39105, Jerusalem 9139002 ezra.chwat at nli.org.il | www.nli.org.il From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Tue Oct 16 05:10:21 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:10:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Zev Sero commented: ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway.? What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 16 05:25:28 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:25:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: On 16/10/18 08:10, Joseph Kaplan wrote: > Zev Sero commented On Micha's remarks: >>> it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though >>> the facts might not be true. >> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, >> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. > What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the > value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel > Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Well, we *know* that it is indeed what He wants. That is surely beyond all question. All we can discuss is *why* He wants it, and what lessons we can draw from this counterintuitive fact. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:16:00 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:16:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> > RMB: > > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, > or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes > posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? > Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? It is in general true that the Torah prefers to regulate strong emotions (like greed and lust) rather than to extirpate them. See for example Hagigah 9b ?yaeh aniyusa liyehudaei ??, and yet the Torah doesn?t prohibit wealth (though see Parshas Shoftim 17:16-17), though historically several communities have enacted sumptuary laws. And see H. Deos 1:4-5 about the difference between a tzaddik and a hasid. The Rambam implies (at the end of 1:5) that he prefers tzidkus to hasidus but see H. Deos 6:1 that this applies only in a virtuous society. It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical level, however, I don?t see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. But there?s a more important point. What?s weird about war is that it?s not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say ?hasatan mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama? that?s partly because the soldiers don?t have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over his lifetime. So it makes a lot of sense that k?nagged YhR is specifically mentioned in the context of milhama. David Riceman From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:35:09 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42DB0493-2688-4FB1-B731-24A6D9C76BC7@optimum.net> [Corrected as per a follow-up email. -micha] RMLFI: > I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, > Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone > can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible > as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it > would be much appreciated. If you really mean that read through YL Epstein's "Hakdamah L'Nusach HaMishnah". Albeck wrote a (shorter) "Hakdamah L'Mishnah" and, IIRC, [Epstein also] wrote a "Hakdamah L'Sifrut HaTanaim". There's a mahlokes rishonim whether the mishna is a sefer peak or an encyclopedia of sources. This is related to the machlokes amoraim about whether halacha k'stam mishna. But it is possible for mishnayot with contradictory anonymous conclusions to have been edited by the same person. David Riceman From t613k at aol.com Wed Oct 17 20:57:38 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 23:57:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16685525a33-1ec3-bc74@webjas-vac183.srv.aolmail.net> In a message dated 10/15/2018 ? From: Micha Berger >> However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compel him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about appearance except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. << >>>>> ? ? ? The bottom may have been flat but not the top.? See Ber 6:16 "A window [tzohar] shall you make for the Ark, and to a cubit finish it from above...." (ArtScroll translation) ? I understand this to mean that the sides of the ark, at least the upper level, were slanted so that rain would run off (the reason most roofs of houses are slanted rather than flat).? At the top it only one square cubit wide, where the window (if the tzohar was a window, or possibly an LED light) was set in place. ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 18 03:08:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 06:08:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181018100847.GF26742@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:29:42AM -0400, Toby Katz wrote: : He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on : this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does : not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, : let alone the same as murder... This "let alone" undermines his whole thesis. Few akharonim take the Rambam to mean that abortion is murder, and of those who do, not all hold like their understanding of the Rambam. : We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these : issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians : recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that : Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. Or even to start with the assumption they are similar. It is best to just look up our views, and then see pragmatically which party to work with. Rather than identify with either camp and risk assimilating their values. 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 t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 17 21:29:42 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 00:29:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> ? From: "Prof. Levine" > IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an > abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben > Shapiro's take on abortion. >> Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is >> Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when >> he speaks and is being interviewed. ... >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... Ben Shapiro is a brilliant commentator and makes a powerful case against abortion. He also makes a Kiddush Hashem by publicly identifying as an Orthodox Jew and always wearing a yarmulka. However, I am troubled by this statement of his: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, let alone the same as murder. If a young woman is raped c'v the very best and most prudent thing she should do is take the "morning after pill" which prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum. To many Christians the morning after pill is exactly the same as abortion or infanticide, but the Torah does not view it that way. When a certain couple with whom I am intimately acquainted were undergoing IVF treatment in order to have children (which they ultimately did, B'H), they asked their most serious shailos of a very prominent posek in Baltimore. One shaila was what to do with excess embryos that were created in the lab. An embryo is just a fertilized ovum that has developed into a tiny little ball of cells, could be just eight or sixteen cells at first. When you hear that embryos are created in a lab and sometimes frozen to be thawed and implanted at a later date, please do not imagine that little babies are in the freezer. (Only in Lakewood are young humans put in the freezer.) Since multiple pregnancies are hazardous for the mother and often do not have a good outcome for the babies, as a rule no more than three embryos are implanted in the uterus at one time. In IVF powerful hormones are given which often result in the release of multiple eggs at ovulation, which in turn result in multiple embryos at fertilization. But if you are not going to implant more than three, what do you do with the extras? The posek told the couple that they could do what they wanted -- freeze the extras for a later attempt, or discard them. Catholics would consider the discarding of these little balls to be the same thing as murder, and possibly they would consider putting them in a freezer to be child abuse. We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. I suspect that Ben Shapiro is not aware of a very important distinction. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 05:40:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:40:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" Message-ID: >From https://goo.gl/7m1UWj Halacha L'kovod Shabbos - "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" One is permitted to spray one's hair (e.g. sprinkle or hand-pat water on frizzy hair) on Shabbos as long as it is not very wet, because the Melocho of Melabain (cleaning or scouring) does not apply to the human body. (If the hair gets very wet it may not be squeezed out since hair is subject to the prohibition of S'chita - squeezing). However, the use of hairspray which will stiffen the hair and form a structure may involve the Melocho of Boneh (building). If one sprays the hair first and then styles and shapes it; this would be prohibited on Shabbos because it is similar to Boneh. However, some poskim permit the use of hairspray if one is careful to first style and shape the hair, and then only afterwards add the hairspray. When done in this manner the loose hair is shaped at the time of styling, and does not resemble Boneh because the hair is loose. The subsequent spraying merely acts to retain a pre-existing shape. Once the hair has been sprayed it can no longer be shaped, styled, or touched. {We mentioned previously that the use of hairspray on Shabbos does not involve the Melocho of Zoreh.} Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah 302, Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa 14:50:131, Kitzur Hilchos Shabbos re:Gozez:5:16, Biur Halacha 303:27, Hilchos Shabbos R' Shimon Eider, Minchas Yitzchok 6:26, Sefer 39 Melochos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 19 05:31:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:31:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hirhurei tshuva Message-ID: <7e7b234b4f3d4d51bc22ea4cdc8114d5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The Artscroll Yom Kippur machzor has the following comment (I could not find the GRA's statement in Aderet Eliyahu). "David replies with just two words: "I have sinned to HASHEM." Nathan answers, "[If so] God has removed your sin and you will not die. "The Vilna Gaon notes that according to the Masoretic text there is a space after David's brief confession, even though it is in the middle of a sentence. This implies that David wanted to say more - he felt that he should go into more detail about his sin and the sincerity of his remorse - but was so overcome by remorse that he could not speak. He didn't have to. Nathan broke in to tell him that he had been forgiven - because his confession, brief and incomplete though he thought it to be - was utterly sincere." Me-Do you think this thought coheres with the following insight from R'YBS: "In response to this Divine verdict, R'Yehudah HaNasi cried, marveling at how some individuals merit the World to Come only after a lifetime of effort, while others acquire such reward after only brief effort. The Rav emphasized that the executioner not only earned a share in the World to Come, but achieved the same level as did R'Chananya in this regard. "Why did R'Yehudah HaNasi have such an emotional reaction to the afterlife destiny of the executioner? The answer is that although prior to this incident R'Yehudah HaNasi had certainly understood the redemptive power of teshuvah, he had not previously appreciated the redemptive power of hirhur Tshuva, "awakening" of teshuvah. If teshuvah is indeed a multistep process, involving sin recognition, remorse, and resolve, how can an individual possibly be considered righteous after only a moment's thought? Only through hirhur Tshuva, which is spontaneous, instinctive, and sudden. In one second, an individual can live the jarring experience of awakening from spiritual slumber." 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 Fri Oct 19 07:03:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:03:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Most Profound and Far-Reaching Vision of the Future Ever Permitted a Mortal to Behold or to Utter Message-ID: In his commentary on Bereishis 9:25-27 25 He said: Cursed be Canaan; he shall be a servant of servants to his brothers. 26 And he said: Blessed be God, the God of Shem; may Canaan become their servant. 27 God will open [people?s] emotions to Yefes, but He will dwell in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be a servant to them. RSRH provides deep insights into a number of important topics. He writes 25?27 We have here what may be the most profound and far-reaching vision of the future that God ever permitted a mortal to behold or to utter. The entire history of mankind ? past, present, and future ? is contained in these three verses. and then later on The spirit of Israel does not produce ecstatics who lose their grip on reality and go mad. Judaism yearns for God?s closeness, but requires of man clarity of thought, a composed and sober mind. Ecstatics who ?merge with the divine? lack freedom of choice; they imagine that they themselves do nothing, but that God acts through them. This is not the way to serve God. Our task is to make use of the intellect and the freedom God has given us, in the earthly sphere which He has assigned to us; to serve God faithfully, conscientiously, and with a clear mind. Only thus will we attain the highest perfection a person can reach; only thus will our actions be sanctified, and will we be worthy of God?s closeness. IMO there is so much of import in his commentary on these verses that I have taken the trouble to post it at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/profound_far_reaching_vision.pdf If you take the time to read this, you may well find insight into what we see going on in the world today as well as what has happened in the past and will happen in the future. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 21 07:14:12 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 10:14:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayera "We have to teach empathy as we do literacy." (Bill Drayton) Message-ID: <0D74D2E3-332B-4E5B-9E58-56B4273FC281@cox.net> 1) The following is a beautiful reflection of Jewish sensitivity. The original source of the story is not known. See Bamberger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 1939), p. 209, note 17/ "Once, Abraham's love of strangers clashed with his zeal for God. He invited a wayfarer to his home and, finding the wayfarer praying to his idol, chased him away. God reprimanded Abraham severely: 'I have borne with him these many years although he rebelled against Me, and you cannot bear with him one night?!' Abraham had realized his sin and did not rest until he had brought the stranger back.? (Benjamin Franklin composed his "Parable against Persecution" on this very theme). 2) The Sidrah opens by saying that God appeared to Abraham [Gen. 18:1], but when Abraham applies the vision to his own world he suddenly sees three men standing before him [Gen. 18:2]. Abraham is the religious man par excellence for he sees God in the human situation. Franz Rosenzweig Based on the puotation in On Jewish Learning, ed. Nahum Glatzer (New York: Schocken, 1955), p. 124 3) 18:2 "And he lifted up his eyes and he saw, and, behold, three people....." Who were these three people? Michael, Gabriel, and Rafael. Michael came to inform Sarah that she would bear a child; Rafael, to heal Abraham; and Gabriel, to overturn Sodom. (Bava Metzia 86b) 4) The sin of Sodom consisted not only in what the people did but in what they failed to do. Thus, no one raised a voice in protest when the crowd molested Lot's guests. Failure to protest is to participate in the sins of a community. (Gen. R. 50:9) This is reminiscent many years ago of Kitty Genovese, a woman in Queens, N.Y., who was screaming for help at the top of her lungs in a major apartment complex, and not one person lifted a finger or even phoned the police. This woman was killed due to the negligence of every person aware of her screams. Are we raising our voice in protest when we witness people being hurt? "The dew of compassion is a tear." Lord Byron (1788-1824) One of the greatest British poets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 21 16:38:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 19:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:18:17AM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : I don't understand why it would need such long : deliberation or a long teshuvah to demonstrate what every school : child knows, that a mumar remains a Jew. You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein's "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity". (Reprinted in Leaves of Faith. ch 3 pp 57-84) http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage (When I hit that URL, the article was available on Google Books in its entirety.) It isn't as open-and-shut that "Yisrael, af al pi shechat'ah, Yisra'el hu" is as universal or as much as a given as most of us were taught in school. We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the qiddushin are chal. But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking Hoacheia 17a. Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim even though their conversation had been accepted for generations before then. RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. Including, RAL writes, Brother Daniel or any other meshumad applying for citizenship under the Law of Return. 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 rabbi at opengemara.org Mon Oct 22 02:45:07 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:45:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> References: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 21, 2018 4:38:17 PM PDT, Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein... > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage ... > We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to > practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the > qiddushin are chal. > But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a > non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, > Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking > Hoacheia 17a. > Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim ... I didn't learn that sugya in a while, but I was under the impression that it's a machlokes Rishonim how to learn the Aseres Hashevatim (I think it's the Meiri there). Some learn that they were a horaas shaah. Others learn like you wrote, that one who is a min is considered completely not a Jew. The thing is that the Halacha doesn't follow those Rishonim, as we're still Choshesh for the Kiddushin of a Min (who does give up their Jewish identity). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Oct 23 23:02:52 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:02:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters Message-ID: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim B:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to harvest because? they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. The Radbaz explains that since the workers aren't experts, they will either give too much pe'ah or too little.? Meaning, the issue is technical, not that they aren't chayav to give and therefore they can't do it. What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or twice with them. Ben From eliturkel at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 07:51:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:51:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: << RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. >> RAL is the most persuasive essentially after several generations. It is hard to believe that someone who converted to Xtianity in the middle ages would have descendants who are Jewish through the mothers when all connection to the Jewish world is lost. I once read that there are 80 million descendants today from the Jews in Spain that left Judaism. While we only count those through the maternal side this would still give a lot of "halachic" Jews for people who might be strong anti-semites today. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 25 06:33:46 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:33:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: Message-ID: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we say lo palginon (we don't split)? 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 Oct 26 11:06:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:06:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026180609.GA18376@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:40:01AM -0400, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no : significant debate about that. Quibble: +/- 168 years during Galus Bavel, and perhaps other issues. Also, the Seder Olam, R' Yossi bar Chalafta (acc. to Yavamos 82b & Niddah 46b), is only one tanna among many. For that matter, he is "only" the primary author, as it quotes people who lived later than RYbH. Of course there are machloqesin about many of his positions. (Our calendar is Sefer Olam chronology with a different year 0. Seder Olam numbers the year of Adam's creation as 0, and we use year 1 for the week before Adam, so that our numbers are SO + 2. But the same age.) But in a much smaller scale than you intended to, there are numerous debates. I have a pet theory that these factors are the reason why shetaros, and in particular gittin, explain the year is only as "beminyan she'anu monim kan ba'ir Ploni-ville..." But in any case, since lemaaseh no din relies on the year, pesaq doesn't apply, and machloqesin neither have to be nor even can be resolved. : 3. We don't know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam : HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a : day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. The Ramban is clear -- a yom was 24 hours on a hypothetical clock, the way we measure time now. R' Dessler explains the Ramban as equally saying that a yom was 1,000 years. Which wouldn't be long enough to help, but it gets weirder -- not just any 1,000 years, but a millennium of the 6,000 of world history. According to REED, the Ramban correctly holds that time is non-linear. (Michtav meiEliyahu vol II pp 150-154, Yemei Bereishis veYemai Olam, I paraphrase it paragraph by paragraph at ) R' Dessler writes that the arrow of time and the whole concept of a time-line is specific to how human beings perceive reality, and even that only as people have done so /after/ the cheit. Which gives him the room to say that the scientific age of the universe is not so much wrong as choosing a less than optimal way of viewing a problem that doesn't admit any one answer. The age of the universe is 6 millenia or so plus 6 days as seen from the perspective the Torah advises us to adopt. But that doesn't make some other answer less correct, or less useful for some other purpose. : 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the : descriptions we have of the Big Bang. : 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny : that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round.... Well, the Ramban on bara mentions hyle, which is the Greek for chomer in chomer vertzurah (which they called hylomorphism). So Hashem first made substance without form. Or maybe, less hard to imagine, the current substance, but in forms that no longer exist. Now, Quantum Mechanics is nothing at all like hylomorphism, but... According to Big Bang theory, in the first fractions of a second after yeish mei'ayin, things were so hot that individual particals had no identity. What now appears to be four kinds of particles, for kinds of fields, mediating forces was just one mush, not so mention the particles we think of as matted. As things cooled, the symmetry split again and again until the types of particles and forces we know today differentiated. Does sound like chomer beli tzurah. : - Expansion doesn't prove anything. It's a fact that requires a theory : to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made : the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously : expand. How do we explain "Shakai"? That He said "dai" and the expansion ended, no? : 7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit : facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, : "What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem : does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, : we would be much poorer... But there is no way to disprove "the universe is young and Hashem had His Reasons for doing it that way", reasons we can't identify. We might want answers that feel less facile, but that doesn't make it false. Might just be human hubris, to need a universe we can understand. That is different than what you're talking about, which is more similar to separating a scientific study of cause with a Torah study of purpose. But it does raise the question of whether "a bit facile" is a meaningful RELIGIOUS problem. You want to know the science, fine. But life's values doesn't rest on it. Nor should you assume science can't his a wall. : So what's the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, : or was it just made to look that way? REED says both. Because, in his typical Kantian perspective, he has science address the world as humans perceive it, believing the world as it exists "out there" is actually unknowable. And so, the world before eitz hadaas and observation by human consciousness of our sort is amenable to different descriptions. Each capturing a different shadow of the basic unknowable. On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. That natural is just a term we use to describe the patterns by which Hashem usually acts. It is all "by Himself". >From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> + When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. :-)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 From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:41:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:41:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters In-Reply-To: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> References: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181026184149.GC20611@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:02:52AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim [2]:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to : harvest because they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. ... : What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here : and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or : twice with them. I assume you're llimiting your question to pei'ah. Because leqet requires getting out of a habit when you're in the middle of gathering. And for the same reason, why not worry about shikhechah? I would think that even with instructions, it's leqet and shikechah that's hard to get used to and get right. :-)BBii! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:36:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:36:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026183619.GB20611@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:20:01AM -0400, Looking ForInspiration via Avodah wrote: : Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that : when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, : it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this : mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? It didn't. The mishnah took a 3 generation process: R' Aqiva, R Meir and Rebbe. Stam mishnah is usually like R Meir, although the gemara at times proves a different maqor, not even the final redactor. (Stam Sifra keRabbi Yehudah, even though the Sifra is not by Rebbe, but by his student, Rav.) You have statements like on RH 19b, where you're told the mishnah is not in accord with R" Yehudah haNasi. So the notion that the opinion of the mishnah is necessarily the opnion of the redactor is not a given. Nor is the stam mishnah always R' Meir. Therefor conflicting opinions isn't proof of multiple redactors. (Although,as I wrote, redaction was one school, not one person.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:05:56 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:05:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20181028150556.GB10183@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:10:21PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : Zev Sero commented: :> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, :> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. : What, if anything, does this teach us -- about Halacha or morality or : the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Perhaps it tells us that more die when the appeals process is endless? And thus, once the case is closed, it's closed. And we trust G-d to insure that any miscarriage of justice in the case is just in the broader context. Just thinking out loud to keep the topic going... It needs more discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 28 05:04:29 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:04:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:19:23 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:19:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf : The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of them a couple of decades ago. Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an artificial evolution of halakh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 10:09:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 13:09:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: At 11:19 AM 10/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: Please see >http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. > >And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >them a couple of decades ago. > >Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an >artificial evolution of halakh. I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that RYBS said this. In any event see http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf From there The findings in this article seem to confirm the judgment of some scholars that the rabbinic sources cited by R. Epstein should not be taken as accurate and that they require independent confirmation from the original sources.61 Certainly the inconsistencies found in MB cast serious doubt as to its value as a completely accurate historical account. We will never know what lies behind the puzzling inaccuracies in R. Epstein's oeuvre, nor is it for us to speculate. R. Menachem Kasher, after setting severe strictures about the reliability of R. Epstein's citations, nevertheless expresses a charitable understanding of the circumstances that may have brought this about. Noting R. Epstein's statement in MB that he lived a "life of suffering" (hayyei tsa)ar), R. Kasher writes that R. Epstein was a "great man" (adam gadol) whose )) is "a monumental work" (avoda anakit), and he attributes the many inaccuracies in the work to R. Epstein's difficult and inordinately busy life which did not permit him to check his sources as carefully as he should have. One old lesson emerges reinforced from all this-a lesson for researchers in any field, especially the field of Torah scholarship. Primary material must be carefully examined, and if only secondary sources are available, their veracity must be meticulously ascertained. Rayna Batya seems to have been an extraordinary woman, but the inaccuracies in R Epstein's telling of her story cloud our ability to know her and her absorbing story. We close this article, which is written in sadness rather than glee, by noting one final irony. When Mesorah Publications published a translation of R. Epstein's MB, tided My Uncle the Netziv, it deleted certain key words.64 The passage in which we learned of Rayna Batya's scholar- ship was one of the changed passages. The original passage, for example, mentioned the venous books she used and included, among others, Mishnayot and books of aggada. In the English translation, these books were deleted from the list, causing much indignation in the scholarly world at this attempt to revise history. How ironic it is that this effort to "sanitize" R. Epstein's reputation should have inadvertency hit upon the truth: that the story of Rayna Batya lie many other elements in MB and Torah Temima are in fact in need of serious revision. _________________________________ In light of all this can we really be sure that the Netziv read newspapers on Shabbos? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:25:15 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 12:09 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the > accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that > RYBS said this. > > In any event see > http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition article would Certainly qualify. HM From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 14:35:04 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 17:35:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 05:25 PM 10/28/2018, Harry Maryles wrote: >FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical >of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to >R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition >article would Certainly qualify. IIRC Rabbi Meir Fund is the one who told me that RYBS said that there are many inaccuracies in the writings of the Torah Temima. Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be well documented. YL From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:49:03 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:49:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <5E34DB8F-9432-4A3B-BD90-808E37069230@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be > `well documented. I glanced at it. But I did not read it. All I was doing was saying what my rebbi told me personally HM From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 19:06:13 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 22:06:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage > ... > RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends > up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who > reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who > goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed > not be Jews. One must be wary of the phrase "would indeed not be Jews". As RAL reiterates there, over and over, "Jew" can mean different things in different contexts. For example, Please see what he wrote there on pages 66-67, distinguishing between "shem Yisrael" and "kedushat Yisrael": > If we ask, in purely descriptive terms, whether anyone born of > Jewish parents is a Jew, the answer must be yes. As an epithet, > the term "Jew" remains applicable to any individual who was > ever endowed with Jewish status - even to a mechumad. Hence, he > is obligated to pursue a Torah life, and should he decide to > return, he would perhaps require no new conversion.[38] > However, if we ask whether a meshumad has anything of a Jewish > personality and character, and whether, therefore, he continues > to be endowed with the personal status of a Jew, the answer is > a ringing no. He remains a Jew without Jewishness. What he > retains is simply the descriptive epithet: shem Yisrael. Of > kedushat Yisrael, however - of the sacredness of the Jewish > personality, that which essentially constitutes being a Jew - he > is bereft. > [38] The first point, that the obligation remains, is certain. > The second, that reentry would not necessitate gerut, is open > to question. One might argue that even for one who is endowed > with shem Yisrael, the recovery of kedushat Yisrael requires > gerut. It may also be contended that gerut would not be required, > but only because the return to the fold would retroactively > cancel the earlier renunciation. My point is that - according to RAL - even the very most extreme meshumad, who severs his connection to the Jewish people so completely that he has totally lost his kedushat Yisrael, still has shem Yisrael, and IS STILL OBLIGATED IN MITZVOS. This is a critical distinction. To refer to such a person as a non-Jew would easily mislead people to think that he is now relieved of his Jewish obligations. It would be most tragic if the meshumad himself was led to such a conclusion, for it would divest him of the last shred of motivation to return. He would think of himself as an ordinary outsider, for whom gerut is totally optional. (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say about the next generation. Suppose we are talking of a woman meshumedet, who still has shem Yisrael, but abandoned her kedushat Yisrael. Do her children have shem Yisrael or not? It has always been my presumption that her children (and the children of her daughters, etc etc ad infinitum) would be obligated in mitzvos, but this article makes me wonder about that. To phrase it in more technical terms: For a newborn to have shem Yisrael, does it suffice that his mother has shem Yisrael, or must she also have kedushat Yisrael?) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:03:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181029190301.GE13649@aishdas.org> So, here are the three shitos RALichtenstein discusses about how to resolve the apparently conflicting gemaros. 1- The Rashba (Yavemos 22a) takes the case of the marriage of a backslid geir (Yevamos 67b) as primary. And the gemara about Kusim does not mean that Chazal reject their attempt at conversion. Rather kol demeqadeish al daas chakhamim meqadeish gives Chazal the power to deny the validity of their attempts to marry (other) Jews. Variant on this theme: 1b- The Ittur (quf, Qiddishin 78a) says that R' Yehudai Gaon says that Chakhamim DO allow their marriage to a Jew, and that the statement is about stam yeinam, shechitah, and other laws that are limited to maaminim. Th SA (YD 159:3) similarly says that we may not pay a Kusi ribis, but we may charge him. 2- HaGahos Mordekhai (Yevamos 107) holds that the person is literally not a Jew -- but. Because we cannot know the extent of someone's apostacy, we aren't mindreaders, for something as major as eishes ish, we recognize lechumerah his marriage to a Jewish woman. 3- R' Chaim Solovei[t]chik notes that the Rambam WRT seider nashim (Ishus 4:15, Issurei Bi'ah 13:17) as following Yevamos, like #1. And yet WRT taharah, Peirush haMIshnayos (Nidda 7:4) says a Kusi's body is not metamei tum'as ohalim, because nakhriim don't. R' Chaim says that Yevamos refers to a geir who returned to his old practices, in RAL's terms "an apostacy of action". But the Kusim and the 10 Shevatim not only changed behavior, but also ceased identifying as Jews. The opinion I mentioned earlier as R' Aharon's was his following his wife's ancestor. The quote RAM provides from Leaves of Faith pp 66-67 I saw more as a subject - object distinction. In his own eyes, he has the din of a Jew. But in the eyes of how others are supposed to relate to him, he does not. And it's the latter -- how are we to classify others -- that was under discussion. To quote RAM on another point: : (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on : the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say : about the next generation... RAL writes a little later: > It might be be argued that it only applies to a mass secession, whereby > not only an individual but his whole social context becomes uprooted. Or > one might contend that only the children, born in complete ignorance of > their origins, are affected, whereas the apostate, paradoxically, might > remain a Jew. 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 emteitz at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 09:17:40 2018 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:17:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: RMicha Berger wrote: >>And yet, the Netziv spen[t] Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >>One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >>the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >>them a couple of decades ago. To which RDYitzchok Levine responded: >I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the >accurateness of his writings. Even granting RDYL's source, there is quite a difference between accuracy in the quoting of sources and accuracy in conveying an eyewitness account. The former would attribute carelessness and imprecision to R. Boruch Epstein; the latter would accuse him of being an intentional liar. Even granting the inaccuracy of his writing, it has no bearing whatever on the accuracy of what he attests to having seen. However, even if the N'tziv did read the newspapers, it is may have no relevance to the current discussion. As RMB cited, it was the haskala press. The Netziv may have been reading it for the purpose of "v'da ma shetashiv," which I believe would render his reading permissible on Shabbos. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:54:42 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:54:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: In-Reply-To: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181029195442.GF13649@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 01:33:46PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for : accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not : guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but : have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we : say lo palginon (we don't split)? QLbdRM applies to chaivei misos shogegin. Because it's shoegeig, BD doesn't kill him, but because he violated a law that carries dinei nefashos, he is off the hook for paying a plaintiff as well. Although in the case of shogegin, the Maharshal says he is chayav to pay midinei Shamayim, even if the court can't force him to pay, and the Qetzos questions this. REWasserman (Qoveitz Shiurim 93) says there are two issues -- which crime to try and which punishment to give. Because in the case of shogegin, there is only the first -- we try for the worse aveirah, but HQBH still holds him accountable for the onesh of the lesser one, since that's the only onesh he is up for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 18:40:39 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 12:40:39 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Toivelling a flower vase more used for food Message-ID: Is the classification of Kelie SeUdah determined by the manufacturer or the user? The Gemara (AZ 75b) rejects the proposition that scissors acquired from a G require Tevillah, only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. The reason we may have thought scissors do require Tevillah - since once Kashered, all food taste is gone, it's like a new device. In fact that's how the Gemara knows that new utensils do require Tevilla. Now, if new devices require Tevillah then it's got nothing to do with the food of the G. In that case scissors should also require. The Gemara rejects that because only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. Meaning it's got something to do with food, at least in the potential. The Ritva however, is troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food of a G. He explains that nevertheless, since they will be used eventually for food they have some connection to food, therefore even new utensils of a G require Tevillah, and he adds, because they're going to a sacred (kosher or Jewish?) use. But why was he troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food? Could this mean that if the G never intend to use it for food, but as a flower vase for example, but the Y chooses to use it for food, that it does not require Tevillah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 30 09:04:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:04:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Freshly Brewed Coffee- on Shabbos? Message-ID: >From the article at http://cor.ca/view-891-freshly-brewed-coffeeon-shabboshtml.html It is well known that there are various grades of roast of coffee beans, from light roast to dark roast. When does a coffee bean become fully roasted to the extent that halacha would allow for it to be cooked on Shabbos? Poskim have expressed doubt as to whether roasted coffee beans have the status of a food that is baked or roasted.8 Due to this doubt, we are not prepared to provide the heter to use microground coffee on Shabbos, even in a kli shlishi.9 ee the above URL for much more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Oct 29 14:12:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 21:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: Pasuk 24:4 in Bereishis says 4 But you shall go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son, for Yitzchak. RSRH comments: Eliezer is to be guided by two considerations: First, l'vni; she should be worthy of being the wife of my son; she should justify my hope that she will become my daughter even as he is my son. This is the general requirement regarding her character. But two people can each be of the most excellent character and still be incompatible. Hence, l'Yitzchak; Eliezer should make sure that the woman is compatible with Yitzchak's individual character. Avraham rejected the daughters of Canaan, preferring an Aramean woman for his son. Let us bear in mind, though, that the Arameans, too, were idolaters. Thus, the reason for Avraham's decision was not the idolatry of the Canaanites, but their moral degeneracy. Idolatry is basically an intellectual error, and that can be corrected. Moral degeneracy, however, takes hold of the whole individual, heart and soul. Hence, even a man such as Avraham could not hope to find among the Canaanites a modest, morally pure woman as a wife for his son, a woman who would bring with her a nobility of spirit and the purity of morality, as a pearl for his home. [Email #2. -micha] Someone who is a rabbi with broad based knowledge sent me the following in response to my earlier message with this subject line. It is amazing how RSRH always can find something so very thoughtful and true. The Rambam alludes at the same matter: that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo, and so he will lose his Chelemer in the Olam HaBo, while it is very possibly that he might do t'shuvo for hillul Shabbos, even if only on his deathbed. RSRH was indeed the kind of very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations. YL From t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 31 00:16:31 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 03:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> From: "Prof. Levine" >: Please see >: http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. My father asked me not to read novels on Shabbos. He didn't say anything to me about reading non-fiction. I was a teenager at the time. I said he asked me, not he told me. I understood that novels were not Shabbosdig. Secular novels, that is. There were almost no Jewish novels back then. It is possible that he phrased it as a request rather than halachic statement because he did not want to impose on me some stricture that might turn me off. Possibly we are now discussing chinuch advice for parents of teenage daughters rather than hilchos Shabbos. From: Micha Berger > And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. > One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from > the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of > them a couple of decades ago. > Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an > artificial evolution of halakha. Not Friday night and not maskilishe papers. I have a copy of the letter that was sent out by the Lakewood Cheder School, recalling the book <> which it had sent out as a fundraiser. The letter does not say what is wrong with the book. All it says is, <> There seems to be a little dig there at the Torah Temima, R' Baruch Epstein, who was the Netziv's nephew and also a ben bayis in the Netziv's home and of course a talmid of the Netziv in the Volozhin yeshiva. But apparently because he thought his uncle was human, a very great man but still human, he somehow didn't <> know his uncle. After the death of his first wife, the Netziv married the sister of the Torah Temima (yes, married his niece), thereupon becoming not only the uncle but also the brother-in-law of the TT. Who nevertheless never really knew his uncle/brother-in-law, according to Lakewood. My father (R' Nachman Bulman) wrote a haskama for the book My Uncle the Netziv, which is a translation (by Moshe Dombey) of parts of the TT's memoirs, called in Hebrew <> The book came out in 1988. To quote part of my father's letter, which is the first page of the book: > The experience of Torah life derives first and foremost from Torah > learning. But the impact of Torah learning is immeasurably richer when > the lives of living Sifrei Torah, of Torah Sages, become educative models > for our people. Further, such lives are vital links in the chain of Jewish > historical knowledge. Mekor Baruch is a matchless compendium of biography, > memoirs, and lore....A glowing portrayal of Volozhin and its last central > figure, the venerable Netziv, is a major part of the work.... I ran into a friend of mine in Brooklyn shortly after Lakewood recalled the book, and he asked me, <> At that point I had no idea who the Netziv was and had never heard of the book or of the Lakewood recall, but I knew my father. <> was my instant reply. I called my father up and asked him for the lowdown. He said that some people in Lakewood were upset because the TT said his uncle read newspapers, but it was because Lakewood was unfamiliar with the papers mentioned in the book. My father actually laughed out loud as he told me this. <> (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was amused by this, too. <>) I will quote a couple of paragraphs from My Uncle the Netziv, to give the flavor of the book and of the humanity, the depth and breadth of the Netziv's personality. He used to say that he considered the newspapers like greetings from the entire world and therefore waited expectantly for their arrival. [They were weeklies that arrived on Friday.] He would not look at the paper Friday night as that time was set aside for reviewing [his Torah learning]. He would save his perusal of the paper for Shabbos morning [after kiddush]. It upset him greatly when one newspaper slandered another....My uncle's wrath was particularly provoked by his favorite papers--the Magid and Levanon--who could not seem to talk about each other with any sense of dignity and derech eretz....The owner of the Levanon, Yechiel Brill, had unilaterally decided that his paper would be the sole voice of the rabbinical community and Torah outlook on all the issues of the day....to his great chagrin, he found out that many rabbonim and members of the Torah community were also avid readers of his arch rival paper, the Magid... The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe newspapers! I recently heard, by the way, that My Uncle the Netziv is once again being sold openly in Lakewood seforim stores (apparently it has been reprinted) and no one remembers that old controversy anymore. They will sell you the book without putting it in a plain brown wrapper, and I wouldn't be surprised if some people read the book on Shabbos. -Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From micha at aishdas.org Thu Nov 1 10:11:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:11:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181101171103.GI32359@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:16:31AM -0400, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the : book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to : learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was : amused by this, too. <>) Also, Zionism. The Netziv supported Chovevei Tziyon. I enjoy pointing out to people that although Zionism was a hotly contested issue in 19th cent Eastern Europe, it was not a communal division line. And so the Netziv's yeshiva had no problem having R' Chaim Brisker as its segan RY. (We really don't see Zionism opening up as a community-defining matter until sometime during or shortly after WWI. The Agudah's first attempt to have a Kenesiah Gedolah was interrupted by that war. Many rabbanim were stranded on the way to it. Including RAYKook, who spent WWI in Switzerland and then England. On their second and successful attempt, in 1923, being a Zionist made you ineligable for membership in the Agudah, and RAYK wasn't invited.) : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic ways.) Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Nov 1 04:37:27 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:37:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: ?that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo,? This is, indeed an intelligent and worthwhile statement. Yet it also is, as I see it, basic common sense that does not require a ?very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations.? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Nov 2 06:29:57 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:29:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Between Eating Meat and Milk Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I know that there are various customs as to how long one must wait between meat and milk. Is waiting between meat and milk a Rabbinic obligation or is it a custom? A. The Gemara (Chullin 105a) states in the name of Rav Chisda that one who eats meat is forbidden to eat cheese afterwards, but one who eats cheese may eat meat. Mar Ukva qualifies that when he would eat meat, he would not eat cheese until the next meal. There is disagreement among Rishonim as to how to understand the ruling of Mar Ukva. * Rambam held that Mar Ukva was teaching us that one must wait approximately 6 hours, the length of time between meals. Shulchan Aruch follows the opinion of Rambam although he states precisely 6 hours. * Tosfos understood that Mar Ukva meant that once one eats meat, it is forbidden to eat cheese until the meal is concluded by reciting Birkas Hamazon. In addition, the mouth must be cleaned. The Rama follows the opinion of Tosfos, but writes that there is a minhag to wait one hour and that the custom of those who are careful is to wait 6 hours. Interestingly, the common German custom is to wait 3 hours. So while all agree that there is a definite Rabbinic obligation to wait between eating meat and milk, there are different opinions as to how long one must wait. For Sefardim who follow the ruling of Shulchan Aruch, waiting 6 hours is an absolute obligation. For Ashkenazim, who follow the ruling of the Rama, the obligation ends once one cleans out one?s mouth and recites a bracha acharona. Waiting one hour, three hours, or six hours are different customs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Nov 4 06:33:48 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 14:33:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Asking a Non-Jew to Perform Melacha Part 1 Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Amira%20l'Akum%20101.pdf The author is Rabbi Shmuel Stein, originally from Brooklyn, is a talmid of Mesivta and Yeshiva Torah Temimah, Yeshivas Yagdil Torah in Eretz Yisroel and Bais Medrash Govoha. Rabbi Stein teaches the popular Wednesday evening In Hilchos Shabbos Shiur and writes a review sheet which is disseminated each week before Shabbos. He organizes the Kollel?s youth programs including Masmidei Erev and Miami Masmidim program. Rabbi Stein is the new resource director at Yeshiva Elementary school and teaches at Mechina of South Florida. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Nov 4 21:03:58 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 07:03:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: [Micha wrote:] > On 11/1/2018 7:11 PM, [RnTK] via Avodah wrote: >: The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the >: Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe >: newspapers!> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos Haskalishe newspaper. > About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist > papers. I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content is like. If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content In addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based content. I don't think of these papers as being Torah publications, rather they are party newspapers that include some Torah". I would ask a different question though: What constitutes a Torah publication? Does it have to deal with parshat shavua, Gemara, mussar, exclusively? Would reading about an opinion piece, written by a rabbi, on world affairs constitute Torah? Rav Kook regularly wrote news columns. What about a mixture of Torah and news? How much of each? Is the content of each article reviewed to make sure that it doesn't violate the laws of lashon ha-rah? From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 09:22:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 17:22:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 25:27 27 When the lads grew up, Esav was a man who understood hunting, a man of the field, and Ya?akov was a totally dedicated man, living in tents. Our Sages never hesitate to point out to us the errors and shortcomings, both great and small, of our forefathers, and precisely thus they make Torah great and glorious, heightening its instructiveness for us (see Commentary above, 12:10). On our verse, too, an observation made by our Sages indicates that the sharp contrast between the two grandsons of Avraham was caused not only by their natural tendencies, but also by mistakes in their upbringing (Bereshis Rabbah 63:10). As long as they were little, no one paid attention to the differences in their hidden natures (see v. 24); they were given the same upbringing and the same education. Their parents overlooked the cardinal principle of education: 'chanoch lanar al pi darco, ?Bring up each child in accordance with his own way? (Mishlei 22:6). Each child should be guided in accordance with the path intended especially for him, the path that suits the qualities and tendencies latent in the depths of his personality, and thus he should be educated, both as a man and as a Jew. The great Jewish task is basically one, but the ways of its fulfillment are manifold and diverse, as human character traits and paths of life are manifold and diverse. Precisely for this reason, each child must be brought up al pi darco; educate him to the one great goal, according to his own unique way, in keeping with his potential. To attempt to educate a Ya?akov and an Esav together in the same classroom, in the same routines and in the same manner, to raise both of them for a life of study and contemplation, will inevitably mean to ruin one of the two. A Ya?akov will draw from the well of wisdom with ever-increasing interest and desire, whereas an Esav will hardly be able to wait for the day when he can throw away the old books and, together with them, a great life-mission, of which he was taught in a one-sided manner, totally unappealing to his nature. For much more on this topic see Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 12:49:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 15:49:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah Message-ID: <20181105204918.GA15965@aishdas.org> The AhS discusses length a few times, but I just passed CM 218:1. It ends: And know that according to the measure in our country of Russia, every 4 amos in the gemara is 3 arshin of ours, which is 7 regel ["fut"] which is one sazhen. And every tefach is 2 vieshoks. Well, there is the translations from wikipedia's page on "Obsolete Russian Units of Measurement" >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete_Russian_units_of_measurement>. 1 fut = 30.48 cm (= 1' British Empirial) = 3/7 arshin 1 arshin = 71.12cm = 2-1/3' 1 sachen = 3 arshin = 2.1336m = 7' So, 4 amos = 3 arshin 1 ammah = 3/4 arshin = 3/4 * 2-1/3 ft = 1.75' = 21" 1 vershok = 1/16 of an arshin = 4.445cm = 1-3/4" Meaning a tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 ammah) Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). Given the round numbers the AhS is working with -- 3/4 of a local unit of measure -- RMF and the AhS could differ only by rounding tolerance. 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 llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 13:16:27 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 21:16:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? Message-ID: RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf For more on this see https://www.ajol.info/index.php/samj/article/viewFile/157422/147034 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 13:35:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 16:35:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181105213511.GA31108@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:16:27PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See : http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf There was a 1979 paper by [Dr?] Philip Lanzkowsky in the American Academy of Pediatrics Journal on the topic. The AAP Journal even cites RSRH! Abstract: Polycythmia as a result of twin-to-twin transfusion in monozygotic twins has only been recognized as a clinical entity in the last few decades. The first recorded case of polycythemia in the newborn due to twin-to-twin transfusion, however, was reported in the Bible: "And when her (Rebekah) days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first came forth ruddy, all over like a hairy mantle; and they called his name Esau...". Genesis XXV, 24-26. A ruddy newborn twin is a clear description of polycythemia in the newborn presumably due to twin-to-twin transfusion. According to Hirsch,[1] despite the contrastrating differences between Esau and Jacob, they were identical twins with complete exterior similarity. Twin-to-twin transfusion occurs in 15% of identical twins. One may further speculate that because of the marked intellectual and emotional differences between Esau and his brother Jacob, that Esau's intellectual restrictions might very well have been evidence of brain damage due to cerebral sludging as a result of polycythemia or kernicterus due to uncorrected hyperbilirubinemia pursuant to polycythemia. "... nothing is new under the sun.... It has already been in the ages before us."[2] The article itself is behind a paywall, though. The problem is that Rabbeinu Chananel quotes R Yosi that Yaaqov was conceived first. And R' Yosi is an amora. As my kids and I each learned in our respective parashah classes in elementary school, Yaaqov was allegedly really the bechor, because the pebble that comes out of the vessel last was the one put into the vessel first. It's the one nearest the exit, after all. I say allegedly, because bekhorah doesn't really go to the second twin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Nov 5 13:36:32 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 16:36:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] RYS and His Son Going to College (was Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: <38.4E.22391.2E7B0EB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:17 PM 11/5/2018, R Micha wrote: >HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, >they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch >Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in >math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it >happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. >And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic >ways.) He did not agree with nor approve of his son's decision to get a college education. >> From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 1 pages 313 - 314. >>R. Israel, however, was deeply distressed that his son had >>abandoned the study of Torah, since the son had excelled so well in >>it in his youth. The father derived no comfort at all from the >>son's remarkable achievements in the world of science, and cut off >>his support during all the son's student years. R. Israel exerted >>every effort to restore his son to Torah study. When Hamaggid >>reported in 1865, that "Mr. Lipkin was on his way to Koenigsberg to >>engage in advanced research, "the editor added that this was the >>son of R. Israel of Salant, and that he was "a pride to his saintly >>father, the Gaon, as well, may he live, who did not prevent the son >>from attending lectures at university, and so to integrate Torah >>and science, for the greater glory of the sons of our people." A >>few weeks later the same periodical (No. 11) carried a letter over >>the signature of R. Israel with these remarks: "Since Truth is the >>lamp at the feet of the righteousness that goes about on earth, I >>find it my duty publicly to proclaim that no glory accrues to me, >>as the slip of your pen would seem to indicate, in respect of my >>son. On the contrary, to me this is a 'bitterness of the spirit'. >>My heart grieves at the path which my son has wanted to set for >>himself. Whoever loves his soul and has the power to persuade him, >>to turn his desire not to run counter to my will and wishes, will >>do a great favor to one as depressed in spirit as I am today". >>Nor was there any contradiction between R. Israel's personal >>attitude and his simultaneous efforts to spread Judaism in academic >>circles. There was nothing in his views to prevent him from trying >>to infiltrate Torah inside the walls of the university and to >>influence students. Furthermore, he employed every means at his >>disposal to guard his son against straying from Judaism. He >>journeyed specially to St. Petersburg to extract a three-fold >>promise: that his son would observe Shabbat, refrain from eating >>trefah food, and not shave. [27] He would say that were he able to >>disguise himself as a woman, he would go to work in the restaurant >>patronized by his son, so as to supervise the kashrut. He also >>requested R. Isaac Blazer, then rabbi in St. Petersburg, by mail, >>to keep an eye on the son. [28] In this way, it is said, the son >>remained a loyal Jew. >>[27.] As related by Rabbi A. D. Berkovsky. Presumably this was the >>journey to St. Petersburg undertaken that year, 1872, as mentioned >>above, in connection with his political activities. R. Naftali >>Amsterdam is reputed to have related that, when R. Israel was in >>St. Petersburg, several of the university professors remarked to >>the son that they would want to see what made his father so great. >>The son suggested that they ask his father the most difficult >>question in geometry they could propound. They submitted a problem >>which had engaged their minds at that time. R. Israel studied it >>for a few minutes, and solved it to the astonishment of all the >>specialists in the field (told by R. Abraham Braude). >>[28.] R. Israel's last letter to R. Isaac Blazer concerning his >>son's conduct elicited the reply that the son had not tasted >>gentile baked bread for the past three months R. Israel understood >>this to imply that his son had been dead for three months, since no >>other bread was available in the capital. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t613k at aol.com Mon Nov 5 19:18:40 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:18:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> From: Micha Berger : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! [--old TK] HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. ? ?>>>> ? You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? When we speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a secular intellectual and academic movement and of? people who were not religious and who were often virulently anti-religious.? Wissenschaft des Judentums types. There definitely were secular, anti-religious journals being published in Europe in the 19th century, some in Hebrew, others in European languages.? These were not the journals that the Netziv was reading and discussing with his talmidim on Shabbos morning after kiddush. ? You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. ? The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were definitely Orthodox.? However, the use of words like modern, worldly, charedi, Orthodox and Zionist is anachronistic.? Those terms weren't used in the 19th century as they are today.? Nineteenth century Europe was not 21st century America.? Yechiel Brill, the editor and publisher of the Levanon, was a <> only in the loosest sense of having worldly interests and being a little bit on the modern side of the frum spectrum, but he was anti-Haskalah and anti-Reform.?? ? I don't know why you want to paint the Netziv as an avid consumer of secular newspapers.? That is just not accurate. ? Now, Ben Waxman wrote: ? >> I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content >>is like. >>If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah >>publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their >>content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all >>write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content. In >>addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based >>articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. >>So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, >>he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based >>content. Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view.? The letters to the editor could be long, weighty essays themselves.? You can't really compare them to Hamodia or Yated.? They were more like an Orthodox version of today's _Commentary_ magazine, but with more flame-throwing. ? The main thing they had in common with today's charedi newspapers is that they did not carry pictures of women.? But then again, they did not carry pictures of men, either. No pictures of anything!? Just pages and pages of words.? ?:) ? Ah, I remind myself of that song from <>?? ? Words Words Words I'm so sick of words I get words all day through First from him, now from you Is that all you blighters can do ? All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the far side of the moon. ? ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 23:28:59 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 09:28:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles Message-ID: This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgluck at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 6 05:10:10 2018 From: mgluck at mail.gmail.com (Moshe Y. Gluck) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 08:10:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sent: November 6, 2018 5:37 AM Cc: marty.bluke at gmail.com This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and obligatory on both parents? KT MYG Sent via the BlackBerry Hub for Android From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:35:51 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:35:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday, November 6, 2018, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not > mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and > obligatory on both parents? > > I didn?t understand this point either as this is not an inyan of chinuch but pikuach nefesh which would apply to the mother also. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:07:42 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:07:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Toby Katz via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive > today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with > access to old library archives. > > > All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the > far side of the moon. > This is not quite true: together with lots of other Hebrew journals, they are all available online at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/JPress/English/Pages/default.aspx I doubt if that site gets as many hits as the New York Times, so basically you are right, but at least anyone who cares can judge for themselves what these newspapers were like -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Nov 6 10:59:09 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 20:59:09 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <5b8a21c0-a020-2f8a-c85c-af2e6568db4e@zahav.net.il> If no one has seen them, how do you know what was in them? You did a research paper? Ben On 11/6/2018 5:18 AM, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one > alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic > researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies > and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's > intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the > issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 6 12:04:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:04:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181106200428.GC28629@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 10:18:40PM -0500, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : From: Micha Berger :> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... :> Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of :> whose paper.) : You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way. When we : speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a : secular intellectual and academic movement and of people who were not : religious and who were often virulently anti-religious. Wissenschaft des : Judentums type... This is revisionist. When Beruriah David's PhD paper talks about the Maharatz Chajes as a Masekil, she was indeed talking about Wissenschaft types, but certainly not unobservant, never mind "virulantly anti-religious". In any case, the modern parallel to what we're talkiong about is if one of today's "yeshivish" rashei yeshivah, who happens to also be a Zionist, read a newspaper -- not a Torah magazine like JO -- put out by a LWMO "Academic Orthodox" type institution. : You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were : pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to : Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. I think you misunderstand the history. This is Chovevei Tzion, the people who brought you Achad haAm. These were Orthodox Jews who aligned with Secular Zionism. The people who founded Petach Tiqva in 1882. Bilu was also well on its way by the Netzi's hayday. But that has little to do with haMad. : The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, : moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were : definitely Orthodox. Nope. This is also revisionist. At least "moderate chareidi" is. : Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one : alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers : with access to old library archives.... Or Google. http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=tab&tab=browse&pub=MGD&_ga=2.44647777.412515131.1541534577-590544565.1541534577#panel=browse 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Nov 7 07:15:12 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:15:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0e8301d476ac$adf40550$09dc0ff0$@com> > Meaning a AhS tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 > ammah) > Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an > ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). You meant to say: RMF (IM OC 1:136) tefach is 3.54" (9cm) and ammah 21-1/4" (53.98cm). [Yes, I typoed -- 3 and 4 are adjacent keys. Which is how the error didn't reach my times-6 result for the ammah. -micha] From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 7 07:16:46 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:16:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1a5d3f60-a1f2-d250-1c3d-fc81959fdb40@sero.name> On 6/11/18 8:10 am, Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm > not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek > and obligatory on both parents? My guess is that these decisions are usually left to the mother, and the anti-vaxx nonsense has spread mostly among women, so he's now telling the men that it's their duty to insist on vaccinating the children even if their wives are opposed. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 7 11:25:01 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:25:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn Message-ID: I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" be to daven first, then learn? 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 Tue Nov 13 10:06:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181113180654.GA7634@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 07:25:01PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven : (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning : starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" : be to daven first, then learn? Perhaps it's because of Berakhos 31a: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven neither from din, nor from devar halakhah, ela mitokh halakhah pesukah. And what is halakhah besukah like? Abayei said, like what Rabbi Zeira said. ... and then quoting a settled halakhah that Rabbi Zeira said once. ("benos Yisrael hichmiru al atzman...") Rava said, like that which Rav Hoshia said.. But I think you get the idea. So, maybe people assume 1,600+ year-old discussions in the gemara qualify. I don't think that's shitas Rashi, though. Rashi ('halakhah pesuqah") says the gemara is worried about topics that a person would continue thinking about during davening. (The Be'er Heitev holds like Rashi.) But in any case, looking a little more meta: The gemara's assumption is that one is supposed to learn before davening, and the gemara then discusses what it is one should be learning. Later on in the sugya: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven from within sorrow, nor laziness, nor silliness, nor chatter, nor qalus rosh, nor devarim beteilim ela mitokh simchah shel mitzvah. Perhaps the learning is indeed seen as a prep for davening. (In addition to talmud Torah.) See OC 93. In the SA, that second TR is in se'if 2, and the first, in se'if 3. Se'if 4 amos, "Ha'oseiq betzorkhei tzibur ke'oseiq baTorah", because there is similar simchah shel mitzvah. 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 zvilampel at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 13 17:07:16 2018 From: zvilampel at mail.gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:07:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:13 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality > : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means > : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are > : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem > : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature* Just to be clear, that was a quote of the Maharal. > While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your usage. > the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent. Rambam teaches that during maaseh breishis, Hashem put the normal properties and behaviors into the natures of the things He created and formed. He also instilled in them the potential for certain aberrational behaviors, to be actualized upon certain conditions, such as the staff turning into a serpent. But such changes open can only last temporarily. But then there is the constant reaction of natural events to mankind's good and evil deeds, which is a neis nistar. This, Rambam explains, is nevertheless the greatest miracle of all: > "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with > loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a > continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of > metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". > (Rambam's Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end]) This view as well is shared by the Ramban. And this is his point in the passages in which he is mistakenly understood to be saying that "there is no 'it' to nature." As an example, in Toras Hashem Temimah, he cites the Rambam approvingly and says, "Most people think that the Alm-ighty does not constantly enact miracles, that the world proceeds in its way, and many of the chachamim think so, too, but the Rav (Rambam) curses them....All our affairs are entirely miracles, there is no nature and way that the world proceeds, for behold the promises of the Torah are all absolute miracles ...The fact of "And I shall give your rains in their time [if you keep the mitzvos]," Hashem will open for you his good treasure-house, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its time an d to bless...is the same as the plague of the firstborn, the dever and arov, and the drowning of the Egyptians in the sea...the only difference is that between the hidden and the open...." So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago shel olom, no "it" to nature. > From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? >Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? >See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam. The Ralbag demonstrates he was well acquainted with the Rambam's writings on the subject, and he himself states that none of his fellow rishonim before him "realized" that this was what Chazal were saying. The two issues raised in this post, the issue of time with the issue of miracles and ha-olom beMinhago noheig, actually tie together. Rambam in the above mentioned payrush on Avos famously maintains that it was on erev Shabbos that Hashem instilled potential aberrational behavior in the nature of the 10 things listed. However, the potentials for aberrational behaviors were instilled in the natures of all other creations ON THE DAY THE TORAH INDICATES. E.g. one example he gives is that the nature of water to split was instilled on day 2. So he is understanding the days as units of time, in which there were days 1-7 and a 6th day bein ha-shemoshos. If one were to attempt imposing the concept of "step of logic" on the use of the word "day" in this passage, the passage would not make sense. Moreh Nevuchim 2:30 does not differ. In MN 2:30, Rambam emphasizes that time itself is something Hashem created. It is a result of the turning of the sphere, which itself is something that was created. Thus, creation did not happen after a certain amount of time, because time could not exist before creation. This is the meaning of his saying that creation, the initial creation ex nihilo, happened "outside of time." (See Abarbanel ?(p. 8, left-hand column, middle), Crescas and Ephodi. Shemtov does attribute the "levels" peshat to Rambam.) But then he poses a question: If the sphere and heavenly bodies were first created the fourth day, how were the first three days measured? He is obviously assuming, in his question, that the creation days of the Torah are units of time. The question is how could there be a first, second and third day, if the thing that produces time, the revolving sphere, did not exist until day four. The question includes the assumption that each day of maaseh breishis witnessed a new creation ex nihilo of the rakia, the vegetation, the creatures, etc., so the heavenly bodies that determine units of time did not exist until the 4th day. He answers that day does not mean a unit of time, but a step of logic. No, wait, he doesn't. He answers that Chazal teach that despite the impression one may get from the pesukim, there was not a new creation ex nihilo each of the 6 days. There was one creation ex nihilo of everything, and then a "revealing"/separation/extraction of each component. What occurred on day 4 with the heavenly bodies responsible for time was not their creation. Their creation and behavior of determining time began at the instant of creation ex nihilo. He cites the Chazal comparing the process over the six creation days to that of various types of seeds. Even though they were all planted one day, each one sprouts later, on a different day. Repeat: later, on different days. The question of how there was time and days 1, 2, and 3 before day 4 is answered with the principle that the heavenly bodies responsible for time existed from the moment of creation. Nothing in the Rambam's words (either here or in his treatment in the first chelek of word meanings) about days meaning levels. "The particle "ess" in the phrase "ess ha-shamayim ve-ess ha-aretz ("the heavens and the earth") signifies "together with." Our Sages have explained the word in the same sense in many instances. Accordingly, they assume that God created, with the heavens, everything that the heavens contain, and with the earth, everything the earth includes. They further say that the simultaneous Creation of the heavens and the earth is implied in the words, "I call unto them, they stand up together" (Tehillim 48). Consequently, all things were created together, but revealed (nisgalu) / were separated from each other (nivdelu) one by one (rishon rishon). Our Sages illustrated this by the following simile: We sow various seeds at the same time; some spring forth after one day, some after two, and some after three days, although all have been sown at the same time. This outlook, which is undoubtedly the correct one, solves the problem of... how the first day, the second day and the third day were determined.... This is explicit in the words of our Sages in Bereshis Rabba. They said, regarding the light the Torah says was created on the first day. They said it as follows: These [lights of the luminaries mentioned in the Creation of the fourth day] are the very same lights that were created on the first day, but were not hung in their places until the fourth day. Behold, they explicitly stated this idea." All this would be an awful way to express the simple idea that by "day" the Torah means not a unit of time but a logical step. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 14 09:01:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:01:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Did you intentionally reply off-list? Or should I copy your email and this one onto Avodah? On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, : Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your : usage. A lot resided in the word "hypostasis", and a reason why I couldn't find a more apt word among normal English ones. :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. But it's minhago shel olam. Not an "it". The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH. It is this direct causality that people mistake for his saying there is no teva. According to the Rambam, nature is the product of the Seikhel haPo'al, which is acted upon by mal'akhim, which, if you chase the chain of causality up to the start, is a product of hashgachah kelalis and Divine Da'as. But there is an "it" there. Teva is a metaphysical object, not a pattern. See Moreh 2:11-12 (ch. 10 may be a useful prelude.) (Nevu'ah is also mediated through the Seikhel haPo'al [2:35], but that's a different subject.) A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a person, and thus to that extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH delegates his fate. I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to nature". But you apparently took me to mean there is no nature. Rather than no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on. That's what I was talking about, and most of your reply doesn't actually address the chiluq I'm making. : So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. No, but he does mean there is no such "thing" as nature. It's not a hypostatis. : His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago : shel olom, no "it" to nature. : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. See also the Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. The Abarbanel specifically endorces the Ralbag's "yesod" in understanding the Rambam. https://www.sefaria.org/Abarbanel_on_Torah%2C_Genesis.1.1.10 This is how the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian like R' Yitzchaq Arama. RYBS too, Mainodies between Philosophy & Halakhah, pg 187. In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of time. His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before the sun. And it's not a problem we modern people would face, anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 14 21:37:51 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:37:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli Message-ID: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html Me-Yet R' Ellman would not ( at least when I asked him) say that any of these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food for thought 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 Nov 14 21:35:38 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:35:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions Message-ID: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? Do we see this same propensity in prior authorities who were not writing codes in this manner? Other reason why different authorities might deal with this issue differently? 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 Nov 15 10:52:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:52:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> References: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20181115185222.GA28484@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 10:31:20PM -0400, R Akiva Miller replied to my post: :> So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted :> keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be :> when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than :> the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged :> YhR? : Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal : encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to : the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate : the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the : fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But that's the converse of my question. I didn't ask why Chazal found the taqanos they did. Or in the case of ribbis, engineered a solution using a pre-existing loophole. I asked why the RBSO didn't. If Chazal knew that people couldn't keep up the moral standard, obviously the Author of the deOraisos did too. And therefore, why didn't He allow ribbis for the same "lo diberah Torah ela keneged YhR" reasons as eishes yefas to'ar. Once we have G-d making compramizes for EYT, why did He leave ribbis to Chazal? Why did Hashem make it that money is qoneh? He knew better than chazal that it would create situations where a seller is still holding something he no longer owns, and sometimes that will mean carelessness in how the item is guarded. Why did Chazal need to invoke hefqer BD hefqer and totally rewrite how sale works? (That said, I am almost satisfied with RDR's answer, below.) : But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. : The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her : (unless he follows the prescribed procedure)... Today's militaries assume otherwise. Avoiding ribis is less of a problem when "money" is primarily a metal or contract to swap, only a half-step beyond barter. One is "only" losing opportunity cost. But once we got prime rates etc... so that there is a difference between present and future value of money can be done in some settings, avoiding ribbis became something not enough lenders could afford, and the poor suffered. Eishes yefas to'ar is similarly situational. Whether it is "unwinnable" at best depends on the kind of war one is fighting. Maybe when fighting barbarian tribes. But not as a general rule. : Alternatively: : D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. But they can allow things explicitly denied by the Torah? If you can engineer heter isqa into something that covers most of the situations where ribbis is needed, they could have engineered and issur. But I also recently encountered while learning Arukh haShulchan something that may be a counter-example. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that there are no shevu'os when the dispute is over qarqa. So, while modeh bemiqtzas (e.g.) about money or metaltelin requires a shevu'ah deOraisa, if it is about real estate there is no shevu'ah deOraisa. However, Chazal still require the nitba to make a shevu'as heises in order to retain his chazaqah on the land. And on Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:16:00AM -0400, R David Riceman replied to the same post: : It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it : is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical : level, however, I don't see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah : prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. I am sure the same was said before heter isqa. Chazal were a bunch of rabbis capable of finding 49 ways to be metaher a sheretz. Our inability to figure out how they would have created a law like eishes yefas to'ar doesn't prove it impossible. For that matter, the gemara apparently concludes that pruzbul was only enacted because shemittah today is derabbanan. Although I think it's left open whether pruzbul would not work when shemittah is deOraisa. Or whether hefqer BD would meant it would work, but they question the hava amina that Hillel would circumvent a deOraisa like that. What kind of "you don't" the gemara is talking about would impact your answer. That said, I like RDR's "more important point". Repeated here, since it's been nearly a month -- an eternity as list-time goes: : But there's a more important point. What's weird about war is that : it's not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between : civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those : different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say "hasatan : mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama" that's partly because the soldiers don't : have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. : But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to : rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person : to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over : his lifetime. : So it makes a lot of sense that k'nagged YhR is specifically mentioned : in the context of milhama. The reason why I said above I am only "almost satistfied" is that it borders on explaining too much. We aren't looking only for a chiluq between EYT and my sample dinim derabbanan. But also between deOraisa and derabbanan. You are left saying there is a whole set of dinim on a tightrope -- they are lifelong challenges and therefore controllable enough for HQBH not to want to compromize for human nature, and yet history evolved the situation to the point where they pose impossible challenges that chazal needed to accomodate. Well, not necessarily "impossible". At least: by Chazal's day these grew into challenges that are so rarely met, the usual outcome is more costly than the din -- such as the poor not being able to get a loan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 14:57:30 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:57:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli In-Reply-To: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119225730.GA28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:37:51AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: : https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html : : Yet R' Ellman would not (at least when I asked him) say that any of : these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food : for thought I like RARakeffetR's mashal (and recall, he is a RIETS RY with a PhD in Jewish History): You can ask a historican how the electric refrigerator was invented, and you will hear about the social forces involved, the wiring of the American home for power, etc... None of which tells you how the refrigerator actually works. (He might even give you the history of the application of thermodynamics and the Carnot cycle without ever explaining that particular bit of science.) Similarly: Knowing that a particular area of halakhah was mined in response to a given situation doesn't change the fact that the halachic principles had to be there and had to be applied. And the knowledge does little to teach you the principles themselves. 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 15:06:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 18:06:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions In-Reply-To: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119230604.GB28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:35:38AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan : aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority : opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach : rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? ... I think the SA tried to reach conclusions. For that matter, he tried to follow majority of his short list of major posqim. I think for him it was just a way of dealing with not being sufficiently convinced; and not having his triumverate answering the question for him. For the MB... Not sure I want to reopen that whole "the MB was written to help posqim, and its 'rulings' are lehalakhah velo lemaaseh" -- not always even followed by the CC himself. (Who was author of most of the book, and editor in chief of the rest.) : Other reason why different authorities might deal : with this issue differently? The AhS has enough confidence in toras imekha that he would use it to say that lemaaseh we pasqened like a minority, or like (what seems to me to be a) dachuq peshat. There are exceptions, where he holds that common practice is just too dachuq, but they're rare. So, for the AhS, being stumped means that not only is there no clear textual winner, there is no clear minhag (accepted practice) either. So holding out in fear of a mi'ut isn't likely. Holding like a mi'ut because the tzibbur already does, much more comomn. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 20 09:08:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181120170828.GA27185@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, ... :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. Actually, it's real, but I think you misunderstood what I meant. (As I said in the previous email.) Relevant is this excerpt from a recent shiur from Gush's Vitual Beis Medrash. Rav Bednarsh gives 2 chiluqim that are orthogonal to the one I mentioned (whether there is an "it" behind teva, or if nature is "merely" a pattern of Divine Action): 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. About fn #4... I spoke to RDBerger about his paper. I can ask a parallel question on RAB's article to introduce the same answer, so I will do so here. RAB writes (below): > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The > Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only > the principle of hashgacha pratit. > Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these > two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more > nuanced. > In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise > of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God > and not to doctors for healing.... ... > For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) > that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on > a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, > to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or > punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in > the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence > and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness... > In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that > his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh > Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and > tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully > on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the > Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order... Okay, so it's much more nuanced, but then what does he mean in the two places we started with? What I pointed out, that the Ramban is denying teva as an it -- that even teva is through the same direct Influence as neis -- adds the same nuance without ignoring those two more famous comments of the Ramban. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Yeshivat Har Etzion PHILOSOPHY > Topics in Hashkafa > Shiur #06: Divine Providence and the Natural Order 1 Rav Assaf Bednarsh Adapted by Leora Bednarsh Should one attempt to provide for one's needs in this world by working through the natural order, or should one do so by keeping mitzvot and trusting in God to provide? Are the events of this world caused by direct Divine Providence or by the natural scientific order? This question has tremendous practical significance and is the subject of much debate in the contemporary Jewish community. This topic is often portrayed as "hishtadlut (effort) vs. bitachon (trust)." ... The Position of the Rambam No Jewish philosopher can entirely deny the doctrine of hashgacha pratit. There are many examples in Tanakh that very clearly indicate that God miraculously takes care of the righteous in this world in accordance with His Divine plan.[1] However, almost all the cases in Tanakh deal with exceptionally righteous and spiritual individuals. That may be because most of Tanakh deals with these great individuals; these are the people we need to learn about in order to learn to be good Jews. The Rambam, however, maintains that this is not coincidence. It is not simply that these happen to be the main characters in Tanakh. According to the Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim III:18), hashgacha pratit is not something that God automatically utilizes in running the world. God relates to us when we relate to Him. When we open the channel, God's bounty flows through that channel. If we don't bother to create those lines of communication, then He does not communicate with us either. Those who have achieved philosophical sophistication, who have studied what the Rambam understands to be the Jewish mystical philosophical tradition and focus their thoughts on God, enjoy the benefits of Divine Providence. According to the Rambam, not all people enjoy equal Divine Providence. Those who are pious and good and religious enjoy more Divine Providence because of their understanding of God, which fuels their piety and goodness. Those who are prophets enjoy a higher level because of their deep understanding of God. Those who are on a very rarified level of philosophical spiritual achievement can be assured that God looks out for them in this world. The wicked and the religiously ignorant, however, have no such promise of Divine Providence. Even regular people who may be reasonably religious and try to think about God quite often still have not achieved that level of understanding at which they can assume that they are beneficiaries of constant direct Divine Providence. For the Rambam, then, most people do not enjoy the benefit of direct Divine Providence all the time. Accordingly, it makes perfect sense that we are expected to work through the natural order. The natural order is the default. When we change the rules by achieving philosophical knowledge of God, our lives begin to be run by the principles of Divine Providence. But much of the time the world is run by the natural order and God does not involve Himself. Thus, we should be expected to provide for ourselves and to achieve whatever goals we feel the need to achieve by means of the natural order. The natural order is the one thing that is guaranteed. God created the world and created the scientific order as the way in which the world will run until God decides to get involved because someone let Him in to his life.[2] And even then, God is only involved partially, to the extent that someone partially perfects themselves and meditates upon God. Of course, this does not mean that God has no part in our lives when we do not enjoy Providence. There is still hashgacha klalit, general Providence. God still arranges the world generally in such a way that our needs are provided for. We say blessings, thanking God, for example, for creating fruits of the tree, but not because He created this particular fruit for me to eat today, rather because He created a wonderful world that provides for much of our needs. It is our job to appreciate that. But when I stub my toe or win the lottery, is that God's direct intervention? According to the Rambam, most of the time it is not. Rather, it is the natural order. The Position of the Ramban It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only the principle of hashgacha pratit. Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more nuanced. In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God and not to doctors for healing. He states that when the masses of the Jews are perfect, their lives will not be run by the natural order, but rather directly by God; He will be their doctor. According to Ramban, that is what the righteous did in the days of Tanakh, during the era of prophecy. Anyone with access to prophecy does not need a doctor, and in case of illness should turn instead to a prophet, who will tell him which of his actions needs to be improved; he will then repent and repair those actions so that God will heal his disease. "What business do doctors have in the house of someone who fulfills the will of God?" asks the Ramban. Although the Rabbis interpreted the verse "ve-rapo yerapeh" (Shemot 21:19) as evidence that the doctor has permission to heal, the Ramban restricts the significance of this inference. If someone asks for help, the doctor should heal the patient - but Chazal never said that the patient should seek medical care, only that the doctor should provide it. The patient should ideally put all his trust in God and not in the natural order. However, if the patient has already put his trust in the natural order, the doctor has no choice but to heal him, because that is the only option left. When someone puts his faith in the natural order, his live is unfortunately run by the natural order. But when someone puts his faith in God, his life is controlled by direct Divine Providence. Similarities Between the Ramban and the Rambam The Ramban here seems to take an anti-Maimonidean stance, focusing on Divine Providence. However, on closer analysis, he does not deny the existence of the natural order. He acknowledges the existence of teva. Of course, he believes that it is far preferable to live by faith in God and not by teva, but once our spiritual level fell and we became accustomed to using medicine and working within the scientific order, God "abandoned us to the happenstance of teva." If we read the Ramban very carefully, we notice that the examples he uses of those who should not seek medical help but rather turn directly to God are limited to a time when the masses of Jews are righteous, during the time of prophecy. The Ramban is referring to people on a very high spiritual level. They enjoyed the benefit of constant Divine Providence and therefore had no business working through the natural order. The implication is that the situation is quite different for regular people in regular times. Even righteous Jew nowadays, when, unfortunately, the masses of Jews are far from perfect and when prophecy has not been restored to us, are not on the same high spiritual level. Therefore, they cannot have a reasonable expectation of constant Divine Providence in their lives, and perhaps they should visit doctors. Although everything that happens in the world is subject to Divine Providence, God has decided to abandon us - regular people in the contemporary era - to the workings of the natural order. We no longer merit constant Divine Providence. This is, in fact, explicitly the opinion of the Ramban in several places. For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness. But Yaakov himself was not sure that he was righteous enough to enjoy Divine Providence, which is why he prepared using natural means to make peace, or if need be, war, with Esav. He made various preparations using the natural order because in his humility, he was not certain that he was on the level to expect Divine Providence. If Yaakov Avinu questioned whether he deserved Divine Providence, the clear implication is that we can certainly not rely on it! In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order. We are instructed to conscript an army and go out and fight in the event of war, not just to sit and pray and wait for God to fight for us. We cannot always expect to be on such a high spiritual level that we enjoy constant Divine Providence. Rather, we must work under the assumption that we may not always be experiencing Divine Providence, and we must therefore work under the natural order. The Ramban tells us that if God wants us to win a war, we will win without an army, and if, God forbid, He wants us to lose a war, no matter how strong our military is, we will lose. But sometimes, when we are neither completely righteous nor completely wicked, God does not want any particular result, because He is not exercising Divine Providence at that point. That is why it is so important that we work through the natural order. The Ramban in this commentary seems to be in line with mainstream religious Zionist ideology. We work through the natural order because not everything always is decreed by God.[4] Differences Between the Ramban and the Rambam As much as the Ramban claims to agree with the Rambam, there is still a significant difference between their philosophies. The Ramban in a number of places, including his commentary to Iyov, tells us that Divine Providence can be either positive or negative. If someone is truly righteous, then God watches and guards him all the time. If someone is evil, God will intervene in the world to punish him. Those in the middle, neither wicked nor righteous, are left to the natural order. The Rambam, on the other hand, holds that Divine Providence can only be positive, not negative. It is purely a function of one's connection to God. Therefore, the more connected one is to God, the more Divine Providence; the more disconnected one is, the less Divine Providence. Punishment only occurs in this world because when God removes His Providence, one is exposed to the many perils of the dangerous world that we inhabit. While the Ramban has a volitional model of Divine Providence, in which God decides to exercise Providence when a person deserves reward or punishment, the Rambam has a more mechanistic model, under which Divine Providence is an automatic result of spiritual achievement. What the Rambam and the Ramban have in common, however, is their belief that while Divine Providence is an ideal to strive for, it is not the default, automatic way in which the world works. God sometimes involves Himself through the principle of hashgacha pratit, but often does not. The natural order is the authentic way in which God created the world to run when He doesn't decide to get involved and change things. For the Ramban and the Rambam, then, the answer to the question of faith (bitachon) versus effort (hishtadlut) is clear. We are expected to take care of providing our needs in this world the best we can using the natural order. None of us are arrogant enough to assume that we are so holy and righteous that we have constant Divine Providence. Of course, we strive to be more holy, spiritual, and righteous. We strive to enjoy more Divine Providence. And, at least according to the Ramban, perhaps our ultimate goal is to reach the highest spiritual levels and abandon the natural order. Nonetheless, in regular life, the Rambam and the Ramban would have us work in the natural order because we can never be certain that anything that happens to us in our lives is the result of God's direct intervention. Our success or lack thereof may be purely a function of the natural order. Therefore, we must take care of ourselves. God is not always taking care of us, as we may not be sufficiently righteous. _______________________ [1] For example, the Exodus and figures such as the Patriarchs, Daniel, and Chananya, Mishael and Azarya. [2] Even in this case, Rambam nowhere states that one who enjoys Divine Providence should not work within the natural order. In the next two shiurim, we will present various explanations of why even one who enjoys Divine Providence might be required to work within the natural order. [3] The Ramban understands God's "knowledge" of Avraham as constant Divine Providence [4] Many attempts have been made to resolve the apparent contradiction between the Ramban's statement in his commentary to Shemot 13 and his sermon Torat Hashem Temima and his formulations in his commentaries to Bereishit 18 and 32 and Iyov 36. It seems likely that the Ramban intended to claim not that everything that happens is a miracle, but that miraculous Providence ultimately controls everything. Since even nature was created by God, Providential intervention can override the laws of nature, but the laws of nature do not restrict Divine Providence. When Providence chooses not to intervene, however, nature still follows its course. For further reading, see the original texts, as well as David Berger, "Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmanides," in Isadore Twersky (ed.), Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuosity (Harvard University Press, 1983), available at https://www.biblicalnaturalhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/MiraclesNahmanides.pdf. From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 06:41:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:41:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yaakov and Esav Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32:8. 8 Ya?akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. In Ya?akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya?akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya?akov?s attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 08:24:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:24:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? Message-ID: One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the ?Medina shel Chessed? is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic issues of this very American holiday... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 22 04:30:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? Message-ID: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is it equivalent of free will? What does it mean to have free will without consequence? How then do we understand the medrash in Breishit that the trees were punished for not following HKB"H's direction? The dogs being rewarded for not barking? 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 zvilampel at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 09:30:07 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:01 PM Micha Berger wrote: > > RMB: > :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. > > ZL: Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no > less > : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of > : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that > : minhag permanent. > > ... > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. Where does Ramban say this? As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent at maaseh breishis. See, for example, on Shmos 6:6. ''The posuk says 'Vay-hiH khein'' because that is the teva that was instilled in them forever...and they will remain with the first teva that was instilled in them at the time of their formation (Vayamdual haTeva haRishon asher hussam bahem bEis yetsirasam). And on Vayikra 26:11, in the passage about refuah, he uses the phrase, VaHashem Heeneecham lemikrei haTivee-im, Hashem leaves them to the natural mikrreim. How is this insisting that, contra Rambam, ''those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH''? Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. RMB: [According to RambaM:] A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a > person, and thus to that > extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva > (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH > delegates his fate. > ZL: You are making a distinction that you attribute to RambaM, between teva and minhago shel olam. Teva is something that a daas-lacking person is left to. Through it, Hashem delegates his fate. Minhag shel olam is something else. I don't follow. Where is such a distinction made? And I thought you maintained that contra RambaN, RambaM does /not/ hold that HQBH delegates the fate of lesser people. Only ''the RambaN talks about nature being a pattern in events... /directly/ caused by HQBH. Is there also a distinction between ''directly causing'' and ''delegating''? Do you mean RambaM holds Hashem HAD delegated their fate (by setting up the mechanisms at Creation)? RMB: > I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to > nature". ... no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on... there is no such > "thing" as nature. It's not a > hypostatis. ZL: Where do you see what you are trying to explain in Ramban? Regarding the shiur by Rav Bednarshom, and the point that 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. The last sentence should be about RambaN, right? And here's something to ponder: As I wrote previously, the Rambam writes that the greatest miracle of all, is nature's responding to man's behavior, favoring good behavior and punishing bad behavior. Granted, favoring good behavior is miraculous. But l-fi Rambam's shittah, what is miraculous about leaving the practitioner of bad behavior to the wiles of nature? Also, regarding: > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. Obviously, this is just the hava amina. The Ramban did not write that ''everything that happens'' is a miracle. His wording is that the whole [teaching of the] Torah [about reard and punishment] is a miracle. Meaning, as the maskana is, that the Torah's system of award and punishment is miraculous. Secondly, the Ramban does not say that everything is a miracle,without causation, except reward and punishment. The causation between behavior and reward and punishment is an explanation of, not in contrast to, his statement that the whole teaching of the Torah is that there are miracules. > > > :ZL: His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a > : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the > forces > : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, > : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no > minhago > : shel olom, no "it" to nature. > > : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand > : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is > : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified > model, > : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. > > : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, > > : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, > note > : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? > > : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and > : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being > in > : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya > : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? > > :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. > > : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given > : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say > : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. > But > : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... > > It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. It is not his peshat in the Rambam. He does not mention Rambam, much less attribute to him, the ''levels'' peshat, neither in his Torah commentary nor in his Milchamos Hashem. If you can find such a passage, please locate it for me. On the contrary, here is how he addresses the question of how there could be days before the fourth day when the sun materialized. He gives two possibilities. And he gives the ''levels'' approach as an /alternative/ explanation to the answer that the sphere, by which time and days are produced, was in operation from the moment of creation.They are two /different/ ways of answering how there could be days one through three before the existence of the stars, although both answers are predicated on the Chazal-based view that everything in the universe and earth was instantly and simultaneously created in its complete form (besides vegetation and Adam and Chava). And if the virtually identical verbiage to that of the Rambam is an indication that Ralbag was intending to give peshat in the Rambam, note that he is explicitly using that verbiage in the answer granting that ''days'' are units of time, in /contrast/ to the notion of ''days'' meaning ''levels''. And also remember, as I have noted before, that Ralbag explicitly says (Torah commentary, on VaYchulu) V-im nim-tsi-u rechokim meod mei-hakavana asher matzanu kahn, kmo shetireh mimah shebier bazeh haRav HaMoreh besifro hanichbad Moreh HaNevuchim, ViHachcham R. Avraham Ibn Ezra.... that his new approach is /very far/ from that of the Rambam. And he repeats this in Sefer Milchemes Hashem, Presentation VI, ?Part II, Chapter 8, Conclusion. Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. This is how > the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian > like R' Yitzchaq Arama. > But you see, you have to resort to secondary sources to support the claims about what Rambam and Ralbag held, whereas we have the first-hand sources in front of us. The fact is that the Ralbag does not attribute the ''levels''approach to the Rambam, and in fact considers the ''levels'' approach as an alternative to what the Rambam wrote.. Abarbanel is known to repeat ideas of his contemporary, R. Y. Arama. He is also known to have a very eclectic style. You are of course correct that in his 9th shayla he attributes the ''levels'' approach to the Rambam. But look how he does it, and explain to me how it makes sense: > The 9th shayla concerns what is mentioned in the Moreh Nevuchim. Rambam > notes that time ?cannot exist without the movement of the celestial > spheres, the sun and moon. However, this raises ?the question as to how > there could be time before the fourth day on which the celestial spheres > and sun were ?created. The Rambam answered this question by asserting that > in fact the spheres and the sun were ?created on the first day. Thus time > existed for the first 3 days in the same manner as it existed on the > ?subsequent days. He explained that in fact everything ? both the Heavens > and the Earth ? were created ?on the first day. Stop here. Do you not see the Abarbanel explaining Rambam as holding that the days of Breishis were units of time, and not ''levels''? Let's continue: The Rambam cited Chazal that the word ?es? indicated that the creation on > the first day ?included everything associated with the Heavens as well as > everything associated with the Earth. He also ?cited the gemora (Chulin > 60a) that everything that was created was created in its final form. He > also cited ?another statement of Chazal that the Heavens and Earth were > created simultaneously. Thus the Rambam ?believed that the work of Creation > happened all on one day and was not divided amongst six days. He ?claimed > that in a single moment of creation everything came into existence. And of course, the Rambam continues (and Ralbag includes it) that whereas all was created ex nihilo from the first instant of creation, following that was a process of separating the components of the universe, forming things, as he says elsewhere in the Moreh, kach mikach. How then does the Abarbanel say in the next breath: > He explained that the reason ?for the Torah stating that there were six > days of Creation was to indicate the different levels of created ?beings > according to their natural hierarchy. Thus the Rambam does not understand > the word day to be a ?temporal day and he doesn?t read Bereishis to be > describing the chronological sequence of creation?. Kasha reisha al sefa! And note that in shayla 5 as well Abarbanel had written: That which the Torah mentioned of the creation of the stars on the fourth day, made HaRav haMoreh answer, as it seems from his words, in that chapter 30 of Part Three, that on the first day the sphere was created with the stars and light. But their actions had affect on the fourth day upon the vegetation.Such is apparent from the words of the Rav...Perhaps RambaN too meant this, since he mentions this approach in the name of yeish meforshim. And if one is to treat this as Abarbanel changing his mind, well then consider another about-face over 80 pages later (p. 85 in our editions) Behold you see that the opinion of the Rav was ...that all that is mentioned regarding the activity of the six days, ?from the creation of the heavens and the earth, and all of the phenomena, and the creation of Adam and ?his wife, up until ?vayechulu? have no allegory whatsoever, for everything was ?literal to him [the Rambam]. Therefore you will see that in this very chapter, no. 30 in the second section, ?in all which the Rav has explicated regarding the activity of the six days, he did not make an allegory or a ?hint at all. Rather, he did the exact opposite, for he made a concerted effort to support the doctrine of ?creation ex nihilo and accepted all of the verses literally?? Obviously, Abarbanel was not consistent as to whether the Rambam understood the creation days to be ''levels'' rather than units of time. So he should not be cited with such certainty that he held so. ?I would also caution against uncritically accepting A?s description of B?s opinion if A goes on to ?lambaste it, as the Abarbanel did with his original reading of the Moreh Nevuchim. ?(The question presents itself, then, how did the Abarbanel?s contemporary, the Akeidas Yitzcahk, ?and the commentary of the ShemTov?who is not regarded as a rishon?as opposed to the ?commentary by Crescas), and the Abarbanel himself in his second take, get from (a) the Rambam?s ?classical rendition of a six-day meta-natural development of potential created on day one, to (b) ?seeing the Rambam as promulgating that ?the six days are a metaphor for six levels in the hierarchy ?of natural objects: light/darkness, water, minerals, flora, fauna, man??? My theory is that the earlier commentators of the Moreh, such as Narboni, greatly influenced by ?the Aristotelian academia of the time, anxiously imposed their radical views on the Rambam. (We ?see that in the Rambam?s own time, he complained of people radicalizing his views?including those ?who as accused him of (or ?complimented? him for) denying techiass ha-meisim). They hijacked the ?Moreh so efficiently that it became popular to think the Rambam thought like Narboni. This ?became the starting point from which later commentaries saw the Moreh (similar to, l?havdil, Rashi?s ?commentary being one?s first impression of what the Chumash says, and one?s natural thinking that ?what Rashi says is necessarily what the Chumash undoubtedly means.)? > In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, > following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, > there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which > processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the > Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of > time. > Not my issue. > > His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before > the sun. > *In the words of Ralbag the **problem is with zeman before the sun. His answer is that the sphere, even without the sun, produces zeman. * The problem that bothered the early ones, with what were day one, day two and day three measured? Behold, the light-bearers were not in existence until day four! [The answer is that even though the light-bearers did not appear until day four], the heavenly sphere was in existence on day one, and each revolution of it formed approximately one day. Abarbanel puts it that the problem is zeman before the sphere, sun and stars. The answer is that they all existed and formed zeman from the first act of creation. ???"? (?????, ??? ?) (?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? (?, ?-?) ...??????, ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? (??? ? ??? ?), ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???, ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?????; ???? ???? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?):... ??????? ??????: ?? ??? ???? ?????, ?????: ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????, ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? (?????? ??, ??). ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????: ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??????????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? (?, ?) ?* ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ???.* ???? ?????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??????,??? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ????, ????? ???? ???? ??? *.??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? .* *??* ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???, ????? ?? ????? ?????? *???? ??????*, ?? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ??? ????? *???? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????*; ??? ????? *??? ????? ???????,* ?? [??"? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????, ?"?] *?**??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????, ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? *? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??. ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???????, ??? ????? ?????. *???? ????? ????? *??? ???? ?????, ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?????. ??? ?? ????????? ??????? ??? ??????: ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?), ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?????. ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? (??? ? ????? ???? ????), ?????: ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??. ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????, ?? ???? ?????? ??, ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???????, ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? > > But the bottom line,to which we both agree, is that traditional Judaism holds that Creation, regardless of our issue about zeman, was not a natural process. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162531 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 23 02:58:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. : : : Where does Ramban say this? ... This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, it directly from G-d. : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag : permanent at maaseh breishis... Which is not in contradicction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain ways. To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel hapo'el, but still thimk you can reach what the rishonim are talking about? :-)BBii! -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 zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 15:37:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 18:37:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those > events > : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. > : > : > : Where does Ramban say this? ... > > This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > from G-d. Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or uses intermediaries. > > : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times > that > : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag > : permanent at maaseh breishis... > > Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern > of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that > behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain > ways. I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures. Yes, Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but they would be in agreement that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM, and just as much not a ??thing?? ?to RambaM as to RambaN. The disagreement would be whether Hashem at Creation set up intermediary steps ?in creating the world?s components and their behaviors. According to both of them, at the end of the Creation period Hashem established what the normal behaviors (patterns) would thereon be, and up to then the nature of the world was not stabilized. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but both agree that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. RambaM cites Chazal that ?Hashem at Creation also imbued in the things of the world the potential for aberrant behaviors ??(miracles) to be triggered when Hashem so decrees. I do not see RambaN disagreeing, but even if he does, I do not see framing it in terms of a dispute over whether nature is a ??thing.?? It would be a dispute over whether the miraculous natures were imbued at Creation or first initiated at their enactment, and in view of the Chazal cited by RambaM, RambaN would have some explaining ?to do. And of course, although the Rambam strongly objects to the idea that Hashem is constantly recreating the world, he also famously states that Hashem is constantly maintaining it, and that if He would remove His maintenance, the world would cease to exist. ? And if one insists on inferring from RambaM?s words an issue of Nature being considered a ????thing??, as opposed to a mere normal pattern of behavior, consider this quote:? http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=38545&st=&pgnum=14&hilite? The One Who created it [the world] made its general properties as a kiyum gadol. ??...This is what it means when it says, ??I know that all that G-d will make, IT will be ?forever.??...The yesodos ... all these are kayamim l-olom. It is impossible to add upon or take away from them, for it says, ??And G-d MADE [things] so that [people] will be in awe before Him, for ...these [things] stand forever. The above are the words of RambaN, in his Drasha on Kohelles. One could argue therefrom that he considers the general properties of the world as ??things?? that are permanent. Or not. > To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. To the Rambam, as well. > > : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to > : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. > Especially > : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. > > You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel > hapo'el, but still think you can reach what the rishonim are talking > about? No. You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? Zvi Lampel -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban Drasha on Kohelles.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 500027 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 25 17:29:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:29:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the Destruction of Sodom? Message-ID: <20181126012932.GA7767@aishdas.org> See https://www.sciencenews.org/article/exploding-meteor-may-have-wiped-out-ancient-dead-sea-communities or . I am including just a teaser. I intentionally ended with the note that the researcher works at a Xian university, as that does speak toward objectivity. We'll see what peer review says of the evidence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Science News Archaeologists at a site in what's now Jordan have found evidence of a cosmic calamity An exploding meteor may have wiped out ancient Dead Sea communities By Bruce Bower 10:00am, November 20, 2018 Preliminary evidence indicates that a low-altitude meteor explosion around 3,700 years ago destroyed cities, villages and farmland north of the Dead Sea (shown in the background above) rendering the region uninhabitable for 600 to 700 years. DENVER -- A superheated blast from the skies obliterated cities and farming settlements north of the Dead Sea around 3,700 years ago, preliminary findings suggest. Radiocarbon dating and unearthed minerals that instantly crystallized at high temperatures indicate that a massive airburst caused by a meteor that exploded in the atmosphere instantaneously destroyed civilization in a 25-kilometer-wide circular plain called Middle Ghor, said archaeologist Phillip Silvia. The event also pushed a bubbling brine of Dead Sea salts over once-fertile farm land, Silvia and his colleagues suspect. People did not return to the region for 600 to 700 years, said Silvia, of Trinity Southwest University in Albuquerque. He reported these findings at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research on November 17... From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:49:35 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:49:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Weight of a Shekel Message-ID: <20181126204934.GA12575@aishdas.org> No, they didn't find a sheqel, they found something just as good -- a beqa from bayis rishon, as in machatzis hasheqel "beqa lagulgoles". Just multiply by 2 to get a sheqel haqodesh. (Ie a beqa is a plain old sheqel.) (There apparently weren't 1/2 sheqel coins during basyis rishon.) See or https://www.timesofisrael.com/straight-from-the-bible-tiny-first-temple-stone-weight-unearthed-in-jerusalem/ The Times of Israel Straight from the Bible: Tiny First Temple stone weight unearthed in Jerusalem By Amanda Borschel-Dan 21 November 2018, 12:57 pm Volunteer at City of David sifting project finds rare `beka' measure, used by pilgrims paying half-shekel tax before ascending to Temple Mount, in dirt from dig near Western Wall [Picture of weight, bearing the word beqa in kesav Ivri in mirror writing. The caption reads:] A First Temple period weight measure called a 'beka' was unearthed in a City of David excavation in the Davidson Archaeological Park and discovered in the wet sifting project in Jerusalem's Tsurim Valley. (Eliyahu Yanai, City of David) An extremely rare, minuscule biblical stone weight inscribed in ancient Hebrew script with the word "beka" was discovered in rubble taken from excavations at the foundations of the Western Wall. Only a handful of similar stone beka weights have been unearthed in Jerusalem, said archaeologist Eli Shukron... Unlike several hundred years later, during this era, there was no half-shekel coin. Pilgrims brought the equivalent weight, a beka, in silver to pay their tax, which would have been measured out on scales in the very spot under the Temple Mount where the tiny stone weight was unearthed. Shukron said in a press release, "When the half-shekel tax was brought to the Temple during the First Temple period, there were no coins, so they used silver ingots. In order to calculate the weight of these silver pieces they would put them on one side of the scales and on the other side they placed the Beka weight. The Beka was equivalent to the half-shekel, which every person from the age of 20 years and up was required to bring to the Temple." According to the release, the biblical shekel weighed 11.33 grams.... To give you an idea of where that stands halachically, the Rambam's (H' Sheqalim 1:2) 384 se'or. A barleycorn is 0.044 and 0.05 gm, so the Rambam's sheqel would be at least 16.9 gm. Rashi (Shemos 21:32) says that a sheqel is half of a the ounce used in Cologne. Which today we would call .5 troy oz, or 15.55gm. The CI holds it's .51 troy oz (15.86 gm). Once again, the evidence about shiurim from Har haBayis is below even the Rambam's shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:26:21 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:26:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly :> from G-d. : Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or : uses intermediaries. Except that he calls it a neis. It can't both be Divine Intervention AND left to metaphysical mechanics. I mentioned that RDBerger et all never go around back to the first Rambans they discuss to explain what they do mean after all. He does deny teva in the famous comment at the end of parashahs Bo (13:16) (where he refers you back to comments on Beresishis 17:1 and Shemos 6:2). For that matter, he even denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. We have to close the circle somehow. Teva = nisim nistarim. Nistar through allowing patterns, minhago shel olam. ... :> Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern :> of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that :> behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain :> ways. : : I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that : it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow : apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the : behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". (I think this description of the Ramban is the belief most of us leave yeshiva day school with.) : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. Physics does not inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His Action to be hidden by routine. : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim in the usual sense. ... :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : : To the Rambam, as well. To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. To the Ramban, a person who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from Him as needed. Tir'u baTov! -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 llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 27 06:18:44 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:18:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why Didn't The Brothers Tell Yaakov "Yosef is alive"? Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 37:35 35 All his sons and daughters arose to console him, but he refused to accept consolation. He said: I shall go to my grave, mourning for my son. Thus his father wept for him. (?His daughters? probably refers to his daughters-inlaw.) All of them ?arose? to console him. They did not ?go? or ?come?; they ?arose? to console him. ?To arise? in order to perform an act implies that the act is born of resolution, an act one must bring oneself to perform. Until this point, they themselves were immersed in grief. No one feels so much grief as do those who must console a mourner. To see one?s aged father inconsolable, viewing every cheerful thought as a sin, would move even a heartless scoundrel to agonized remorse. He would be too distraught to offer consolation, because he would be in need of consolation himself. But why didn?t any of them attempt to sprinkle soothing balm upon the wound? Why didn?t they reveal to him: ?Yosef is alive!?? The answer: because that would have been the greatest cruelty of all. In the minds of parents, a child who was torn by wild beasts is never lost, but a child who is wicked is worse than lost. Therefore, he who would not aggravate the father?s grief a thousandfold would have to remain silent until the day when Yosef would return and the joy of the reunion would mitigate in the father?s mind even the crime that had been committed by his other sons. Had they told Ya?akov at that time the truth about what had been done to Yosef, Ya?akov would have felt as though he had lost not only one son, but ten sons at one time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 06:39:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gradations of Lifnim miShuras haDin Message-ID: <20181128143951.GA12638@aishdas.org> Surprisingly, not a subject I've thought about before. Apparently, there are different kind of lifnim mishuras hadin callings. See Arukh haShulchan CM 222:8. The SA (se'if 2) talks about the case where someone buys something from one of 5 people, doesn't recall which, and each of them are tov'im for payment. The money is held in escroe by BD until the claimants come to agreement or Eliyahu arrives and sorts it out. And if he is a chassid, he should pay each of them, kedei latzeis yedei Shamayim. The AhS adds: And a chassid adif miyarei Shamayim (YS) because a YS does not want to be mevater his own property in a business matter, and a Chassid is mevater. (Shabbos 120b). Presumably a YS is the person concerned latzeis yedei Shamayim (or else I can't understand the AhS). And this goes on to the case of the yoreish of one of the potential sellers, claiming he would be patur even LYS (Sha"kh, Ramban, Ritva.) Whereas the Qetzos says that while he is patur even LYS, chassid, ra'ui lo la'asos kein mimidas chassidus. So, there seems to be two kinds of lifnim mishuras hadin involved here, and there is a nafqa mina lemaaseh: the YS who is concerned LYS, and the chassid who is pursuing his midas chassidus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 11:48:46 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:48:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Baalus and Chameitz (was: help with 2 sugyot) Message-ID: <20181128194846.GA21056@aishdas.org> On 1 May 2013 (v23n74 ) I replied to a question by RAM with (in part): > But I think the key here is the word "property". I suggested in the past > that there is no such thing in halakhah. (With a probable exception of bal > yeira'eh bal yeimatzei.) There is baalus, but that's a different concept. > Returning to bal yeira'eh as an example... A son does not inherit chameitz > from his father who dies while owning it on Pesach. The issuer hanaah > means a lack of baalus. Even though it's the father's in the sense of > being chameitz she'avar alav haPesach (for the part of Pesach the father > was alive to own it). > As is implied in what RAM writes, baalus is more like custodianship than > what we think of when we hear "property". Which is born out in the word > "baalus" as well. Baalus revolves around control and responsibility, > not an abstract principle of how the world is divided up among people. > My previous thoughts on baalus and qinyan, as shaped by prior conversations > here, are at . Well, Arukh haShulchan Yomi adds another data point -- CM 245:10. Someone gives another a gift and the recipient uses a language of bitul (bitul, mevatel, mevuteles hi, tivateil, etc..) to reject the gift after it reached him, if it's metaltelin, the item is hefqer. The AhS notes the connection to bitul chomeitz that renders it hefqeir. However, he says this is no raayah because chameitz on Pesach isn't in his reshus, it's only made "ke'ilu hi birshuso" by bal yeira'eh. And that's why gilui daata is enough to get the chameitz out of his reshus. But (citing the Ran, beginning of Pesachim), something that is mamash his is different. The AhS concludes that bitul only makes the gift hefqer because it's a gift, but if it were actually his nekhasim, it wouldn't be sufficient. (Now that I wrote all that, I seem to recall someone did along the years mention that bitul chameitz only works because we're talking about quasi-baalus, and not real baalus. But I invested too much to what to skip sending this email now. And besides, I added another maqor.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 28 21:29:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 05:29:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. Message-ID: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to both monetary and spiritual liabilities. I was wondering, according to those who said you can waive the spiritual liability, whether that would also work retroactively (e.g. would somebody escape lashes for less than a penny's worth of damage -if the aggrieved party waived the spiritual damages after the fact of the hit) 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 Nov 30 10:19:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links Message-ID: <20181130181913.GA25124@aishdas.org> Einstein and G-d: http://nautil.us/blog/how-einstein-reconciled-religion-to-science Eistein said things about G-d that appear to contradict -- he both speaks of the Designer of existence and belittles the G-d of religion. Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's -- not emunah in a Borei but our standards, but far from atheism in their self-perception. --- Stephen Colbert explains his faith to Dr Neil de Grasse Tyson https://www.facebook.com/michael.bernstein.86/videos/10100134331341237/ He says that his faith doesn't come from a place of evidence, it comes from gratitude. Until they can explain why we exist rather than not exist, we need some basket to put that gratitude in. A little too Gcd of the Gaps. He could have made the same point using a more Non-overlapping Magesteria approach. IOW, he shouldn't be talking about belief until Dr Tyson and others in his profession can explain why we exist. Rather, he should point out they can't -- "why we exist?" isn't even a scientific question. Science doesn't cover all of human experience. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 18:36:04 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 21:36:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:26 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> RMB : This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > :> from G-d. > > : ZL: Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the > : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas > : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at > : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or > : uses intermediaries. > > RMB: Except that he calls it a neis.... ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' from Hashem than RambaM did. denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: > From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, > all our things and everything that happens to us is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago shel olom. It can't both be Divine Intervention > AND left to metaphysical mechanics. > Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine intervention manipulates but does not undo. The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force .'' > And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits > sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." > > Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. > We have to close the circle somehow. > ... According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". ZL: You are basing a lot on the Ramban using the expression ''hakol begeiras Elyon.'' But that expression, as well as ''neis,'' is no indication of disagreeing with the idea of Hashem intervening and conducting a neis nistar working through intermediaries to manipulate but not undo minhago shel olom. Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim has a chapter on this. And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own through the control of the angels over the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force . And behold the control was /from the time of their coming into being until forever more, *a gezeyras Elyon* [another girsa is Elyonim] that He placed in them/.'' The correct translation of ''gezeyras elyon[im] may even be ''a gezeyra about the upper world(s)/beings/forces,'' with elyon not being a reference to Hashem, just as it obviously is not in the first sentence of this passage. The gezeyas Elyon is what He placed into the forces that produce nature, the minhago shel olom. In the passage where Ramban declares that all that occurs to us is neis and not minhago shel olom or teva, he is contrasting our belief that Hashem, through neis nistar, manipulates minhago shel olom according to our deeds, with that of those who hold that nature runs mechanically with no connection to human behavior. Realizing this answers all that you proceeded to write: > > ...ZL: > : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem > : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... > > RMB: You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. ZL: I cited his repeated explanation of vayehi chein, and now his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12. RMB: [Ramban holds, contra RambaM, that] Physics does not > inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His > Action to be hidden by routine. > > ZL: : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that > : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and > : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of > : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. > > RMB: But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras > Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim > are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? > ZL: This is again your unwarranted inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras Elyon. > > ZL: : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you > : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a > : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much > : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... > > RMB: Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other > says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim > in the usual sense. > > ZL: This is again your inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras > Elyon, which I showed is incorrect. Rambam speaks in terms of Seichel > HaPoel setting up the world's machinery of spheres that influence matters > on earth. Ramban speaks in terms of Hashem creating influencing spheres > controlled by angels. Ramban considers Nature no less an ''it'' than > Rambam. Rambam considers Nature no more an ''it'' than Ramban. > > ... > RMB: :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. > : > ZL: : To the Rambam, as well. > > RMB: To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah > necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. > And RambaN (Devarim 18:13) speaks of Hashem redirecting the normal course of the spheres to act in favor of those who draw close to Him through their avodah. (In fact, Rambam in Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end], too, puts it terms of avodah: "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". According to both, Hashem intervenes to manipulate the machinery of minhago shel olom based upon man's closeness to him. > ZL: : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without > : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? > > RMB: The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is > saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, > he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. > > Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is > hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. ZL: I'll concede that point, although I'm still left with the question that the Rambam refers to minhago shel olom oneshim, too, as the greatest of nissim nistarim. How is abandonment to nature a neis? And he also refers to, for example, the Egyptians being punished for volunteering to fulfill the role of persecutors foretold of in the bris bein habesarim. The plagues were not a mere abandonment to nature... Tsaruch iyun.... > To the Ramban, a person > who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from > Him as needed. > ZL: That's an interesting twist on how to look at oneshim as a chessed. > > Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/03/18, 8:45:33 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban on astrology Devarim 18, 9-13.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2384560 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 4 09:31:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:31:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181204173107.GC16262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 09:36:04PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the :> : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas :> : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at :> : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or :> : uses intermediaries. :> RMB: : Except that he calls it a neis.... : So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar.... Different "it". The Ramban calls everything a neis. The fact that that doesn't imply what you would think if you only looked at those 2 comments doesn't change the fact that to the Ramban, teva is a neis. So: The Rambam acknowledges sekhar va'onesh via neis nistar, for those who earn such HP. (Hashgachah = both sekhar va'onesh.) And yet normal teva is the action of the Seikhel haPo'al, a metaphysical automaton "preprogrammed" by the Borei. The Ramban holds that all of teva is neis nistar, whether it's hashgachah (leshitaso: hashgachah = sekhar), onesh, or minhago shel olam. Again, but in significantly different words: To the Rambam, teva follows minhago shel olam because the Seikha haPo'al has a single mission and lack bechirah. According to the Ramban, teva is a word that means the subset of Divine Action that follows minhago shel olam rather than being selected by HP. I believe you agree that rishonim understand the Rambam's position on teva and the Seikhal haPo'al the way I explained it. I am not clear how you can insist they got it wrong. : ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, : > all our things and everything that happens to us : is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the : manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or : non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day : behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and : everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago : shel olom. Right, but that's not HP. According to both Rambam and the Ramban, not everything that happens to every person is HP. And yet they are all neis. You are also incorrectly deducing from the Rambam's talking about that whih happens to us that he means to exclude things that don't impact human life, such as the growth of a tree in the middle of the Amazon where it possibly effects no one. However, he is saying the Torah is founded on knowing how to view what happens to me personally. Not abstract knowledge about how the world works. That tree in the Amazon isn't on topic. ... : ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling : it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' : from Hashem than RambaM did. Even before we get to our point, not really. According to the Rambam, sekhar is a neis nistar. Onesh is almost always abandonment to teva. (Similarly, to the Rambam on Cheileq, gehenom is kareis is a lack of olam haba, and not suffering in olam haba.) Suffering as onesh is usually just what happens to a human being trying to fight what we would call today the law of increasing entropy. (It's easier to break things than make them.) On rare occasions, there is a Makas Bekhoros, but those are nissim geluyim. After all, leshitas haRambam, sin causes a lack of knowledge of the Borei, and thus a disconnection from Him, and thus a lack of hashpa'ah. HP itself is causal, leshitaso. Just as nevu'ah is causal, and it take a neis for Hashem to hide information from a navi who has enough yedi'ah to be connected up to be able to "look" for it. So, they disagree about whether onesh is HP / neis, even before we get started with our dispute. (Something also mentioned in the shiur from Gush I pointed you to.) :> It can't both be Divine Intervention :> AND left to metaphysical mechanics. : Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem : created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar : v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In : contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine : intervention manipulates but does not undo. And to repeat myself, you're nmistaken. The Rambam has a delegate Hashem gave nature to, and when there is a break from minhago shel olam, Hashem (via mal'akhim, beings higher than the Seikhel haPoal) is intervening. The Ramban does not have such a delegate. When there is a break from minhago shel olam, it's because someone earned Hashem making another kind of decision; another priority rose to the top in (kevayakhol) how He Chooses what to Do. Your reasserting otherwise still doesn't explain why you feel the Abarbanel and Narbonni got him wrong about this idea that a separate seikhel was created to do teva, that just runs minhago shel olam. And in fact, further down you stop denying this and instead argue from the Ramban in Devarim that the Ramban also has such sikhliim. I am not clear where exactly you stand. : The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm : of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each : ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago : shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. Runs like a machine, ie following a minhag. Whereas the Rambam gives it an actual metaphysical machine. : To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing : astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created : the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the : spheres. You are literally quoting a Ramban that says that even though there are kokhavim, mazalos, mal'akhim and sarim which has a nefesh, one cannot worship them or use astrology to tell the future (kesoa'avos hagoyim haheim) because they're only responding to His Will. A navi, who is looking at His Will, can know the future. : ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim : controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and : constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the : stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force : .'' Manhig = controller? : And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that : very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own : through the control of the angels over the spheres. Not on its own. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 04:19:47 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 07:19:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 > From: Micha Berger > > Einstein and G-d: > > ...Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's He said so explicitly ''I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... '' New Times, April 25, 1929, in answer to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/04/18, 7:16:09 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Tue Dec 4 08:24:16 2018 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 18:24:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Tuesday evening) begin Prayer for Rain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Tuesday evening), December 4, 2018, corresponding to the evening of 27 Kislev, 5779, the third night of Chanukka. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: https://www.lookstein.org/professional-dev/veten-tal-u-matar/ (Thanks to Russell Levy for suggesting the article.) In unrelated news, here's what keeps me busy: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/ Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky Post-doctoral Fellow Department of Mathematics Ariel University Ariel 4070000, ISRAEL ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Tue Dec 4 11:25:15 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One clear difference between the Rambam and the Ramban is the value of miracles as evidence; see H. Yesodei HaTorah 8:1 vs. Toras HaShem Temimah Ed. Chavel pp. 146, 150, 152, etc. I think the explanation is hinted at in the Ramban in Shoftim you cited. The Rambam holds that miracles are ad hoc, but the Ramban holds that miracles also follow laws and those laws echo creation. David Riceman Sent from my iPad From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 6 05:32:53 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 13:32:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] seuda shlishit Message-ID: <1c08882303fd4627b3659b0785fb9331@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> It is certainly preferable to either eat bread or stop eating before shekia (or close to it - beyond our present scope). If you partake in a full meal but refrain from bread for a certain reason, leniency has strong grounds. If you are picking at food according to your mood, and even more so if you previously fulfilled seuda shlishit, it is difficult to allow eating as night approaches. (Me- Is this generally followed?) 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 Thu Dec 6 14:45:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:45:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Havdalah or Menorah on Motzai Shabbos Which comes first? Message-ID: Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos - Chanuka? Not a recent question, this situation of competing halachic principles has been the basis of the centuries-old debate regarding which mitzvah has priority and should therefore be performed first. In other words, on Motzai Shabbos Chanuka this annual halachic dispute, simmering since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up... Please see https://goo.gl/oV2gpg YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 7 11:21:41 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 19:21:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: Q. I will be traveling to New York from my home in New Jersey for a Chanukah party at my parents? house and won?t be returning home until late at night. I have the following options: I can light at home at 4:00 PM (which is before sunset); I can appoint an agent (shliach) to light in my house for me at the proper time; I can light at my parents? house; or I can light upon returning home late at night when there are no longer any passersby. What should I do? A. The Mechaber rules that if one will not be able to light the Chanukah candles at the prescribed time, he may light them any time after Plag HaMincha (Shulchan Aruch OC 672:1). Plag HaMincha in the winter is approximately an hour before sunset. However, if one must leave immediately thereafter, it may not be advisable to leave candles unattended. The possibility of using an agent is questionable, since Mishnah Berurah (675:9) rules that when an agent lights for him, the person must stand next to the agent and hear him recite the brachos; obviously, this is not feasible in this case. The third possibility, lighting at one?s parents? home, is not acceptable. One must light where he lives (i.e. the place where he eats and sleeps on a regular basis). Since he does not live in his parent?s home but is merely eating a meal there, he may not light there. One should follow the fourth option and light upon returning home. As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. Therefore, one may light even if it is late and there will be no passersby to see the menorah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 8 17:32:58 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 20:32:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49e62b3e-cb2d-9d77-dbff-c94f400def1e@sero.name> > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit > primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising it, if not to the passersby? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 18:33:18 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:33:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: . Someone quoted the OU's Halacha Yomis: > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. R' Zev Sero asked: > What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising > it, if not to the passersby? I don't think the OU meant to suggest that one isn't yotzay if his family doesn't see the neros. When danger caused us to move the menorah indoors, *everyone* lit indoors. No exceptions were made for those who live alone. It seems clear to me that one is yotzay even if he is the only one to see them lit. Come to think of it, one is yotzay Pirsumei Nisa if no one hears him read the Megilla, or if no one sees him drinking Arba Kosos. Why should Ner Chanuka be different? It is true that the Mishne Berura 672:11 says that if everyone at home is already asleep, then he must either wake someone or light without the bracha. But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants to act like that, we don't stop him." Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 12 21:41:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:41:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music and literature: As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the better strategy? 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 Dec 12 21:44:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? 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 Dec 15 19:22:45 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 22:22:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: <4EBAA25A-8790-4673-AAFF-7E2AC74B5C9A@cox.net> With an extremely unusual exception, all professionals will tell you that the first time your husband assaults you must be the last time. Furthermore the law is clear and unequivocal: Any incidence of a domestic crime must be dealt with by arresting the guilty party, be it husband or wife. I can tell you that any call we get involving a domestic always results in an arrest. Dina D'Malchusa Dina This is the law and we are mandated to follow it. I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve your spouse. Mechila or no mechila, the consequences are serious and the law must be followed. Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 16 11:13:33 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot Message-ID: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of chutz l'aretz. Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? Ben From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 16 12:56:05 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 15:56:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? First thought, just to help the ball rolling. Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? So, there are people actually eating challah in the Rambam's world. Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both being deOraisa. (In particular, it can be taken retroactively; you can eat before hafrashah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Dec 17 08:28:25 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:28:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Asara b'Teves Message-ID: The message of this commemoration is that after the destruction, we must trace its sources and mark its stages; we must look backwards to events that are not earth-shattering and perceive how the seeds of the destruction on the Ninth of Av were planted on the Tenth of Teves. The more we study history, the more we learn that we should not concentrate only on the final act itself, but also on all the stages that led up to it. This also applies to the Holocaust which is probably the worst tragedy in Jewish history. Along these lines we also recite Kaddish on the 10th of Tevet for all those whose date of death is unknown, who perished in the Holocaust. Apparently, the tenth of Teves is "the Day of God" about which many prophets spoke ? the tenth day of the tenth month. (The 10th of Teves is the only fast day that can fall on a Friday). The number ten in kabala is related to the sefira of malkhut, and therefore, the very essence of the day is appropriate to the theme of God's kingship. Chazal teach that at midnight a north wind would blow, rousing King David from his sleep to serve his Creator. It is in the middle of the night, specifically in the depths of the darkest part of the night, that the sovereignty of Israel awakens, and the kingship of God is revealed in the world.May the Kingship of the Almighty finally rule all mankind thus fulfilling the vision of the prophets: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall men learn war anymore; for all men, both great and small shall know the Lord.? Amen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 17 09:09:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:09:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 16/12/18 3:56 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that > : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? > > First thought, just to help the ball rolling. > > Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. I assume Sefardim also, though I don't know this for certain. But the SA certainly says to do so, and only the Rema says the minhag is not to. > They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem > with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump > actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? AFAIK it's got nothing to do with chinuch; the reason it's given to ketanim rather than gedolim is because they have never experienced tum'ah that comes from their own bodies. It can also be given to an adult cohen who has been to the mikveh. The Rema says this is not our minhag because since it's not eaten in EY there is no need for it to be eaten in chu"l. Other acharonim suggest that it's because we have no cohanim meyuchasim, so we're not even certain this child is a cohen in the first place, or because we're worried that the child won't be careful with it and it'll get into people's food, or just that if it's not burned immediately it will somehow find its way to someone who shouldn't eat it. > Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both > being deOraisa. Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan. (Nowadays even chalah of EY is midrabanan, but it has an ikkar min hatorah, whereas in chu"l it's entirely midrabanan.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:25:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:25:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181217172541.GA5532@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:09:38PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both : >being deOraisa. : Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan... Sorry, chalah of crops made from chu"l that were brought into EY are indeed deOraisa, and yes those aforementioned qulos still apply. (Similarly, challah from Israeli grain that was needed in chu"l is only chayav miderabbanan.) 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:14:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181217171454.GA25337@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:33:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the : brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the : opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar : Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants : to act like that, we don't stop him." Going back to the SA (OC 677:3) the mechaber says that *yeish omerim* that if you light at home alone after others have lit there without you, you make the berakhos. Interestingly, the se'if opens "yeish omerim", it's the only opinion quoted. The Rama quote the Mordechai that this is because he is obligated to see the neiros, vekhein nohagim. Ateres Zeqeinim ad loc quotes the Maharash: veyeish cholqin. So, if you want to be machmir to light, (he calls it "rotzeh lahchamir") light without a berakhah. The Maharil says that once you light on your own, you showed you didn't want to be yotzei with the earlier lighting, so you weren't. And that's why it's not a berakhah levatalah. The picture I'm trying to show here is that the discussion about the berakhah appears to be because this is after someone else lit for the home. Not because you're alone. And, if I understand the Mordechai correctly, he appears to be saying that whether or not the purpose of the mitzvah is pirsumei nisah, the actual mitzvah includes just seeing the lights. Perhaps because even internalizing the neis I myself already know about intellectually qualifies as "pirsum". But that's not how R' Moshe discusses it. He simply says that pirsum isn't me'aqeiv. 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 09:05:16 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:05:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] lighting the menora Message-ID: As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. My impression is that most modern poskim certainly in EY disagree and that many/most light outdoors for the public -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 18 09:24:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:24:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Comedy -- is it good for the Jews? In-Reply-To: References: <49f57ed6-82ab-b6eb-2210-00930742efaa@sero.name> <20181211154507.GB6212@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181218172413.GB29597@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:02am EST, R Moshe Y. Gluck replied to me on Areivim in a conversation about a stand up comic at a venue that lost their hekhsher over it: : One can argue that comedy, in it of itself, is assur, independent of : subject matter because of Assur L'maalos Piv Schok B'Olam Hazeh (Berachos : 31a). This gemara makes an interesting contrast to the rather famous gemara (Taanis 22a) about Rabbi Beroqa Choza'ah and Elihahu haNavi in the marke of Bei Lefet. Elihahu points out two beduchei as among those there who would merit olam haba, eiuther because they chear up the depressed or bring peace to those arguing. Given the first "i nami" in Taanis, where's the chiluq to be drawn? Another problem I have understandign the gemara in Taanis. The market in question was full of Jews. (Another person Eliyahu pointed out was noted for not dressing like one, but turned out to be employed by the prison system and he protected the women in his jail.) And "kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq". So why are just these people being pointed out as being "bar alma de'asi"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:28:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:28:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. In-Reply-To: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182837.GA18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:29:12AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability : (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to : both monetary and spiritual liabilities... Does it work at all? You can be mochel nezeq when it's mamon, but corporeal? Wouldn't Shim'on be a rasha for lifting his hand to Re'uvein either way? Related: Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? 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 micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:34:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:34:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] culture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181219183447.GB18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:41:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music : and literature: :> As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even :> the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from :> the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness :> of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. : My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the : better strategy? It has to be slower, when you think you haven't yet assimilated culture and you're trying to hold the line, than when you consciously choose to have a strategy with regard to acculturation, and expect the line to move. One will only have unconscious motion, the other will have conscious change as well. So for the masses, it means less assimilation. Then we have to ask if cultural assumilation is a bad thing. Does Hashem not want us to sing our tefillos to the kosher elements of the sound of our era? Is there a Jewish aesthetic to begin with? Way deep wading in this issue. However, for the yechidim who realize it's going on and that everyone is fooling themselves.... I see a big OTD risk as cynicism is bound to creap in, as well as (including?) a loss of respect for any authority figures who are fooled or caught blindfolding others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:20:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:20:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? In-Reply-To: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182054.GA6255@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting : the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), : animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get : no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) This is the end of OC 1:1. (AhS Yomi for 4th. Yes, cycle 2 is starting in just 4+ months! The first Tur for the AhS to write on was CM, which is why you find the haqdamah there. So "beginning" was ambiguous. Or I'm just a nitpicker.) : Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is : it equivalent of free will? .... I took the se'if to mean that angels have no YhR and therefore lack free will. Animals have no *capacity for* knowledge, and therefore couldn't possibly have a YhT, and thus also no bechirah. Only people, caught in tention between YhR and (properly applied?) da'as have bechirah, and that's why only we get both reward and punishment. : The dogs being : rewarded for not barking? There is an interesting implication from the AhS that animals do get sekhar, and angels do get oneshim. Perhaps it makes sense even without presuming they have bechirah if we take a causal approach to sekhar va'onesh. The animal that does the right thing, even through no credit of its own, is still thereby a superior being than before. Especially if it is more likely to repeat behavior done once (or more likely to refrain if refrained once). And similarly in the reverse, for angels that fail. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Dec 19 22:03:14 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 01:03:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: >I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >your spouse. Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? From isaac at balb.in Wed Dec 19 22:57:07 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:57:07 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Re Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2CC046A4-B9E6-4853-A683-179A213256CC@balb.in> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu---theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively more authentic version of the next Baal HaMesora. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Dec 20 08:12:18 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:12:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You are asking a loaded question so I will have to answer it on a few layers. First of all, I?m not sure what YOU mean by a verbal assault. The legal definition of assault varies from state to state but generally: Simple assault is an attempt to do a serious bodily harm to another person, or actually committing an act to put another in fear of serious bodily injury. Simple assault is usually classified as a misdemeanor. So if by verbal assault, a husband or wife (without touching each other), puts the other in fear of being hurt, then it meets the criteria of a crime (misdemeanor) and in most states mandates an arrest. With that scenario, yes, I would say the same for a spouse who verbally assaults the other. What most lay people confuse assault with is a BATTERY which is any unlawful offensive physical contact with another person, with or without his or her consent. ... Unlike the crime of assault, battery requires that actual contact is made, while assault charges can be brought with only the threat of violence. Though it may seem extreme to say that you don?t deserve your spouse if you commit a simple assault or battery, our own sages have said that if your wife burns your food, you have every right to divorce her. I think it boils down to the specifics and whole picture of each case. I believe your question may have meant what if a spouse speaks disparagingly to his/her spouse. In other words, what if a husband demeans his wife and calls her stupid or ugly, etc. My feeling is that you are dealing with the tip of the iceberg and most likely you have a bad marriage and a dysfunctional relationship. > On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: > > >> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >> your spouse. > > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 20 12:31:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:31:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181220203131.GB27441@aishdas.org> On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: :> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who :> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve :> your spouse. : > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? Hezeq and onaas devarim are different issurim. But they both are forms of harm recognized by halakhah. (Maybe I mean all three are recognized: hezeq haguf and hezeq mamon are different things, with different dinim.) And if the ona'as devarim gets to the point of halvanas panim, it's compared to retzichah. BM 58b lumps OD and pinning a nickname on someone together with eishes ish as sins that cause gehennom to be permanent ("sheyordim ve'ein olim") and ein lo cheileq le'olam haba (59a). And of course, "noach lo le'adam shayapil es atzmo lekivshan ha'eish, be'al yalbin penei chaveiro." (Mar Zutra, BM 59a) Which is taking seriously, not exageration, in discussions of yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. So to ammend my first paragraph, verbal abuse is far MORE vilified by the din than hezeq. I would consider answering: lo kol shekein! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 20 21:43:37 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:43:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer Message-ID: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From a write-up on borer and peelers: "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] Me-1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex county, us, world...............) 2.Is a sieve a sophisticated fork??? 3.No doubt that minhag yisrael includes many who do it-it's just not clear to me how that developed (i.e a priori first principles seem to lead to prohibition) - perhaps a good example of mimetic tradition? 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:22:47 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:22:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: <> Indeed I am always bothered by those who claim that they are not influenced at all but outside culture. Even if not directly we are all influenced by outside forces. There is no such thing today as Jewish music since anything the leviim sang has been lost. Living in Israel sefardi music is much different than ashkenazi music simply because Arabic music is different than Hungarian music. Anyone who learns Rambam is influenced at some level by Greek philosophy. Read rishonim on the reasons for dina demalchuta and compare it to the old defenses of the rights of kings - just happen to be identical. Many rishonim were familar with secular philosophy and even the Ramah knew philosophy. In spite of appearances Chatam Sofer had a broad background and spoke German. All of this without referring to RAL who has a spirited defense of much (certainly not all) of modern literature and parts of modern culture. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:30:25 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:30:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports Message-ID: << Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? >> Certainly mechila works on some level. There are stories of RAL in his younger years playing basketball with the students. Once a student complained that it wasn;t fair because they could not block their rebbe. RAL answered that in playing ball not to treat him as a rebbe. Certainly we are talking about minor contact and not severe wounding Kibud Av ve- Em is a step beyond ordinary treatment of others especially causing a loss of blood. From what I have seen the standard psak is that a doctor should preferably not treat a parent for anything requiring incisions or blood. However, for anything serious that the child is better than others than certainly, he is the doctor of choice. I recall that RMF allows cosmetic surgery only foord "god reasons". This incliudes feeling embarrased by one's appearance and also improvements especially for women for shidduch persons. I assume he would not be happy with various facial "improvements" for senior citizens -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Thu Dec 20 17:33:08 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 12:33:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively better version of the next Baal HaMesora. From mcohen at touchlogic.com Fri Dec 21 06:48:04 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:48:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma Message-ID: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means increase. Therefore not 'blessed is the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever' (artscroll) but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his kingdom be increased forever. His source is olas tamid (which I don't have), and iyun tefilah (which I looked up and I cant find this mentioned) Is this the kavanah that you are all having when you say krias shma? mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:10:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:10:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <20181221151048.GA23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 09:48:04AM -0500, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: : R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means : increase. ... : but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his : kingdom be increased forever. I am vague enough on the translation of the English word "blessed" that translating "barukh" for "blessed" is trading one unknown for a bigger one. As for my own kavanah (when I stop to have one): May the public perception (or: reputation) of the significance (or: importance) of His rule-by-public-acclimation be increased eternally without stop. Explanation: Sheim is name, which would be how others perceive something. Hashem's sheim is thus how He seems to people, which could be reputation and/or perception. Kavod shares spelling with kaveid, heaviness. (We'll discuss livers some other time.) And thus we give honor to significant "weighty" matters. Like massive things, we don't trivially push them around. And so I think of kavod as honor more in terms of significant and important than glory. Ein melekh belo am -- unlike a mosheil, what makes a melekh a melekh is the acceptance of the governed. The Gra has a whole piece on Melekh vs Mosheil and "umosheil bagoyim", until the day when "vehayah Hashem leMelekh". "Malkhusekha malkhus kol olamim umemshaletekha bekhol dor vador." Notice in that last pasuq, malkhus is framed in terms of "kol olamim", and here it's "le'olam va'ed". Le'olam -- for as long as there's an olam. Va'ad -- note the shoresh of "ad", until the missing end. There is another kind of Eternity. Hashem Himself is lemaalah min hazman. Not eternal in the sense of existing for an infinite amount of time, but in the sense that the concept of time doesn't apply. However, His Sheim is a product of us relating to Him, and thus within time -- as long as there is an "am" for Hashem to be Melekh of. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Dec 21 07:35:02 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:35:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <892aea1f-7804-ca75-2a17-2b632b2d08f7@sero.name> On 21/12/18 9:48 am, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: > One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod > malchuso lolam vaaed > > How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. > > R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch > means increase. I don't think this is perush hamilim. It's an additional facet that can add to the value of kavana, but is not required. Another facet is that "baruch" can mean to extend, as in "hamavrich es hagefen", so a bracha represents bring the shefa from the higher worlds to this one. An important thought, but one who doesn't have it in mind, or is even entirely unaware of it, has still said shma properly. Also, sheim is not *just* how others see one; ones name is connected directly to ones essence, as we see from the fact that when someone has fainted we use their name to call them back. But it is mostly used for others, just as malchus is how one relates to others, i.e. dibbur, shechina, reflecting what is going on inside one to the outside world, and yet it remains one of the essential attributes of a personality, and thus it is also one of the sefiros which those attributes reflect. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:34:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:34:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer In-Reply-To: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181221153420.GB23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 05:43:37AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From a write-up on borer and peelers: : : > "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are : > "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] : : 1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex : county, us, world...............) I could understand why the peel normally being eaten might mitigate boreir, as there is no pesoles. But how does it change the status of the peeler? In any case, the AhS (OC 391:22, but the discussion starts at se'if 19 ) only talks about peeling lots of (harbeih) garlic or onions, where he accepts the fact that it is boreier, despite being confused about how it even caqn be borer. There is a clear gemara (Beitza 13b) that says that Ravs and Rav Chiyya's wives would peel barley for them on Shabbos. And the AhS wants to know why garlic or onion would be any different. He therefore concludes that the issur isn't peeling, but the separating of the peels once they're mixed into in the heap. He explains the BY's source Y-mi accordingly. I should point out that when I was a child, no one I knew identified peeling as a form of boreir. Seems it may have been beshitah, and not ignorance. The AhS also talks (se'if 9) about non-mixtures, items that are nir'im la'ayin, like clothes, keilim and books. I do not know what he means by keilim, picking out forks from a jumble in the drawer? I bring this up because this issue was also something I didn't hear of until YU. Seems to me boreir grew a lot when the MB became "poseiq acharon" for all y'all. (Minus Sepharadim, of course, who limit boreir to literal okhel, IIUC.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 10:14:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:14:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20181221181420.GA18815@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:33:08PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the : Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, : whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of : Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic : tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- : performing Masoretic acts and decisions... I am not sure we are correctly using the word "mimetic" when discussing the unconscious copying norms and aborbing the culture of such a small "community" as that of posqim. However, if I understand what you mean correctly, I wrote something similar on Torah Musincs, where I tried to nail down what RYBS and RHS mean by the term "Mesorah". Teasers, as they state my point without proving basis: The word "masorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. ... For regular pesak too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from texts. Kara veshanah velo shimeish talmid chacham, harei zeh am ha'aretz.... If he read scripture and studied law, but did not serve a talmid chacham, such a person is an am haaretz (an ignorant peasant). - Sotah 22a ... Similarly, a poseik needs to pick up that feel, and not only the formal rules. He needs the unstructured knowledge of halakhah. Consider this rather poetic description of how the Rav experienced his shiur, entering the dialog of Torah through the ages as he joins his students in the classroom. Notice how he winds up by discussing this experience as "masorah": ... ... In an article in Jewish Action, Rav Schachter provides his definition of the word. He opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. ... The Rav identifies masorah as the ineffable skill to think like a poseik. Masorah is a skill obtained from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in a culture of mimeticism. ... Without masorah, the poseik has no way of determining which solutions to new problems are in concert with the spirit of previous rulings. Halakhah is not frozen; it does not have inertia, but it does have momentum. Apprenticeship, training under a master, transmits the feel for where the halakhah has historically been taken. Following reasoning found in a minority ruling is appropriate only when one is motivated by the Torah's own principles. The person who speaks halakhah as a first language knows when an innovative change is within "poetic license", and when the result simply violates the Torah's "grammar." As R. Yochanan quotes in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah - the apprenticeship of Torah is greater than its study". :-)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 llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 21 11:29:00 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 19:29:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Is_it_forbidden_to_teach_Torah_to_one_w?= =?windows-1252?q?ho_has_not_said_birchas_ha=92Torah=3F?= Message-ID: I wonder how this applies to restaurants. How are they allowed to serve people who do not make brachas before eating? YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Is it forbidden to teach Torah to one who has not said birchas ha?Torah? A. In regards to birchos ha?nehenin (brachos recited on food), there is a concept that one is not permitted to give someone food if the recipient will not recite a bracha. Offering food to one who will not recite a bracha is a violation of ?lifnei iver lo sitain michshol? (enabling one to stumble) (See Shulchan Aruch OC 169:2). However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l (Minchas Shlomo 1:91) writes that this does not apply to teaching Torah to one who did not recite birchas ha?Torah. Birchas ha?Torah is a birchas ha?mitzvah. Though birchos ha?mitzvos are obligatory, we do not find that Chazal forbade the performance of a mitzvah if a bracha is not recited. He notes that not studying Torah (bitul Torah) is a more serious offense than omitting the bracha. If possible, one should instruct those who have come to learn Torah how to recite the bracha, but if this is not practical, one should teach them Torah in any event. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 17:26:16 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:26:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Angels and Requests Message-ID: . In the Friday night poem "Shalom Aleichem", we ask the mal'achim to give us a bracha. We've often mentioned here that some people avoid this poem because it is either similar to avoda zara, or perhaps might actually BE avoda zara. I call your attention to the morning's parsha, Bereshis 48:16, the pasuk "Hamal'ach hagoel osi." Yaakov Avinu refers to a particular mal'ach and asks that this mal'ach should give a bracha to Yosef's sons. At first glance, this seems to be very similar to Shalom Aleichem. How is this justifiable, in the view of those who consider Shalom Aleichem to be problematic? I came up with two possible answers, and I invite the chevra to critique them, and/or suggest other answers. 1) Perhaps the halachos of avoda zara were less restrictive in those pre-Sinai days, and making requests to a mal'ach was okay for Yaakov but not for us. I suppose this is possible, but the centrality of Monotheism to the avos, it would surprise me. 2) I note that in the immediately preceding pasuk, Yaakov addressed Hashem. If so, then maybe Yaakov was not asking the mal'ach directly for a bracha the way we do in Shalom Aleichem. Rather, he was speaking directly to Hashem, asking Hashem that the mal'ach should give the bracha. This would solve the problem of "Who was Yaakov praying to?", but not the problem of "Where do brachos come from?" If the mal'ach is capable of giving a bracha, that too smacks of avoda zara, doesn't it? All comments are welcome. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 03:08:38 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 06:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bircas Kohanim when when the Shaliach Tzibbur is a kohen Message-ID: . On Areivim, R' Sheldon Liberman asked: > I heard over Shabbos that in chutz l'aretz, during the chazzan's > repetition at shacharis, if the chazzan is a kohen, then during > bircas kohanim, there is an opinion that the tzibbur should > answer "Amein" rather than "Kein y'hi ratzon". > > Has anyone heard this? The critical words here are "there is an opinion". It seems reasonable that somewhere in a vast library of seforim, there might be a sefer that suggests such a thing. Whether anyone actually does this is another matter entirely. I don't remember ever hearing anyone actually do this. I'd even argue against it. It makes about as much sense as if one would answer "amen" during the third stanza of "Shalom Aleichem". In both cases we are asking for a bracha, but in neither case have we actually heard any bracha on which to answer "amen". (When we answer "kein yehi ratzon", it means "please give us that bracha" and not "I believe in that bracha which You gave".) Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 26 08:49:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:49:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shul Message-ID: Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points out. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 27 11:49:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:49:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Amoraic statements Message-ID: Anyone know of any writings on how to think about Amoraic statements that are not sourced but very basic (i.e., why weren't they recorded earlier)? Two quick examples: 1.) Shmuel - dina dmalchuta dina (the law of the land controls), 2.) Rav-Tisha achlu dagan vechad achal yerek-mitztarphin.(9 who ate grain and 1 who ate greens combine[for a zimmun of 10]} 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 Dec 27 11:50:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:50:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sukkah Yeshana Message-ID: <0ba366bf435347f8ac060c596a575ca0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The Mishna in Sukkah (9a) discusses Sukkah Yeshana which one would have thought meant an old sukkah (schach) yet the discussion in the gemara indicates that it is an issue of lishma (intent). Why didn't the Mishna use the language of lishma? The gemara then posits a pasuk as the source of Beit Shammai's position, then asks doesn't he need that pasuk for something else, and replies ein hachi name (yes) and so quotes another pasuk instead. What was the point of Ravina/Rav Ashi including the rejected pasuk as part of the record? 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 seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Dec 30 09:44:16 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:44:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, etc. Message-ID: > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on > Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me > Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. > Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points > out. That's not why they talk. They talk because they saw their parents or other adults talk. They learned that talking is perfectly acceptable. The fact that the Shul has not followed the Mishna Berura and appointed people to end the talking merely reinforces the talkers' understanding that talking is OK. It's like asking why people cheat on their taxes. They don't cheat because they're greedy. We're all greedy. But the tax-cheaters don't have a red line. I admit sometimes the davvening is too long for me, and I get restless. But I never talk. And bli neder I won't davven in a shul where there are talkers, even if it's the only shul in town. Ruins it for me. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 18:45:48 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 21:45:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine posted: > Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because > davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there > are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people > get restless. If there were people who can keep quiet during the weekday minyanim, and only talk on Shabbos, then I would consider it to be a reasonable explanation. But in my experience, the same people talk regardless. If someone talks during a weekday maariv, then shaving twenty minutes off of the Shabbos morning won't prevent his restlessness. The authors of the linked article suggested: > Not talking until the conclusion of Chazaras HaShatz, including > the time between when we finish our silent Amidah and we are > waiting for the chazzan, is doable, it is realistic, it is a > fair expectation of those attending and it is the minimum to be > respectful of our friends and neighbors. Sadly, IMO that's not doable, and not realistic. I'd like to think that I'd be satisfied if they'd be quiet merely from when we finish our silent Amidah until the chazan begins. THAT is a minimum for being respectful of our friends and neighbors. They don't even have to be silent for a noticeable improvement. Halevai they would hold it down to a whisper. (And it doesn't count as a whisper if they can be heard 20 feet away.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 03:22:36 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 06:22:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: I should have concluded my previous post with this: Despite my pessimistic tone, I praise those who are working towards a solution. I have seen many corrective attempts fail, but that doesn't mean there's no way to fix it. Talking in shul is a serious problem, and I apologize if my frustration made it sound otherwise. Akiva Miller From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Oct 3 08:32:16 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 11:32:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: <1db301d45b2e$43dda750$cb98f5f0$@com> Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz? (not sepharadim) I was surprised to see it done. Sources? Thanks, 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/ ======= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 2 22:30:47 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 01:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3e882718-3c29-80fa-6211-ff7172a97fba@sero.name> On 30/09/18 14:13, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. I think you meant the Ramban. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 23:18:08 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 09:18:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:23 AM Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. So > go figure out how /he/ understands the idea that 2 were not taught via > Moshe. > According to the Rambam, the first diber _is_ one of the 613, and this gemara is his proof text -- see Sefer Hamitzvot Mitzvot Ase #1. Assuming that "Rambam" is a typo for "Ramban", see his hassaga on the Sefer Hamitzvot. Ramban holds that the second diber includes two of the 613 (don't make idols; don't worship them). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Wed Oct 3 00:23:19 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:23:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:43:14 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine" > From Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra ... >> In 1921 the great bibliographer (and much more) Yitzchak Rivkind >> .... On Simchas Torah they would open the Aron Kodesh >> when saying Aleinu, both at night and during the day, and while singing >> the Niggun of Mussaf of Yom Kippur would bow on the floor exactly like >> we do on Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur. When he asked for the source of >> this Minhag he was told it comes from the Gra... Interesting. The Robshitse Rov had a similar practice, falling on his face during the hakofos. (It is reported that one year, after bowing during hakofos [the first time?], he commented that only he and his son Yaakov [of Melits] understand the secret. After Yom Tov, it became known that R' Yaakov too had participated in this rite.) (Another story tells of how the grandson of the Kosnitse Maggid, R' Elo'ozor, spoke lightly of this minhag [made fun?] to the Robshite Rov's son, R' Eliezer of Dzikhov, whereupon R' Eliezer protested vehemently, saying all his father's customs have a very high source. On his return, R' Elozor's wagon tipped and he was thrown out of his carriage, falling, as we do on Yom Kippur, on his face. He saw this as a retribution for having spoken lightly of the minhag.) From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Oct 3 09:16:33 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:16:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra Message-ID: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 01:17 PM 9/30/2018, R. Zalman Alpert wrote: >The kluiz of the GRaA in Vilna was essentially the only place in Vilna >and all of Lithuania that followed minhage HAgra to the kotzo shel yud >Chaim Grade a lost talmid of the Chazon Ish and a Vilna native mentions >this in his wonderful novels about shil life in Vilna > >Because the Jslm settlement in early 19th cen was started by disciples >of the GRAthe Rivlins,etc these minhogim becamr and remain the standard >for at least the yishuv hayoshen of Jslm and beyond that group > >And thats how we know these customs in realism rather than from seforim >The Litthuanian yrshivas did not follow these customs nor did kohol,and >certainly not the chassidim of Lithuania who after WwI played an impt >role in Jew rel life in greater lita including Vilna My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and are practiced by many there. Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the Torah? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 3 14:51:19 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 17:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For > example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the > Torah? Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim of the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 14:46:37 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:46:37 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >are practiced by many there. >Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >Torah? It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the original Minhag. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 3 15:32:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:32:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading : the Torah? While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does make a similar point. ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. 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 JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 3 15:42:28 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 22:42:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. > _______________________________________________ This is a description of the fact but not an explanation of why this was a halachically acceptable result (ie where is this exception to the minhag hamakom rule) Kt Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 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 Wed Oct 3 15:54:51 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <16705774-1a3c-c42c-0f78-317676dc6114@sero.name> On 03/10/18 17:46, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >> My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >> practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >> find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >> are practiced by many there. > >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >> Torah? > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. That is a different issue, and one that was once controversial and that one can still question. Here the issue is much simpler, because when Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 18:16:02 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:16:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> Message-ID: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. Because if there was, each returnee would have to adopt the Minhag Hamakom the moment he hit an inhabited city. In contrast, there were no religious Jews left in England after the expulsion, so the newcomers can (and should) follow their old minhagim. The same would presumably apply when Jews started coming back to Spain a few decades back, and unlike Moroccans in France a few decades before. But, as I wrote before, it seems that the Minhag is to follow whatever Minhagim you were used to, especially if you have enough landsmen to create a breakaway community. On October 3, 2018 2:51:19 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading >the >> Torah? > >Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim >of >the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they >now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those > >minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed >the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably >French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? > >-- >Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all >zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you >prosper >_______________________________________________ >Avodah mailing list >Avodah at lists.aishdas.org >http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 21:54:40 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 21:54:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 3, 2018 3:32:20 PM PDT, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. What does he hold about Sefardim moving to France or Germany (which had a continuity - Germany going back well, at least a thousand years and France, while it had a break, did have a religious Ashkenazi community before and after the war). On October 3, 2018 3:54:51 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >o Here the issue is much simpler, because when >Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local >minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in >England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed >them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, >there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to >adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 4 06:19:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:19:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. _______________________________________________ The gemara (Bava Metziah 83b) discusses what hours a worker gets paid for based on the Torah "standard." The gemara queries why not just find out what local practice is? The first answer is it's a case of a new city which was nkutai. Rashi defines nkutai as meaning its residents came from multiple other cities, with multiple other practices. Perhaps this is a model for minhag? New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care what we do? 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 Thu Oct 4 10:17:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:17:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181004171737.GA32625@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:19:57PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a : preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard : for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care : what we do? BM 83b is talking about norms for business, which is likely an entirely different use of the word "minhag" than in issur veheter. For example, when we say "minhag mevatel halakhah" in CM discussions, we are relying on the presumption that both parties would take compliance to local business norms for granted, and a deal can have any conditional both parties agree on. In this CM sense of minhag, there is no reason to assume that halakhah would have problems with other norms emerging, since they are based on the agreement of all parties. But that's a whole different topic than Ashk vs Seph differences in the other 3 Turim, which is where we started. That's minhag in the sense of: 1- Rgional pesaq when other regions hold differently (eg bet yosef meat); or 2- Extra-halachic accepted prohibitions or obligations (eg avoiding qitniyos). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 09:16:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:16:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: <20181003205226.GC17060@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181004161626.GF25881@aishdas.org> Moving this from Areivim. On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 4:28pm -0700, Rabbi Meir Rabi wrote on Areivim: : The Beis Hamikdash wasn't inclusive. More than that, (according to some : opinions) there were professions which weren't obligated to do Aliyah : LeRegel because they smelled bad and couldn't be Oleh Regel with everyone. The beraisa (Chullin 4a) says that dog fertilizer gatherers, tanners and copper smiths are "peturin min hare'iyah". The Rambam tells them get get cleaned up and go (Hil' Chagiga 2:2), the Mechaber (Kesef Mishnah ad loc) explaining that we hold like the Rabanan, not that beraisa. But even if we held like that beraisa that's whether they have a petur for not coming, not an issur to come. In fact, inclusivity might be the whole reason /why/ the Rabanan don't hold like the beraisa. But lo ra'isi eino ra'ayah, so to speak, so naniach someone else does take a harder line, what would that mean? Kehunah is not inclusive of all baalei mum. But attending... The BHMQ is inclusive on the basis of things not dependent on the person's own decisions. No one, not even a nakhri child of an eishes ish, is excluded by virtue of who he is. (In the nakhri's case, up to the soreg, but still, that's true of all nakhriim.) You're talking about someone excluded because of what they chose to do. (Again, given said "some opinions".) Admittedly, too many people lack options. But someone who really wants to be oleh regel who is still forced by circumstance to an unpleasant job would choose a different one. Or beg, if they value aliyah laregel more than the protection from sin offered by "yafeh salmud Torah im derekh eretz". My point is, it's a choice, and not the same kind of exclusion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call micha at aishdas.org life which is required to be exchanged for it, http://www.aishdas.org immediately or in the long run. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:46:34 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:46:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <1b84de96-ba9a-be08-b14f-3941c6ca49ec@sero.name> On 03/10/18 21:16, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the > Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. No, there was not. The First and Second Crusades utterly destroyed the communities that had survived the Roman and Arab occupations, and the communities that started resettling EY in the Ramban's day were all immigrants who brought their chu"l minhagim with them, including the minhagim of paskening like the Bavli, keeping two days of Rosh Hashana, and not benching lulav when the first day of Succos falls on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:51:23 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:51:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0f6cfe7e-6504-98a8-c784-c122f84a59ca@sero.name> On 03/10/18 18:32, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? > : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading > : the Torah? > > While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY > community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does > make a similar point. > > ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to > switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. > He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old > minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi > Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 4 12:10:49 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:10:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rabbi wrote: 'When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways.' Agreed. Yerushalayim didn't have continuity as we know via the Ramban finding less than a minyan there when he arrived, but Chevron AFAIK had continuity from Chazal to 1929. I think Teverya did too. The museum of the old yishuv in the Old City refers to the 'mustarvim' as one of the communities in 19th century Jlem, those who were culturally pretty Arab and claimed descent from the pre-crusades community. For more info this wikipaedia page: History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel is well footnoted. So if there's well documented continuous Jewish presence and even communities in EY throughout, how did the SA set minhagim in EY such that ROY held they were obligatory on new arrivals? What happened to pre-existing customs? Or is it that the disruption and wax and wane of communities over EY with continuous small scale aliya meant there was no such such thing as minhag hamakom? Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 14:48:15 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 17:48:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181004214815.GD14160@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:10:49PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not : countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume : such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? I think it has more to do with communication and transportation changes than a change in principle. The new metzi'us is that we're much more aware of what people five towns over are doing. On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 02:51:23PM -0400, Zev Sero replied to my post: : >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to : >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. : >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old : >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi : >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. : But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his : whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all : the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there : were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument : works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? Well, you might have a question about Edot haMizrach, but EY? Didn't you just write about how the Jewish settlement of EY in the 15th cent wasn't all that dense? But I don't think this is relevent, anyway. Let's say they were wrong to take their minhagim with them. Even if the change in minhag was wrong, the normal practice in EY did indeed change. Unlike the situation once that norm was lost and no new consistent minhag emerged (on all but a few issues). So, I could see ROY saying that right or wrong about its establishment, the SA's minhag still stands as the minhag hamaqom. OTOH, invoking the SA means that he is bringing a textual component to the establishment of minhag. IIRC, ROY frames it in terms of the fact that the SA was written in EY, not that the Mechaber got there due to one of the first large yishuv in centuries, nor the yishuv itself. So perhaps we need to know more about ROY's model of minhag before spending so much time on guesses like the one above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 20:13:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 23:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem Message-ID: On Areivim (subject line same as here), several people have bemoaned how difficult it is to use a wheelchair (and many other assistive devices) in the Old City in general, and the Kotel area in particular. In terms of absolute, quantifiable, objective fact, I can't imagine how anyone could dispute that. I am bringing the topic to Avodah in order to discuss what our feelings and attitudes should be towards this situation. Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I often remark that we are fortunate to live in a time when the technology has allowed us such efficient wheelchairs. Our economy has allowed us to make building codes that require ramps and such, which would have been laughably expensive just a few decades back. Ditto for "kneeling buses" and the like. But it seems to me that you don't need technology or wealth to realize that if the shul is built at a median altitude, it will be easier for *everyone*. And yet Chazal thought it is a better idea to make the shul look impressive. Surely I'm missing something here. Can someone please set me straight? Thanks Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 19:04:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 22:04:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim > on chol hamoed in chutz la?aretz? (not sepharadim) > I was surprised to see it done. > Sources? I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 21:10:16 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 00:10:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/18 15:10, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > > Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not > countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to > assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Perhaps the first post-Talmudic book on halacha was a booklet on the differences between minhag EY and minhag Bavel. So the concept of minhag EY goes back to at least the time of the geonim. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 05:01:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:01:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna?s instruction[1] and codified by the Shulchan Aruch,[2] world Jewry started reciting ?Gevuros Geshamim B?Tchiyas HaMeisim?, better known as the formulaic insert ?Mashiv HaRuach U?Morid HaGashem?, in the second bracha of Shemoneh Esrei. This addition, showcasing the Might of G-d by mentioning the fact that He is the only One who has the power and ability to make rain, is considered so imperative that one who forgets to insert it must repeat the whole Shemoneh Esrei.[3] As there are no vowels in the Gemara or Shulchan Aruch, an interesting question arises: what is the proper way to pronounce the Hebrew word for rain (???) in this sentence? Is it Ge shem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel; eh sound) or is it Ga shem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel; uh sound)? Although the word for rain is pronounced Ge shem when saying the word by itself, still, its proper pronunciation might be changed when part of a sentence. Contemporary halachic authorities used various rules of Hebrew Grammar (dikduk) to come up with the proper solution. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 5 05:28:54 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:28:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 8:01 AM >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 >> On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction... With all due respect for the many great g'dolim who weighed in on this issue and came up with explanations about what the proper pronunciation should be, they came late in the game, after grammarians had already started changing the pronunciation. The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 07:37:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 10:37:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:01:40PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 I have yet to see a discussion that starts at the beginning. Bemechilas kevod everyone who holds "gashem", and who am I to argue against the Gra, the Netziv, the CC, R' Aharon Kotler, R YS Elyashiv, or Rav Moshe? But this article gets closer, by mentioning Sepharadim and the Levushei Mordekhai. Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:28:54PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : they came late in the game, after grammarians had already : started changing the pronunciation. : The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the : rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, : Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be : no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. But this doesn't prove that our mesorah was necessarily that there was a significan pause after "umorid hagashem". Yes, the Teimanim say "Jafen" on wine, and yet still say "geshem" here with a segol. Their mesorah is that is is not a pause. But for Ashkenazim, those older manuscripts do not prove whether or not there is a pause, since the diqduq they used would have "geshem" either way. As for Nusach haAri, Lubavitch's Alter Rebbe liked R Wolf Heidenheim's (Ravah's) siddur and diqduq, so his Nusach Ari was one of the early adopters of these language innovations. Interestingly, this means that most Ashkneazim today are davening in a nusach that is primarily a haskalisher attempt to reconstruct an authentic nusach, that is based on some ahistorical assumptions of what "authentic" was, to boot. And R/Dr Mandel is the only person I know who unwound that shift from Mishaic to Biblical Hebrew across all of davening. Unless you're willing to take that drastic step ("sabe'einu mituvakh, vesamcheinu biyshu'asakh"), saying "geshem" when most of your Hebrew is Mishnaic could something different than it did in those manuscripts, depending if a pause was intended. And, depending on whether the phrase might even be an exception to the usual rules of diqduq. (See R Spitz's article.) We simply can't know. R' Spitz concludes: Postscript: This is just one of a number of places where the majority consensus of Poskim maintain that dikduk decides the proper reading of tefillos.[30] Although many Gedolim through the ages spoke about dikduk's importance,[31] unfortunately its study at present is much neglected. In the words of Rabbi Yisroel Reisman in his excellent book Pathways of the Prophets:[32] "The myth of the lack of importance of (at least) a minimal amount of knowledge of dikduk must be dispelled. This is an area where a small amount of time and effort go a long way. Let's do it!" But to some up this post, we also need to know *which* diqduq. To provide the footnotes for that last quote: [30] See at length Rabbi Yisroel Reisman's Pathways of the Prophets, "Rules of Dikduk" starting on pg. 312. [31] For example see the Rambam's Peirush HaMishnayos (Avos Ch. 2, 1), Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim 142, 1), Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah (Ch. 5, 3), Shu"t Chavos Yair (124), Shu"t Sheilas Ya'avetz (vol. 1, 10), and Bnei Yisaschar (Introduction to Igra D'Kallah and Mayon Ganim 13, 6), all cited in the aforementioned chapter. [32] Pathways of the Prophets (pg. 325). L'iluy Nishmas the Rosh HaYeshiva - Rav Chonoh Menachem Mendel ben R' Yechezkel Shraga, Rav Yaakov Yeshaya ben R' Boruch Yehuda, and l'zchus for Shira Yaffa bas Rochel Miriam and her children for a yeshua teikef u'miyad! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Fri Oct 5 07:14:32 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:14:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An interesting discussion on this is given here by Dr Shnayer Lehman https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm YUTorah Online Online study of the Jewish holidays, Parsha, Halakha and Talmud by Yeshiva University www.yutorah.org From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 5 04:54:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 07:54:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When Sefardi and Ashkenazim Meet Message-ID: <56.57.22391.E4157BB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Rabbi Eli Mansour discusses the convergence of Sefardi and Ashkenazi traditions in contemporary Israel. Please see the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgoo.gl%2FWT2Hjq&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C97625655127d4ae2115708d62aad6b61%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636743321668910329&sdata=qGd8srOfQuC0kDFzrWfAVXfNbcQiB%2BvvgPyGWe3HehQ%3D&reserved=0 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 04:45:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:45:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5310ADD1-3CFE-455E-A5FD-9847E3F075C7@sibson.com> > > I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. > > Akiva Miller > > > _______________________________________________ > But do they duchen at shacharit on yom tov? 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 Fri Oct 5 08:00:43 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:00:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> References: , <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 10:37 AM ... > Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal > form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs > "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, > or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei > Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). > The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because > they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And > Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. ... A slight correction to R Micha's post: as far as we can tell, Chazal Hebrew DID have pausal forms. But they were not based on trop, of course, nor even on on the end of a sentence. They are used consistently in a case of parellismus membrorum in L'shon Chazal, and I am pretty sure in some other situations as well, according to the evidence from the oldest mss. with vocalization, such as the famous Kaufmann ms. of the Mishnah. But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: ??? ???? ?????? ?????, ???? ?? ?? ??????? ...? ?????? ????? ???????? ??????, ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? [For those in digest text mode and therefore can't see the Hebrew, this quote begins "LaKeil Barukh, ne'imos..." -micha] To the best of my knowledge, all old nuskah'ot have "yittenu." Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 06:14:47 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 13:14:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3252f45264ff47778db42a4dcee99b7d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I---------------------------------- IMHO Thomas Kuhn?s thoughts on paradigm shift are applicable here. Western liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be (e.g. I might like to do the avodah but I?m not a cohain) So yes, it could really be (but I?m not qualified to say it is) 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 seinfeld at daasbooks.com Fri Oct 5 08:40:01 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:40:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: 7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY: 1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts scientific History, that?s not a kasheh on the Torah, it?s more like a sha?elah - ?Why did HKBH write this? What?s He teaching me here?? 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no significant debate about that. 3. We don?t know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek ? sounds a lot like the descriptions we have of the Big Bang. 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round. They really do look that way. So either HKBH made them looking old for some reason, or they really are old. A person can ignore the question and say, ?It?s enough for me just to believe,? but the Gemara (and plenty of Rishonim and Acharonim) says that we have an obligation to study Nature to the best of our ability. 6. There are plenty of things that the smartest scientists admit they don?t know. For instance, they think that right after the moment of creation (Big Bang), the entire universe inflated instantly, like someone blowing up a balloon. Just to make this clear. There are patterns in the universe that defy logical explanation. In order to explain these patterns, it has been proposed (and accepted by many but not all cosmologists) that from 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second until 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second after the Big Bang, the universe expanded at an exponential rate (in that short moment it got 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and then the expansion slowed down. They have good reasons for believing this theory. It helps explain some of the bizarre things that we see when we look through our telescopes, chiefly, the fact that the universe appears to be the same in all directions. Yet they have no idea what could have caused this inflation. Worse for them, the current rate of expansion has been proven to be accelerating, but again they have no idea what invisible energy source could be causing this. It would be far simpler to say, ?It looks the same in every direction because it was created at the current size; there was no Big Bang and no expansion and no inflation.? But wait, we see that it is indeed currently expanding. Doesn?t that prove the Big Bang? - Expansion doesn?t prove anything. It?s a fact that requires a theory to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously expand. - Maybe this bizarre things accelerating expansion that we see, along with hypothetical inflation, are just the artist?s signature on His artwork? For after all, the only thing that can cause acceleration is more energy. The best rational explanation for this invisible ?dark? energy is that Hashem continues to be mashpia on the world and wants us to know it, without being too obvious. But wait, we also know that the stars are zillions of miles away from us, and given the known speed of light, their starlight should have taken millions or even billions of years to reach us. Doesn?t that prove at least that the universe is mighty old? - No, it doesn?t: see #5 above. 7. Yet to constantly answer, ?Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, ?What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with ?Hashem does it? without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. So what?s the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, or was it just made to look that way? I don?t know, but I?m personally completely comfortable with either answer. Neither answer can (to my understanding) be proven nor disproven. I suspect they are both true. That, as my grandfather z??l would have said, is my 2-bits. Your critical feedback welcome. Good Shabbos Alexander Seinfeld jewishspirituality.net From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 08:25:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:25:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on Marriage Message-ID: The following are excerpts from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 1:28 28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. "????????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ????????????: 28 God blessed both of them, and He made both of them responsible for the fulfillment of mankind?s mission. ??????? refers to marriage, the union of the sexes for production of human fruit ? children. Just as the choice energies and saps of the tree become ?free? in its fruit as an independent germ (see above, v. 11), so the noblest traits of godliness and humaneness of the father and mother unite to produce an independent human germ. ?????? refers to the family. r'vah = to multiply. Begetting children is not sufficient in order for the human species to multiply. Even in the case of many species of animals, increase of the breed is dependent on care of the young; and in the case of the human species, such care is absolutely essential ? even if viewed only from a physical standpoint. A human child has no chance of survival at all, if his parents do not provide him with care from the moment of his birth and do not continually promote his bodily well-being and development. Not the birth, but the care is the true cause of human increase. But r'vah includes more than this. The parents are obligated to reproduce themselves through their children: They must recur in the image of their children; and the children are to resemble their parents ? not only physically, but spiritually and morally. The parents are to plant and nurture in their children the best of their spiritual and moral powers. In short, their duty is to form and educate their children spiritually and morally. Only then will they recur in the image of their children and fulfill the mitzvah of ?????? . ?????????? refers to property (see Commentary, v. 26). Man is commanded to master the earth and subdue it. His task is to acquire the products of the earth and to transform them, so that they become fit for his purposes. Acquisition of property is prerequisite for the tasks of home and society. Property serves as an instrument with which home and society achieve their aims. Thus, the acquisition of property becomes a moral duty. The mitzvah of ??????, however, is written here last, which implies a limitation: There is no moral value to property, unless it is devoted to home and society. It is a person?s duty to acquire material assets, in order to build a home and to further the society. He should not build a home and support the society in order increase his assets and his wealth. The mitzvah of ???????????? is given at once to both sexes; they are to collaborate in harmony so as to fulfill this mission of man. Nevertheless, before establishing his home, man must first acquire material assets, and this duty ? subduing the earth, so as to further man?s aims ? is primarily incumbent only upon the male. For this reason the duty of marriage and of establishing a home is assigned directly only to the man, and only to him is it given as an unconditional duty. To the woman it is given as a conditional duty; it applies to her, only when she joins her husband. (See Yevamos 65b.) These commands place the Divine imprint on every aspect of familyand communal life. The Torah does not recognize the compartmentalization of life into God-oriented or ?religious,? on the one hand, and profane, untouched by things Divine, on the other. God claims all of life for His service and for the fulfillment of man?s mission as adom. This applies, first and foremost, to family and communal life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 11:59:27 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:59:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <20181005185927.GB26105@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 02:46:37PM -0700, RMR wrote: : It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they : vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, : they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. : So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter : Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the : Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the : original Minhag. I think it's more that minhag hamaqom is about the community, not the geography. If so many new people move in that they overhwelm the old community, they also overwhelm the old minhag. However, when Edot haMizrach got to the US in the late 20th century, many of them moved into existing communities and neither drowned out the old minhag nor did they adopt it. I think they should have done the latter, since minhag avos is only a "thing" when there is no minhag hamaqom. (Except in places like Deal, NJ, which is predominantly Syrian) And for many minhagim, the existing community -- from Yekkes to Vizhnitzers -- did have a single practice. This gets me to an issue left unresolved in a previous discussion of minhag hamaqom: Does minhag hamaqom apply piecewise, or only when there are so many practices that are consistent that there is a general feeling of unity of pesaq. For example, we talk about there being a "minhag hamaqom" in EY about things like saying Shir shel Yom after Shacharis even when there is a Mussaf, or Hakafos after Hallel. But the list of things in which the vast majority of the observant communities of Israel agree upon is quite small. Heterogeneity is the norm. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 12:31:12 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:31:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99B66C72-E111-47AA-ABA5-8E2A753AE7A4@opengemara.org> On October 5, 2018 8:40:01 AM PDT, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: >7 things every Jew should know about Ma'aseh Bereishit, even if it was >not taught in BY: >1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras >Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts >scientific History, that's not a kasheh on the Torah, it's more like a >sha'elah -- "Why did HKBH write this? What's He teaching me here?" ... >4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the >descriptions we have of the Big Bang. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work -- according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). >7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit >facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, >"What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem >does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we >would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving >us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how >to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things >work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Oct 6 11:38:57 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 21:38:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:13 PM Mandel, Seth via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have > at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that > "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, > and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, > in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei gever" in birchot hashahar? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 15:42:10 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C9B4494-797A-437D-B042-3D7AAD5FEFBD@opengemara.org> 1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? 2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). 3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 7 05:56:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 08:56:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181007125626.GC4739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 06:22:12PM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they : also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla : for geshem. I think that's the usual. After all, in Tefillas Geshem we don't just continue the list "mashiv haruach umorid hageshem, mekhalkeil chaim bechesed..." The pause before "Livrakhah velo liqlalah" is less of a question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From isaac at balb.in Sun Oct 7 00:22:12 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 18:22:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I say Geshem (as per R' Soloveitchik et al) I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla for geshem. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sun Oct 7 12:30:33 2018 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:30:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] BDE Moras Shulamith Bechhofer Message-ID: Information from RYBG on facebook: Kevurah for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h,will be at Har HaMenuchos. My brother, Horav Yochanan Meir shlita sitting shiva for 2 days from Monday night after the kevura until Wednesday afternoon in Ramat Shlomo, number 37 Shtefenesht Street by the Schaefer family. Shiva for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h will be at my mother's apartment 146 Beach 9th Street, apartment 4D, Far Rockaway, New York. Beginning Monday morning, Shacharis at 7:30 am, Mincha and Maariv at 6:05 pm. Please try to come be menachem avel before 10:00 pm. I will be returning to Monsey for Mincha Gedola on Friday at 1:15 pm, Maariv Motzoei Shabbos an hour after shekiah, and Shacharis on Sunday morning at 7:30 am, at our house, 3 Zabriskie Terrace. Besuros Tovos. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Sun Oct 7 13:03:01 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 20:03:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message Message-ID: I thought Alexander Seinfeld?s post on this subject was very interesting. I would, however, make one small change. Instead of writing ?7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY,? I would say: 7 things I and some other Orthodox Jews believe about ....? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 01:34:52 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:34:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant past. For example, in the recent controversy over Judge Kavanaugh the following appeared in a world street journal article Christine Blasey Ford was believable and sincere when she told her story of being assaulted by a young Brett Kavanaugh. So was Judge Kavanaugh when he categorically denied her claims?and none of her purported eyewitnesses have any memory of the gathering she describes. They can?t both be telling the truth, but it is possible neither is deliberately lying. The article then goes on to describe how one's memory is affected by (unconscious) attempts to heal emotional wounds. This leads to repression of embarrassing memories or memories becomes less clear over time Furthermore, the adolescent brain (9 to 25) is not fully developed. Middle adolescence (14 to 17) is a time when teens have little connection to the past or future and think only of the present. (In Israel at least 14-17 year olds are very conscious of their future and especially army service at 18) ----------------------------- I don't personally agree with all the details of the article but the total impression is that two people in their 50s testifying about an event in their teen years should be taken with a big grain of salt. Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so would probably pass "drishot"; As an aside I am aware of dayanim questioning witnesses. Is their anyting in halacha about the defendant giving his version and being questioned by the dayanim? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Oct 7 19:16:55 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2018 22:16:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi thanks for your comments. >1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? Not necessarily. Meaning, at times it does, but not always in the way that secular people use the term History. So we should not compare the two. I?d rather say, ?It contains historical information? >2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as >the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no >plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and >there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or >you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the >world was created old). We don?t have to make it work. The point is that most people frankly have no clue what cosmology says about origins (other that it?s complicated and somewhat mystical), and they often dismiss Torah because it appears to them so unsophisticated. Peeking at the Rambam gives one a clue that we have a Mesorah of a extremely sophisticated, complicated and mystical Bereishis. >3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So >hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a >source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted >from Gan Eden)? No I don?t. But I believe I saw in Rav Hirsch that Adam was first created outside Gan Eden and only put in there for the test. From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 8 05:24:45 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:24:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46de6a96-5987-0a36-1097-b2c09f3d0ebd@sero.name> On 08/10/18 04:34, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note > that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so > would probably pass "drishot"; She certainly wouldn't. The most glaring problem with her claim was precisely that she could not fulfil the most basic drishot: "when and where did this allegedly happen"? Without being able to specify these it becomes "eidut she'i ata yachol lehazima" -- it's impossible to claim that the accused was elsewhere that day, let alone the witness. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 06:26:27 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:26:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700, Rabbi wrote: The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes > are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that > nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan > Eden)? *Yes, Chazal and the Rishonim all understood that the six day creation process was not a natural one.* ''All of creation was created fully formed''. At *ma?aseh b?reishis* the ox was created not as a calf but as an adult [Rashi in *Rosh Hashanah* 26a s.v. *shor sheh-hu par*]; and Adam was likewise created as an adult standing fully erect, the Talmud reports, within the same 24-hour period. The idea that Creation was anything less than a totally miraculous process, not conducted through natural processes at all, ''accelerated? or otherwise, is rejected by the *Maharal* (*Be?er HaGolah*, p. 83, *Be?er Four*): Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory?not by means of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. The *Rambam* explains in *Moreh Nevuchim *that it is illegitimate to base conclusions about the origin of the world by examining how the world looks now and assuming that the processes that would now produce such results were responsible, because the nature of things at their origin is different. EVERYTHING produced comes into existence from non-existence; even when the substance of ?a thing has been in existence, and has only changed its form, the thing itself, which has gone ?through the process of genesis and development, and has arrived at its final state, has now ?different properties from those which it possessed at the commencement of the transition from ?potentiality to reality, or before that time. Take, for example, the human ovum as contained in the ?female's blood when still included in its vessels: Its nature is different from what it was in the ?moment of conception, when it was met by the semen of the male and began to develop. The ?properties of the semen in that moment were different from the properties of the living being ?after its birth when fully developed. It is therefore quite impossible to infer, from the nature ?anything possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the ?condition of the thing had been at the time this process commenced. Nor does the condition of ?a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and ?attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually ?existing, you will fall into great confusion: You win reject evident truths and admit false ?opinions.? Let us assume, in our above instance, that a man born without defect had after his birth been ?nursed by his mother only a few months; the mother then died, and the father alone brought him ?up in a lonely island, till he grew up, became wise, and acquired knowledge. Suppose this man ?has never seen a woman or any female being: he asks some person how man has come into ?existence, and how he has developed, and receives the following answer: ''Man begins his ?existence in the womb of an individual of his own class, namely, in the womb of a female, which ?has a certain form. While in the womb he is very small; yet he has life, moves, receives ?nourishment, and gradually grows, till he arrives at a certain stage of development. He then ?leaves the womb and continues to grow till he is in the condition in which you see him.'' The ?orphan will naturally ask: ''Did this person, when he lived, moved, and grew in the womb, eat ?and drink, and breathe with his mouth and his nostrils? Did he excrete any substance?'' The ?answer will be, ''No.'' Undoubtedly he will then attempt to refute the statements of that person, ?and to prove their impossibility, by referring to the properties of a fully developed person, in the ?following manner: ? When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and remained alive, able to move?? ? If any one of us would swallow a living bird, the bird would die immediately when it ?reached the stomach, much more so when it came to the lower part of the belly; if we ?should not take food or drink with our mouth, in a few days we should undoubtedly be ?dead! How then can a human being remain alive for months without taking food?? ? If any person would take food and would not be able to excrete it, great pains and death ?would follow in a short time--and yet I am to believe that man has lived for months ?without that function?!? ? Suppose by accident a hole were formed in the belly of a person, it would prove fatal, ?and yet we are to believe that the navel of the fetus has been open?!? ? Why should the fetus not open the eyes, spread forth the bands and stretch out the legs, if, ?as you think, the limbs are all whole and perfect?!? This mode of reasoning would lead to the conclusion that man cannot come into existence and ?develop in the manner described.? We, the community following in the footsteps of Moses and Abraham, believe that the world came into being IN such-and-such a form, and BECAME such-and-such FROM such-and-such (*haya kach mi-kach *), and such WAS CREATED AFTER such. Aristotle comes to uproot our words, bringing proofs against us based upon nature in its stabilized, perfected and active state. As for us, we declare against him that this is legitimate evidence [for determining processes that must have occurred] after nature?s having settled down in its fully developed stage; but in no way does this correspond to something?s characteristics at its being brought into existence, and produced out of absolute non-existence (MN 2:17). Shabbos marks the cessation of a process that was ongoing beforehand. If G-d's method of development of the world was through the same natural laws and processes in effect now, what ceased on the first Shabbos? None of the things mentioned above [the creation of Eve from Adam, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge, the history of the serpent and the events connected therewith] is impossible, because THE LAWS OF NATURE WERE THEN [UNTIL THE END OF THE SIX DAYS] NOT PERMANENTLY FIXED (Ibid. 2:30). The Ralbag uniquely understands specific statements by Chazal to be saying that Hashem created virtually everything simultaneously and instantaneously on the first day, all in their fully developed form (with the exception of the growth of vegetation of the fifth day) and that therefore the ?days? of Creation are ?categories.? This makes the creation process even less natural. It is noteworthy that the approach of the Ralbag is to build the understanding through the teachings of *Chazal*, and not through rejecting them on the basis that they differ with the science of the day. Zvi Lampel > > > > > [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/08/18, 9:21:07 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Oct 8 07:38:02 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 10:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Noach An Interesting Insight Message-ID: Last week God created the world. This week (some 1,656 years later), God destroys the world. Interestingly, the Baal Hatanya (Shneur Zalman of Liadi) writes that the flood has never ended and continues until this very day. We are all subject to the floods in life. We are flooded with all sorts of problems, issues, conflicts, etc. ? some more, some less. The world is still chaotic but when we do our part to minimize our personal floods, we help to minimize the floods of the world. The flood of money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy. Theodore White (American political journalist and historian) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 11:37:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:34:52AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. : Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by : many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant : past. Chaqirah is the ability to answer specific questions about the when and where of the event: 1- Which shemitah cycle 2- Which year in the cycle 3- Which month 4- Day of month 5- Day of week 6- Hour of day 7- Where And the SA discusses what we do now when we don't use 1&2 as the primary means of identifying the year, if the person is off by a day in the month, but has the correct day-of-week so that it's an obvious calendar mistake not error, etc... There is also the regular notion of cross examination, derishah. Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, asked of each eid separately. And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. So let's talk more about dinei mamonos, where neither hasra'ah nor eid echad neeman be'isurim apply. Still, we confabulate memories. Especially emotionally laden ones like something a heated argument is churning over. But can two eidim confabulate identically when they can't hear eachothers' cross-examination? But I would like to really focus on is: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. If so, why would we hold terei kemei'ah? After all, if dozens of people say the same thing, why would we believe two holdouts equally? For that matter, what would eidus be more trustworthy than even "smoking gun" level evidence? I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. But I fear that more than one paragraph on this topic would annoy people who didn't go for the idea in prior iterations. So, unless there is interest expressed, I will stop here. 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 larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Oct 8 14:39:41 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 17:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben Shapiro's take on abortion. YL Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when he speaks and is being interviewed. On Sunday, at the conclusion of the latest edition of The Ben Shapiro Election Special on the Fox News Network, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro used the last segment of the show to mount a powerful assault on abortion that was unlike any seen on a network news show before. Shapiro showed pictures from ultrasounds and illustrations of babies at various stages in utero to support his case, aware that when women see ultrasounds of the babies they are carrying, they are much less likely to consider having an abortion. Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. The later the abortion takes place, the more brutal the procedure, but no matter the brutality of the procedure, it is obvious that abortion is not some mere optional surgery to be performed for convenience. And it?s even more obvious that those who want to protect the lives of the unborn aren?t trying to control women?s bodies. Those who cherish abortion are trying to control and dismember the bodies of the unborn. Think about that next time you see a radical feminist in a Handmaid's Tale outfit suggesting that you?d better respect her right to carve apart an unborn baby in the womb or you?re some sort of fascist. No more euphemisms. See https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F36835%2Fwatch-shapiro-gives-fiery-unprecedented-assault-daily-wire&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=%2Bqenj6TOK0BiMopCLwHGel5WMFGPn5BJJ7Onf2R6yuM%3D&reserved=0 and especially the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Ftime_continue%3D27%26v%3DpoB8aIXI0Yo&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=kLq3f6Bo%2F9X3rP4HXORP3uhB5Wo6hC1ifHM%2BVBGt9j4%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 19:50:38 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:50:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181009025038.GA29143@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 05:39:41PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: :> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of :> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. Well, Rav Moshe holds as much, but most posqim do not. Shapiro is conflating the fact that Yahadus considers abortion a serious avlah with Pro-Life rhetoric that the avlah happens to be retzichah. Halachipidia has the following list (my translitations): What is the Prohibition? 1. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein - abortion is considered murder. However, this murder does not come with a death penalty. There are some cases of murder when the murderer does not get the death penalty. One of these cases is someone who murders one who is terminally ill. [4] 2. Rabbi Issar Unterman - abortion is considered abuzraihu deretzichah akin to murder.[5] 3. It is a violation of the positive commandment of peru urvu Part of the commandment is to allow every potential soul to come into being, and if one does abortion, they cannot do this. [6] 4. Spilling the seed/Onanism. The fetus is more similar to the basic seed than to a human, so destroying the fetus would be like destroying the seed.[7] 5. Aborting the fetus is injuring the mother (Chavalah). Exodus 21 says that if two men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and there is no death, but the fetus is miscarried, then they have to pay a monetary payment. So the fetus is more a part of the mother than a separate life. [8] 6. It is a Rabbinical prohibition. There is no clear prohibition in the Torah, so our only real sources are the rabbinical sources.[9] 7. According to the Zohar, one who kills a fetus is guilty of destroying God's handiwork. [10] it is unclear if this constitutes a different view of the technical prohibition, or if this is just a reasoning explaining the severity of abortion. A punishment unlike that for murder is detailed. Notes: [4] Iggros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat, Part 2, Chapter 69 [5] I.Y. Unterman, Noam VI (1963), 1-11 as cited in David Feldman, Birth Control In Jewish Law [6] Yevamos 63b [7] Talmud Bavli: Niddah 13a; Chavos Yair, Siman 31 [8] Exodus 21:22 [9] Sanhedrin 72; Tzitz Eliezer, Jerusalem, 1963, volume VII, number 48, p. 190. [10] Hok L'Yisrael, Shemot for Monday, Zohar, Shemot 3b Note how most shitos do say the fetus is not a person. #5 in particular is based on the idea that the fetus is an organ of the mother. (Which is also consistent with pen paqua.) No.s 3, 4 and 7 are about stopping the process of later producing a person. Likely #2 (abuzraihu deretzichah) as well, although it could be some other near-retzichah connection. And as for #6, it depends which deOraisa the deRabbanan is supporting. But even so, not retzichah, no human life yet. As the Bach explains the Rambam's position... You can abort a fetus to save the life of the mother a moment before it would have crowned, because it is kerotzeiach -- LIKE a rotzeiach. But it's not actually a rotzeiach, which is why in the same situation but a moment later, once the baby did crown, one could not commit infanticide to save the mother. A fetus before crowning is not subject to the same issur as after. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 9 11:04:42 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:04:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 Message-ID: In June 1990 Light Magazine published an article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer dealing with "his life in perspective; what is Torah Im Derech Eretz? ; his attitude toward modern Hebrew; and his mida of emess and bitachon. The article is at Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 9 15:26:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> References: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181009222604.GA27505@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 02:37:57PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, : asked of each eid separately. : : And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim : had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they : had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. .... REMT, kedarko beqodesh, gently corrected me in private. The eidim testifying need to have witnessed hasra'ah, and didn't have to have given it themselves. Which means that the tail of my post applies to sin/crim as well, not only dinei mamunus (as long as it's not eid echad ne'eman be'isusim). I think what I said about confabulation vs indepent derishah vechaqira of each eid separately, and (more importantly) my argument for not assuming that the neemanus accorded eidus isn't because we necessarily consider it the least fallible both still stand. Chodesh Tov! 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Thu Oct 11 01:20:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:20:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom Message-ID: << But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? >> The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a sefardi community and ROY's claim is that the Ashkenazim should have followed the existing sefardi customs. Obviously the talmidei hagra and the chassidim didn't agree. How far one goes back is part of a responsa by RMF that one who davens "chassidic" can change to Ashkenaz but not the other way since the original minhag was Asjkenaz and changed by the early chassidim. So according to RMF the fact someonepnes great...grandather 10 generations ago davened in nusach Ashkenaz has halachic meaning As to minhag EY and minhag Yerushalayim most date back about 100 years ago and a few to the days of takmidei hagra and the early chassidim. Almost none to earlier than that. The minhag of having a single drummer at a wedding in Jerusalem has mostly been replaced by a single organ player that can simulate a whole orchestra. Others claim that it holds only in the old city or that it was established by the old yishuv some 100 years ago and they are not part of that community One widespread minhag EY from the talmidei hagra and hasidim is not to wear tefillin on chol hamoed. Even in this case I have heard of some olim who put on tefillin after they return from shul. One really ancient minhag in Yerushalayim refers to not leaving a corpse overnight and so having funerals in the middle of the night. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 03:01:59 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:01:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fish With Legs?! In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: In Parshas Noach, we read about how Hashem brought the Great Flood and destroyed all living creatures, save for those inside Noach?s Ark and the fish in the oceans, who were spared as well. It would be fascinating to find out on which side of the Teiva a ?fish with legs? would have been. Would it have been considered a fish or an animal? Far from being a theoretical question, this actually happened when... To find out the full story, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Fish with Legs?!" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 02:58:05 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:58:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach Message-ID: The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both immorality and dishonesty?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 09:49:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011164903.GC19398@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 09:58:05AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach :> It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality :> than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. : : I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both : immorality and dishonesty?" The Meshekh Chomah notes... Pausing here for a shameless plug: I am now giving a quick (15-20 min) talk on Facebook Wed nights 9:30pm EDT. This comment is from that. So, the MC notes... That the dor hamabul sinned both - sexually - ki hishchis kol basar; and - financially - chamas. And he writes about the opening pasuq, based on a Rashi on the Gemara (AZ 6a): tamim -- anav ushefal ruach tzadiq - [bemaasav -gemara] - belo chamas RMShK writes that Noach "bedorosav" -- his 2 doros -- had very different challenges. Living in the pre-flood dor, being a tzadiq bemaasav and not influenced by the general dishonesty and sexual license around him, was the greater challenge. (How often does someone cut ethical corners because "that's how business is done now?") However being tamim in his midos, his anavah, was easy. The culture didn't value his tzidqus. However, in the post-flood dor, everything existed becaus of him. And the people around him had learned from the experience of tending to the animals for a year. Little challenge from peer pressure, but a much bigger challenge keeping his ego in check. This is a point the MC makes on "Malki-Tzedeq melekh Shaleim" -- the year in the midbar was a lesson in sheleimus, and that's his part of the foundation of Y-m. Avrahama added "behar Hashem Yeira'ah" to make Yerushalayim. (And thus the "-ayim", pair, in the name.) See MC Bereishis 22:14. Back to the point, it would seem that chazal attribute both difficulties to Noach's pre-flood life. It too was an "age of both immorality and dishonesty". 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 llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 08:58:19 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:58:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood ? make the ark [to consist] of enclosures for animals ? and cover it inside and out with pitch. In any event, a tavah is shaped like a box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ has no relationship to the one Noach built. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 11 07:06:55 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:06:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/10/18 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole >> Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other >> countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing >> communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and >> not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? > > The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established > community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new > minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a > sefardi?community But this isn't the case. After the crusades destroyed the original EY community with its minhagim, a new community was established by olim, who brought their mihagim with them from chu"l, and by the time the grushei Sefarad arrived there was already an established community. And what about the rest of the Mediterranean, where there were thousand-year-old communities? Leshitaso shouldn't the Sefardim who settled in each of those countries have adopted the local mihagim? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 11 06:10:16 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:10:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices Message-ID: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were an ongoing situation? 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 Thu Oct 11 07:29:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:29:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching Torah to Women Message-ID: Although throughout the ages there were Jewish women who were learned and revered1 the concept of formal education for women is barely a century old.2 Before this time, they would learn whatever was necessary from their parents.3 Girls generally did not go out of the home, and were often illiterate.4 The modern school system teaches many subjects to the girls, including Chumash, Halachah, Navi and Mishnah. Some even teach Gemara.5 Girls learn Chumash in depth with Ramban, and study more halachah than boys in yeshivah.6 The Bais Yaakov movement was spearheaded by Sarah Schenirer with just twenty-five girls in 1917,7 as a reaction to many factors8 which had changed the status quo.9 Since then, hundreds of girls? schools have been created. For more on this topic Click here to download "Teaching Torah to Women" For information about the history of the Bais Yaakov movement see https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note the curriculum of the Bais Yaakov Seminary in Krakow starting on page 77. In particular, Five Books of Moses: This included the study of the Five Books of Moses in the original and in its entirety with the commentary of Rashi and Rabbi Samuel Raphael Hirsch. and German: Instruction in the correct oral and written use of the language. The goal of this course was to provide the teachers with the ability to read by themselves the important religious literature of Hirsch and others which were written in the German language, as well as selected classical works such as the poetry of Schiller, Goethe, Nathan the Wise by Lessing, Zweig, and Beer-Hoffman. Times have indeed changed, have they not! YL study times. of the Five -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 10:04:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:04:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: <20181011170422.GD19398@aishdas.org> I got to the Arukh haShulchan's discussion of Chazal changing the entire definition of qinyan. MideOraisa, paying would be the qinyan. But Chazal were afraid that sellers wouldn't properly safeguard the item between payment and handing it over to the buyer. After all, any loss or damage is the buyers, ownership was already transfered. So, chazal made various qinyanim that demonstrate the buyer taking the item. The Torah gives the halakhah. Chazal realize that given the low state of the people around them, the halakhah would have cons that outweigh the pros. So, they change it. Reminds me of pruzbul or heter isqa, cases where in order to help someone who needs a loan get one, we allow suboptimal loan arrangements. In each case, a different validation for doing so: - Qinyan in general allows custom and agreement by both parties override the default law. - Similarly heter isqa was always technically allowed; our rabbanim just standardized a means of utilizing this alternative financial arrangement. - Pruzbul is violating shemittah derabbanan. So, while the gemara requires the motive of helpoing the poor get loans to even violate the ke'ein deOraisa, tHillel didn't rewrite Torah. But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and limit the damage. So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:01:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:01:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011190137.GG27474@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 03:58:19PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 :> In any event, a tavah is shaped like a :> box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward :> the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut :> through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. : Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ : has no relationship to the one Noach built. True; it's just the reconstruction of some Xians, given the text and the assumption that it was build not to capsize. RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis for Noach et al not to have capsized. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Oct 11 13:34:12 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:34:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Again read RSRH's commentary and you will see how he arrives at his conclusion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:14:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011191454.GA19331@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:13:44PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else : being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. : I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a : location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and : elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities : of young folks. RJR suggests that the advantage to the tzibbur would indeed trump the disadvantage for the individual. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 1:14pm UCT, he wrote: : ... Western : liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish : thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role : and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be... The comment RAM was replying to (I think) was my discussion of the advantage to the majority of the community of being pushed to think about those who need more help. IOW, not accessible shuls for the sake of those who need accessibility, but for the sake of those who need practive remembering as they pursue qedushah they they must consider others. (Especially leshitas RSShkop, where qedushah is /defined/ as commitment "leheitiv im hazulas". Not exclusively so.) I think it's simply that the hill wasn't thought of as a major inconvenience. And perhaps an obstacle likely to keep someone from coming wouldn't be a proper place for your elevated shul. Or, possibly that yes, this halakhah was only speaking "when all else is equal". Tir'u baTov! -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 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 13:10:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:10:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 01:10:16PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan : once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), : which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were : an ongoing situation? I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood of feeling anything. 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 Oct 11 16:42:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 19:42:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 09:38:57PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei : gever" in birchot hashahar? I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing But look at the Kaf haChaim OC 46 s"q 18. So I know they did in 19th cent Baghdad. However, ROY is recorses in Qol Torah vol V pg 20 as promoting gaver and aved. But in the cases we started with -- gefen and geshem. Also, Rav Pa'alim vol II, OC #25. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 12 04:36:37 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 07:36:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. > >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, >including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is >where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the >fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when >you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below >with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis >for Noach et al not to have capsized. First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because HaShem kept it afloat. Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different before the flood than after it. In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the flood were the same as they are today? If they were different before the flood, then your physics analysis does not hold water! >:-} ( have no basis for asserting that the laws of physics were different before the flood, but it is possible in light of the different climatic conditions.) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 12 05:26:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:26:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7285ED0D-3270-486A-9AD2-8DBA569E7AF4@sibson.com> [Micha:] > I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. > Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give > priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning > to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. > But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all > that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can > have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. > Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an > abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood > of feeling The question of relative priorities is always complex. I don't think this question has an algorithmic response Other than if you say all other things are equal, Which of course they never are. Kt Joel Rich From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 12 05:33:15 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:33:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> , <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Transliterations mine, but I tried to be more consistent with RSM's already present transliterations. -micha] From: Micha Berger Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:42 PM > I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing Since my name was mentioned, I think R. Micha was inviting me to add my ha'penny's worth. The Ashkenaz mss. all have gover. As due Yemenite mss. I do not remember what most S'faradi mss. have. One thing that people are only partially aware of, including many rabbonim who decided to comment on grammatical matters without the necessary study, is that L'shon Chazal is a different language than Biblical Hebrew, but that Chazal grew up knowing T'NaKh by heart, and so sprinkled their language with Biblical quotations, just as English writers leaven their language with quotations from Shakespeare or the Bible. Those quotations are in the archaic dialect of English that was spoken in the 16th-17th Century when Shakespeare lived and the King James translation was done. and do not represent the language spoken by a 21st Century writer. Similarly the language of T'filla as composed by Chazal uses their spoken Hebrew, which we call L'shon Chazal, but it is as full of quotations from the T'NaKh as a raisin bun is of raisins. Which makes it often difficult to distinguish what is L'shon Chazal from what is a quotation. I am writing a treatise about this, which God willing I will publish one of these days, which will contain proofs and various strategems to distinguish what is what. But if the language is found in a posuk, you can be sure it is a quotation. And the phrase ????? ??? [mitz'adei gaver] appears twice, once in T'hillim 37 and once in Mishlei 20, once at the beginng of a phrase and once at the end. It seem fair to me to assume that they used the form at the end of a phrase to put in the b'rokho, and so I would argue that the b'rokho is incorporating the language of ?????? ?????????-?????, ??????? ???-??????? ????????? [MeiYY mitz'adei-gover, ve'adam mah yovin darko.] and so it would be "gover," as the mss. I saw have it. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com Fri Oct 12 07:20:01 2018 From: loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com (Looking ForInspiration) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: Hello! This is my first post to aishdas.org, so forgive me and direct me if needed. Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both? Thank you in advance. Mordechai From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 12 08:20:24 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181012152024.GE12524@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 07:36:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: : >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. : >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, : > .... It would be another neis : >for Noach et al not to have capsized. : : First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the : animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen : in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed : have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because : HaShem kept it afloat. Which I noted. However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compell him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about apparence except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. : Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the : flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that : there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a : much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different : before the flood than after it. : In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the : flood were the same as they are today? Saying the world had a different climate doesn't mean the laws of nature changed. It could mean the earth changed. There is no reason to believe science itself changed since; and in fact some reason to believe it hadn't. After all, "mikol melakhto asher bara E-lokim la'asos" was before the first Shabbos. The notion that the universe changed in a new fundamental way since isn't 100% in concert with that. Although I realize "nishtaneh hateva" has numerous explanations, I don't know if any require believing the laws themselves changed. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 12 09:57:31 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:57:31 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Welcome on board! I didn't look up that sugya itself, but it could be that it was a Mishna Rishona Mishna Achrona thing. Like the reason that the Halacha in Machlokes VeAchar Kach Stam is different than in a Stam VeAchar Kach Machlokes. Also, regarding who actually wrote the Mishna - it's a Machlokes Rashi (who said (in Eiruvin, in the Samechs on the sugya of More Halacha Bifnei Rabbo) that the Mishna wasn't written in the Gemara's time) and the Rambam (who said that Rebbi wrote the Mishna). I heard that it boils down to the two Girsas of Rabbi Sherira Gaon's famous letter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 19:31:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 22:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people > on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in > reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in > the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, > halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) I think your cases are great examples of how Hashem deliberately left room for us to "improve" the Torah somewhat, thereby partnering with Him, exactly as you've explained. > And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. > Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is > not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into > account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and > limit the damage. > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted > keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be > when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than > the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged > YhR? Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her (unless he follows the prescribed procedure). That's what is meant by "lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR." The only solution is the one prescribed by the Torah itself; there is nothing for Chazal to add. Alternatively: D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. Chazal can forbid shofar on the years when RH is on Shabbos, but they can't ban it entirely on Yom Tov because of musical instruments being muktzeh. So, given that the Torah DOES allow one to take the Yefas Toar (after following the prescribed procedure), how might you word your proposed d'rabanan? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 12 14:16:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 21:16:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which Actions Have Value Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:16 You shall make a light for the ark and finish it within one cubit of the top, and set the entrance to the ark in its side; you shall make it with lower, second and third stories. God chose one man who was to save himself, his family and the animal world; he would be able to save them and himself ? only if he would do everything just as God had commanded him.?Gadol ha-mitzuveh ve-oseh me-me she-aino metzuveh ve-oseh (Kiddushin 31a) is a fundamental principle in Judaism. Contrary to prevailing opinion, a person?s actions have value only if they constitute the performance of God?s Will. What a person does on the basis of his own judgment, and the like, is of secondary, uncertain importance. During the 120 years that passed between God?s announcement to Noach and the actual onset of the flood, Noach could have done so many things: he could have built a hundred arks, and so forth. Scripture?s sole intent, however, is to say that Noach did exactly as God had commanded him; the rest he left to God. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 14 09:02:01 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 16:02:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] In sight Into Korbanos Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 8:20 20 Then Noach built an altar to God and took of every pure animal and of every pure bird, and offered ascent offerings upon the altar. la Shem; our offerings are directed to the aspect of God?s rule that desires not destruction, but life. '? is the source of all life and of all future existence, and He is ready at all times to grant new life, new vigor, and a new future. Symbolically, one offers his own life in order to win new life from God; one offers oneself up to God in order to be consecrated by God and to be elevated to a holy life on earth. One does not bring an offering to a vengeful, angry, bloodthirsty god. Rather, one who brings an offering devotes to God?s Will every pulsebeat, every nervous impulse, all muscular strength. To make an offering means to win from God eternal life. One does not offer up an animal; one offers up himself through the animal. When a person offers an animal before God and leans his hand upon it; when he slaughters it, collects its blood, dashes its blood upon the altar, and surrenders its head, legs, breast, and carcass to the flames ? in doing so he offers to God his own blood, his own mind, his own muscular strength, and surrenders himself completely to the fire of God?s Will, as set down for Israel in the Torah. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 14 20:08:41 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 23:08:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lech L'cha "Go For It" Message-ID: <406EA56D-CA2C-4FE0-B5F1-5C237B5152BE@cox.net> 12:1 Vayomer HaShem el Avram: "Lech L'cha," etc. The gematria of Lech L'cha is 100. So Avram was being told that life is a compromise: 50/50. And if he lives with give and take (50/50), he ends up with 100%. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 00:53:35 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:53:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: < Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. >> Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. Killing a fetus is not murder and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 01:12:31 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:12:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: << I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. >> First anything I brought from the Kavanaugh case was simply it was that stoty that made me think of the issue. The details of that story are immaterial. The basic question was that recent studies demonstrate false memories and especially from years ago and when the wirnesses may have been teenagers when they are not yer completely developed. On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered neveilah. The Taz doesn't like such a scenarion but many others disagree with him. They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:45:24 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89a90ad8-4240-fb55-2d1d-fba96a91819b@sero.name> On 15/10/18 04:12, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to > death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Mon Oct 15 05:49:36 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <0A43202F-B23C-41DE-A4E7-8002ED599973@tenzerlunin.com> ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses. * * * They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport).? ISTM that there should be a significant difference between executing someone when you have definitive information (I won?t use the word evidence) that he is innocent and eating a piece of meat that, although it in fact came from a non-kosher animal, is treated halachically as kosher. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 07:16:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:16:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015141643.GA20844@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:12:31AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death : even though the facts might not be true. : More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of : modern techniques versus two witnesses I didn't think I was implying that. If there is evidence -- regardless of DNA's own issues -- but not eidim, the facts are not established to the point of chiyuv misah. If there are eidim to convict, but the evidence points otherwise, the dayanim can't close derishah vechaqirah until they resolve the conflict to their own satisfaction. Given the whole bit about "achas leshev'ah / leshiv'im shanah", perhaps their own satisfaction should be to a "beyond reasonable doubt" kind of standard. (Maybe the person had a mum exactly where the knife entered would probably be considered by most of us "beyond unreasonable doubt".) : I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In : particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem : was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it : can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of : the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered : neveilah... The case in the SA that I remember : They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif : and not the metzius. That is a misphrasing. I said that pesaq relies on how we perceive the world -- and in fact this perception is the meaning of the word "metzi'us". (Which, I will note again, comes from "matza", which doesn't imply theoretical objective existence.) The nearest I come to the way you put it would be to say that matters like probability go into how we think about an unobserved unknown. Evidence is a matter of changing the odds, not of establishing definitive metzi'us. ------------------ And my pet theory is an extension of R' Aqiva Eiger's teshuvah (#136) explaining the difference between kol deparish, where rov matters, and qavu'ah. RAE makes is a chiluq between rules of birur when the reality is unknown (kol deparish) and ones where the reality was established but the halakhah is unkown. Treating this as a very broad kelal, eidus changes a kol deparish type question into a qavu'ah. Which is why rov no longer epplies, and terei kemei'ah. Evidence without observation keeps it a kol deparish question, although it does shift the odds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:40:52 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:40:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15/10/18 03:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life.?>> > Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. > Killing a fetus is not murder According to some. > and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. And as Ronald Reagan pointed out, if you're not sure whether something is murder, then committing it is at least reckless endangerment. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 08:50:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:50:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 06:40:52AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is : : With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. Except that the Bach explains that's is NOT what the Rambam holds. Which is why Rotzaiach 1:9 distinguishes between aborting to save the mother before crowning, and not committing infanticide a fraction of a moment later after the baby crowns. If abortion were murder, there would be no shift in priorities between the mother's and baby's lives before and after birth. Or: A "KErodeif" (as the velad isn't doing anything itself to risk the mother) who isn't a full person may be killed, but once born, ein dochin nefesh mipenei nefesh. Rashi (Sanhedrin 72b "yatza rosho") says that the unborn fetus isn't subject to "ein dochin NmPN" because it isn't a nefesh yet. The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 09:01:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:01:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> References: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015160131.GB26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:50:59AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the : contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam : cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? The Arukh laNeir (Sanhedrin 72b) writes that the chiluq is that in the second case we cannot isolate whether the child (once crowned) is the mother's rodeif, or the other way around. The IM (CM 2:69) writes similarly. But neither deal with the Bach's question of how that means "ein dochin" is the principle in particular invoked to explain why we cannot kill the baby after crowning, but not the fetus a moment before. Also, how is it true that we always know before crowning that it's the fetus in the mother's way, but if the head is partly out, we don't? Balebatishe question.... Let's say it's the umbilical cord vs the mother's blood loss -- does that dynamic change with crowning? But in any case, my point was that the Bach means that we cannot say as a certainty that there is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam about whether a velad is a person. Just that some acharonim take him to say so. And once you look at acharonim, variants on the theme that is definitely Rashi's abound. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 06:48:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 09:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: *Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400* *From: Looking ForInspiration >* *To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org * *Subject: * *Hello!* *This is my first post to aishdas.org , so forgive me and direct me **if needed.* *Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that **when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, **it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this **mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author?* *I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, **Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone **can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible **as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it **would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, **the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba **Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of **Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write **the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both?* *Thank you in advance.* *Mordechai* This should be helpful: >From Rambam's Letter to R. Pinchas HaDayyan (In R. Sheilat's edition, Teshuva 140): ...every decision that he [Rebbi Yehuda HaNassi] presented without attaching an author's name originated [not with him, ?but] with other sages. And those other sages as well were not the originators of those decisions, ?but [merely stated how they understood what they] obtained from the mouths of others, and the ?others from still others, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. .. [T]hey ...explicitly stated in so many places, ?Rebbi ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue A, and presented them anonymously; but he ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue B, and presented them anonymously.".This ?openly states that whatever Rebbi endorsed as final halacha, and considered the proper ?practice to follow, he stated without associating anyone?s name with it. And in so many places ?the Gemora says, ?This anonymously-stated halachah is an individual?s opinion [and not the ?majority?s]?--Rabbeynu did not mentioned the names of any of them [--neither that of the ?individual whom the halacha followed, nor that of the majority]. ? ?[Only] when it came to matters that Rebbi did not consider settled, but still debatable, and ?about which he did not lean one way or the other, did he state both opinions in the names of ?their proponents (?R. So-and-so says this, and R. So-and-so says that?) mentioning the names ?of those sages, or of recently living ones, from whom he heard those opinions--but [still] not of ?their mentors or mentors?-mentors' names. For at the time, many people still followed one ?opinion, and many still followed the opposing one. Suffice it to say that he [himself] told us ?explicitly why, in some of the mishnas, he attached names:? And why do we mention the words of Shammai and Hillel only to negate them [by ?adding that the majority of sages disagreed with both and decided differently]??to ?teach the following generations....? ? And why do we mention the dissenting words of ?individuals along with those of the majority...???So that if a Beis Din will agree with the ?individual?s opinion and rely upon it....[R' Yehuda (ben El'ai) added:] And why do we ?mention the words of the individual together with those of the majority only to negate ?them??So that if a person reports receiving a teaching other than that which was ?accepted by the majority....?? ...it was only necessary to mention opposing opinions during those times ?that some practiced one way, and others practiced a different way, when some obtained the ?law according to one sage?s opinion, and some according to another sage?s opinion. End of quote from Teshuva. Regarding stam mishnayos that contradict, each mishna had its own author and, following Rambam, Rebbi placed them in the order he did. One explanation is that he changed his mind, and his pesak is identified by the rules of stam v'acher kach machlokess (machlokess meaning a mishna with an opposing view, not necessarily a mishna contaning two views), and vice versa. However, the majority of Tannaim in Rebbi's day did sometimes differ with him. And in cases where the Beis Din Gadol did not put the issue to a formal vote, later authorities, even Amoraim, did not necessarily follow Rebbi's decision. Regarding the last point, check out Rambam's payrush, followed also by the Rav MiBartenura, on the mishnayos at the beginning of Eidiyos, and see how it differs from that of the Raavad and Tosefos Shantz Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/15/18, 9:02:19 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Sat Oct 13 20:23:41 2018 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 23:23:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Moving this aspect of the discussion over from Areivim. Subject line is mine. -micha] On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM Micha Berger via Areivim wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 01:26:50PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: >: I am surp[rised that you did not suggest that men begin wearing >: tephillen the entire day as was apparently the custom in ancient >: times... > For people who had desk jobs. > Laborers didn't, for pragmatic reasons. And in an agrarian society, that > was most men most of the day, except in the winter. My impression was that the heter to not wear tefillin (issur to wear tefillin) only applied to particular cases, such as one who was carrying a burden (of a particular size or content, i.e., excrement) on their head, but that a normal farmer/craftsman/laborer would generally wear tefillin the entire day. A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did not wear tefillin, but it is critical of this practice, and although the gemara appears to give a justification of such (while still maintaining its objection to the reality), it is not along the white collar/blue collar axis. Josh From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 11:18:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015181859.GE5656@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 11:23:41PM -0400, Joshua Meisner via Avodah wrote: : A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did : not wear tefillin... The context is, any mitzvah, like milah, that people were moseir nefesh for when there was a government deceree is still muchzeqes beyadam. Tefillin was given an example where there never was such a history, and therefore our commitment remains less. It says "merupeh beyadam", not that people weren't wearing them at all, which is what you say here. Nor, more on-target for our discussion, that people were wearing them just for davening instead of all day. Possible referants: Tzeduqim wore their tefillin on the bridge of their noses (bein einekha). So many Jews were nikhshal. Or maybe there were sects who believed like the Qaraim or R that there are no physical objects involved at all to keep the ideas in sight and at hand. But it just struck me -- most likely, that they weren't careful to keep a guf naqi. After all the gemara reads: ... kegon tefillin, adayin hi berufah beyadam. DEamar R' Yanai: tzerichim guf naqi... What's that dalet doing there in "de'amar" if R' Yanai wasn't discussing said ripui? RGS writes : Here's a question for you: Why don't men wear tefillin all day long? The mitzvah is not just during morning services; it is throughout the day (cf. Tur, Orach Chaim 37). So why don't we wear them all day? The answer to this question is historical... There is textual evidence that already in Talmudic times there were many people who did not wear tefillin.... His argument here is the same as yours. ... The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 13a) specifically condemns those who never wear tefillin. This laxity by many on wearing tefillin continued into the Middle Ages. Tosafos (Shabbos 49a sv. ke-Elisha) write that one should not be surprised that at that time people were lax in tefillin, since they were in the times of the Talmud also. This is attested to in many other places, and in the times of the Geonim there are even implications that almost no one in the land of Israel wore tefillin. The Beis Yosef (Even Ha-Ezer 65) quotes the Kol Bo who suggests that in some communities ashes are not placed on a groom's forehead because the community members do not wear tefillin. There was even a responsum by R. Sherira Gaon, copied in many medieval works on halakhah, answering a question about whether it is yuhara (haughty) for a yeshiva student to wear tefillin when no one else does. It seems that in order to defend this practice, some rishonim utilized the idea that one who wears tefillin needs a "guf naki - clean body". The Shibbolei Ha-Leket (Buber ed., p. 382) quotes one view that "guf naki" means that a person is clean of sins.... Sefer Ha-Chinukh (no. 421) states that "guf naki" does not refer to someone who has no sins or impurity, implying that someone else had suggested that it did. The author explicitly condemns those who are strict on the holiness of this mitzvah and thereby deprive the masses of the mitzvah. Rather, "guf naki" refers to the ability to refrain from passing gas and thinking improper thoughts while wearing the tefillin. R. Moshe of Coucy (Semag, mitzvos aseh no. 3) tells of how he would travel around thirteenth-century Europe, preaching to people that they should wear tefillin during the morning prayers. Even if they cannot control themselves all day, people can certainly maintain a guf naki for the prayer services (that is the view of Tosafos [Pesachim 113b sv. ve-ein]; Rosh [Hilkhos Tefillin, no. 28 and Beis Yosef [Orach Chaim 37]; footnote 8 in the Schlesinger edition of Semag assumes the Semag agrees). Evidently, this practice of wearing tefillin only during morning prayer services took hold and the prior practice of widespread abandonment of the mitzvah slowly turned into minimal performance of it during the morning prayers. However, someone who cannot control himself and cannot maintain a guf naki may not wear tefillin. Despite the biblical obligation, someone in a definite situation such as that should not wear tefillin at all (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 38:1). For this reason, the Arukh Ha-Shulchan (Orach Chaim 38:6) rules that those who are not obligated in the mitzvah of tefillin -- such as women -- should never place themselves in even a doubtful position of not maintaining a guf naki. ... 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 Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il Tue Oct 16 00:45:18 2018 From: Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il (Ezra Chwat) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:45:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> References: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <85b0325c428741fcb0a9d98b30ef7206@Ex1.Nli.loc> [Micha] wrote: > Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the > water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the > fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity > is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Great insight, it's pshat in [Beresheet VII: Vateilekh hateivah al penei hamayim] meaning, all of it above surface, as in Gen I 2. Although there are a plenty (majority) sources in [lehon miqra] and [lehon chaza"l] where the meaning clearly infers partial immersion below the water surface. [Doq vetishkach] search and see. In any case this also sheds literary light on the two images presented for [lechem hapanim] (Menahot 94b): [sefinah roqedet] vs [teivah perutzah]. Why these images instead of description? Perhaps theres a message here about [teivat Mosheh] or [teivat Noach] Here's Rashi's drawing (source ) Dr. Ezra Chwat |Manuscript Bibliographer Department of Manuscripts The National Library of Israel, Jerusalem Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, P.O. Box 39105, Jerusalem 9139002 ezra.chwat at nli.org.il | www.nli.org.il From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Tue Oct 16 05:10:21 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:10:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Zev Sero commented: ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway.? What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 16 05:25:28 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:25:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: On 16/10/18 08:10, Joseph Kaplan wrote: > Zev Sero commented On Micha's remarks: >>> it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though >>> the facts might not be true. >> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, >> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. > What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the > value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel > Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Well, we *know* that it is indeed what He wants. That is surely beyond all question. All we can discuss is *why* He wants it, and what lessons we can draw from this counterintuitive fact. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:16:00 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:16:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> > RMB: > > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, > or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes > posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? > Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? It is in general true that the Torah prefers to regulate strong emotions (like greed and lust) rather than to extirpate them. See for example Hagigah 9b ?yaeh aniyusa liyehudaei ??, and yet the Torah doesn?t prohibit wealth (though see Parshas Shoftim 17:16-17), though historically several communities have enacted sumptuary laws. And see H. Deos 1:4-5 about the difference between a tzaddik and a hasid. The Rambam implies (at the end of 1:5) that he prefers tzidkus to hasidus but see H. Deos 6:1 that this applies only in a virtuous society. It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical level, however, I don?t see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. But there?s a more important point. What?s weird about war is that it?s not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say ?hasatan mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama? that?s partly because the soldiers don?t have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over his lifetime. So it makes a lot of sense that k?nagged YhR is specifically mentioned in the context of milhama. David Riceman From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:35:09 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42DB0493-2688-4FB1-B731-24A6D9C76BC7@optimum.net> [Corrected as per a follow-up email. -micha] RMLFI: > I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, > Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone > can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible > as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it > would be much appreciated. If you really mean that read through YL Epstein's "Hakdamah L'Nusach HaMishnah". Albeck wrote a (shorter) "Hakdamah L'Mishnah" and, IIRC, [Epstein also] wrote a "Hakdamah L'Sifrut HaTanaim". There's a mahlokes rishonim whether the mishna is a sefer peak or an encyclopedia of sources. This is related to the machlokes amoraim about whether halacha k'stam mishna. But it is possible for mishnayot with contradictory anonymous conclusions to have been edited by the same person. David Riceman From t613k at aol.com Wed Oct 17 20:57:38 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 23:57:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16685525a33-1ec3-bc74@webjas-vac183.srv.aolmail.net> In a message dated 10/15/2018 ? From: Micha Berger >> However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compel him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about appearance except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. << >>>>> ? ? ? The bottom may have been flat but not the top.? See Ber 6:16 "A window [tzohar] shall you make for the Ark, and to a cubit finish it from above...." (ArtScroll translation) ? I understand this to mean that the sides of the ark, at least the upper level, were slanted so that rain would run off (the reason most roofs of houses are slanted rather than flat).? At the top it only one square cubit wide, where the window (if the tzohar was a window, or possibly an LED light) was set in place. ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 18 03:08:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 06:08:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181018100847.GF26742@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:29:42AM -0400, Toby Katz wrote: : He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on : this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does : not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, : let alone the same as murder... This "let alone" undermines his whole thesis. Few akharonim take the Rambam to mean that abortion is murder, and of those who do, not all hold like their understanding of the Rambam. : We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these : issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians : recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that : Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. Or even to start with the assumption they are similar. It is best to just look up our views, and then see pragmatically which party to work with. Rather than identify with either camp and risk assimilating their values. 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 t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 17 21:29:42 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 00:29:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> ? From: "Prof. Levine" > IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an > abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben > Shapiro's take on abortion. >> Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is >> Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when >> he speaks and is being interviewed. ... >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... Ben Shapiro is a brilliant commentator and makes a powerful case against abortion. He also makes a Kiddush Hashem by publicly identifying as an Orthodox Jew and always wearing a yarmulka. However, I am troubled by this statement of his: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, let alone the same as murder. If a young woman is raped c'v the very best and most prudent thing she should do is take the "morning after pill" which prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum. To many Christians the morning after pill is exactly the same as abortion or infanticide, but the Torah does not view it that way. When a certain couple with whom I am intimately acquainted were undergoing IVF treatment in order to have children (which they ultimately did, B'H), they asked their most serious shailos of a very prominent posek in Baltimore. One shaila was what to do with excess embryos that were created in the lab. An embryo is just a fertilized ovum that has developed into a tiny little ball of cells, could be just eight or sixteen cells at first. When you hear that embryos are created in a lab and sometimes frozen to be thawed and implanted at a later date, please do not imagine that little babies are in the freezer. (Only in Lakewood are young humans put in the freezer.) Since multiple pregnancies are hazardous for the mother and often do not have a good outcome for the babies, as a rule no more than three embryos are implanted in the uterus at one time. In IVF powerful hormones are given which often result in the release of multiple eggs at ovulation, which in turn result in multiple embryos at fertilization. But if you are not going to implant more than three, what do you do with the extras? The posek told the couple that they could do what they wanted -- freeze the extras for a later attempt, or discard them. Catholics would consider the discarding of these little balls to be the same thing as murder, and possibly they would consider putting them in a freezer to be child abuse. We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. I suspect that Ben Shapiro is not aware of a very important distinction. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 05:40:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:40:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" Message-ID: >From https://goo.gl/7m1UWj Halacha L'kovod Shabbos - "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" One is permitted to spray one's hair (e.g. sprinkle or hand-pat water on frizzy hair) on Shabbos as long as it is not very wet, because the Melocho of Melabain (cleaning or scouring) does not apply to the human body. (If the hair gets very wet it may not be squeezed out since hair is subject to the prohibition of S'chita - squeezing). However, the use of hairspray which will stiffen the hair and form a structure may involve the Melocho of Boneh (building). If one sprays the hair first and then styles and shapes it; this would be prohibited on Shabbos because it is similar to Boneh. However, some poskim permit the use of hairspray if one is careful to first style and shape the hair, and then only afterwards add the hairspray. When done in this manner the loose hair is shaped at the time of styling, and does not resemble Boneh because the hair is loose. The subsequent spraying merely acts to retain a pre-existing shape. Once the hair has been sprayed it can no longer be shaped, styled, or touched. {We mentioned previously that the use of hairspray on Shabbos does not involve the Melocho of Zoreh.} Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah 302, Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa 14:50:131, Kitzur Hilchos Shabbos re:Gozez:5:16, Biur Halacha 303:27, Hilchos Shabbos R' Shimon Eider, Minchas Yitzchok 6:26, Sefer 39 Melochos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 19 05:31:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:31:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hirhurei tshuva Message-ID: <7e7b234b4f3d4d51bc22ea4cdc8114d5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The Artscroll Yom Kippur machzor has the following comment (I could not find the GRA's statement in Aderet Eliyahu). "David replies with just two words: "I have sinned to HASHEM." Nathan answers, "[If so] God has removed your sin and you will not die. "The Vilna Gaon notes that according to the Masoretic text there is a space after David's brief confession, even though it is in the middle of a sentence. This implies that David wanted to say more - he felt that he should go into more detail about his sin and the sincerity of his remorse - but was so overcome by remorse that he could not speak. He didn't have to. Nathan broke in to tell him that he had been forgiven - because his confession, brief and incomplete though he thought it to be - was utterly sincere." Me-Do you think this thought coheres with the following insight from R'YBS: "In response to this Divine verdict, R'Yehudah HaNasi cried, marveling at how some individuals merit the World to Come only after a lifetime of effort, while others acquire such reward after only brief effort. The Rav emphasized that the executioner not only earned a share in the World to Come, but achieved the same level as did R'Chananya in this regard. "Why did R'Yehudah HaNasi have such an emotional reaction to the afterlife destiny of the executioner? The answer is that although prior to this incident R'Yehudah HaNasi had certainly understood the redemptive power of teshuvah, he had not previously appreciated the redemptive power of hirhur Tshuva, "awakening" of teshuvah. If teshuvah is indeed a multistep process, involving sin recognition, remorse, and resolve, how can an individual possibly be considered righteous after only a moment's thought? Only through hirhur Tshuva, which is spontaneous, instinctive, and sudden. In one second, an individual can live the jarring experience of awakening from spiritual slumber." 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 Fri Oct 19 07:03:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:03:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Most Profound and Far-Reaching Vision of the Future Ever Permitted a Mortal to Behold or to Utter Message-ID: In his commentary on Bereishis 9:25-27 25 He said: Cursed be Canaan; he shall be a servant of servants to his brothers. 26 And he said: Blessed be God, the God of Shem; may Canaan become their servant. 27 God will open [people?s] emotions to Yefes, but He will dwell in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be a servant to them. RSRH provides deep insights into a number of important topics. He writes 25?27 We have here what may be the most profound and far-reaching vision of the future that God ever permitted a mortal to behold or to utter. The entire history of mankind ? past, present, and future ? is contained in these three verses. and then later on The spirit of Israel does not produce ecstatics who lose their grip on reality and go mad. Judaism yearns for God?s closeness, but requires of man clarity of thought, a composed and sober mind. Ecstatics who ?merge with the divine? lack freedom of choice; they imagine that they themselves do nothing, but that God acts through them. This is not the way to serve God. Our task is to make use of the intellect and the freedom God has given us, in the earthly sphere which He has assigned to us; to serve God faithfully, conscientiously, and with a clear mind. Only thus will we attain the highest perfection a person can reach; only thus will our actions be sanctified, and will we be worthy of God?s closeness. IMO there is so much of import in his commentary on these verses that I have taken the trouble to post it at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/profound_far_reaching_vision.pdf If you take the time to read this, you may well find insight into what we see going on in the world today as well as what has happened in the past and will happen in the future. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 21 07:14:12 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 10:14:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayera "We have to teach empathy as we do literacy." (Bill Drayton) Message-ID: <0D74D2E3-332B-4E5B-9E58-56B4273FC281@cox.net> 1) The following is a beautiful reflection of Jewish sensitivity. The original source of the story is not known. See Bamberger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 1939), p. 209, note 17/ "Once, Abraham's love of strangers clashed with his zeal for God. He invited a wayfarer to his home and, finding the wayfarer praying to his idol, chased him away. God reprimanded Abraham severely: 'I have borne with him these many years although he rebelled against Me, and you cannot bear with him one night?!' Abraham had realized his sin and did not rest until he had brought the stranger back.? (Benjamin Franklin composed his "Parable against Persecution" on this very theme). 2) The Sidrah opens by saying that God appeared to Abraham [Gen. 18:1], but when Abraham applies the vision to his own world he suddenly sees three men standing before him [Gen. 18:2]. Abraham is the religious man par excellence for he sees God in the human situation. Franz Rosenzweig Based on the puotation in On Jewish Learning, ed. Nahum Glatzer (New York: Schocken, 1955), p. 124 3) 18:2 "And he lifted up his eyes and he saw, and, behold, three people....." Who were these three people? Michael, Gabriel, and Rafael. Michael came to inform Sarah that she would bear a child; Rafael, to heal Abraham; and Gabriel, to overturn Sodom. (Bava Metzia 86b) 4) The sin of Sodom consisted not only in what the people did but in what they failed to do. Thus, no one raised a voice in protest when the crowd molested Lot's guests. Failure to protest is to participate in the sins of a community. (Gen. R. 50:9) This is reminiscent many years ago of Kitty Genovese, a woman in Queens, N.Y., who was screaming for help at the top of her lungs in a major apartment complex, and not one person lifted a finger or even phoned the police. This woman was killed due to the negligence of every person aware of her screams. Are we raising our voice in protest when we witness people being hurt? "The dew of compassion is a tear." Lord Byron (1788-1824) One of the greatest British poets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 21 16:38:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 19:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:18:17AM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : I don't understand why it would need such long : deliberation or a long teshuvah to demonstrate what every school : child knows, that a mumar remains a Jew. You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein's "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity". (Reprinted in Leaves of Faith. ch 3 pp 57-84) http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage (When I hit that URL, the article was available on Google Books in its entirety.) It isn't as open-and-shut that "Yisrael, af al pi shechat'ah, Yisra'el hu" is as universal or as much as a given as most of us were taught in school. We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the qiddushin are chal. But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking Hoacheia 17a. Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim even though their conversation had been accepted for generations before then. RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. Including, RAL writes, Brother Daniel or any other meshumad applying for citizenship under the Law of Return. 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 rabbi at opengemara.org Mon Oct 22 02:45:07 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:45:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> References: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 21, 2018 4:38:17 PM PDT, Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein... > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage ... > We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to > practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the > qiddushin are chal. > But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a > non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, > Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking > Hoacheia 17a. > Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim ... I didn't learn that sugya in a while, but I was under the impression that it's a machlokes Rishonim how to learn the Aseres Hashevatim (I think it's the Meiri there). Some learn that they were a horaas shaah. Others learn like you wrote, that one who is a min is considered completely not a Jew. The thing is that the Halacha doesn't follow those Rishonim, as we're still Choshesh for the Kiddushin of a Min (who does give up their Jewish identity). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Oct 23 23:02:52 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:02:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters Message-ID: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim B:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to harvest because? they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. The Radbaz explains that since the workers aren't experts, they will either give too much pe'ah or too little.? Meaning, the issue is technical, not that they aren't chayav to give and therefore they can't do it. What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or twice with them. Ben From eliturkel at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 07:51:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:51:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: << RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. >> RAL is the most persuasive essentially after several generations. It is hard to believe that someone who converted to Xtianity in the middle ages would have descendants who are Jewish through the mothers when all connection to the Jewish world is lost. I once read that there are 80 million descendants today from the Jews in Spain that left Judaism. While we only count those through the maternal side this would still give a lot of "halachic" Jews for people who might be strong anti-semites today. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 25 06:33:46 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:33:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: Message-ID: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we say lo palginon (we don't split)? 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 Oct 26 11:06:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:06:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026180609.GA18376@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:40:01AM -0400, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no : significant debate about that. Quibble: +/- 168 years during Galus Bavel, and perhaps other issues. Also, the Seder Olam, R' Yossi bar Chalafta (acc. to Yavamos 82b & Niddah 46b), is only one tanna among many. For that matter, he is "only" the primary author, as it quotes people who lived later than RYbH. Of course there are machloqesin about many of his positions. (Our calendar is Sefer Olam chronology with a different year 0. Seder Olam numbers the year of Adam's creation as 0, and we use year 1 for the week before Adam, so that our numbers are SO + 2. But the same age.) But in a much smaller scale than you intended to, there are numerous debates. I have a pet theory that these factors are the reason why shetaros, and in particular gittin, explain the year is only as "beminyan she'anu monim kan ba'ir Ploni-ville..." But in any case, since lemaaseh no din relies on the year, pesaq doesn't apply, and machloqesin neither have to be nor even can be resolved. : 3. We don't know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam : HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a : day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. The Ramban is clear -- a yom was 24 hours on a hypothetical clock, the way we measure time now. R' Dessler explains the Ramban as equally saying that a yom was 1,000 years. Which wouldn't be long enough to help, but it gets weirder -- not just any 1,000 years, but a millennium of the 6,000 of world history. According to REED, the Ramban correctly holds that time is non-linear. (Michtav meiEliyahu vol II pp 150-154, Yemei Bereishis veYemai Olam, I paraphrase it paragraph by paragraph at ) R' Dessler writes that the arrow of time and the whole concept of a time-line is specific to how human beings perceive reality, and even that only as people have done so /after/ the cheit. Which gives him the room to say that the scientific age of the universe is not so much wrong as choosing a less than optimal way of viewing a problem that doesn't admit any one answer. The age of the universe is 6 millenia or so plus 6 days as seen from the perspective the Torah advises us to adopt. But that doesn't make some other answer less correct, or less useful for some other purpose. : 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the : descriptions we have of the Big Bang. : 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny : that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round.... Well, the Ramban on bara mentions hyle, which is the Greek for chomer in chomer vertzurah (which they called hylomorphism). So Hashem first made substance without form. Or maybe, less hard to imagine, the current substance, but in forms that no longer exist. Now, Quantum Mechanics is nothing at all like hylomorphism, but... According to Big Bang theory, in the first fractions of a second after yeish mei'ayin, things were so hot that individual particals had no identity. What now appears to be four kinds of particles, for kinds of fields, mediating forces was just one mush, not so mention the particles we think of as matted. As things cooled, the symmetry split again and again until the types of particles and forces we know today differentiated. Does sound like chomer beli tzurah. : - Expansion doesn't prove anything. It's a fact that requires a theory : to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made : the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously : expand. How do we explain "Shakai"? That He said "dai" and the expansion ended, no? : 7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit : facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, : "What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem : does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, : we would be much poorer... But there is no way to disprove "the universe is young and Hashem had His Reasons for doing it that way", reasons we can't identify. We might want answers that feel less facile, but that doesn't make it false. Might just be human hubris, to need a universe we can understand. That is different than what you're talking about, which is more similar to separating a scientific study of cause with a Torah study of purpose. But it does raise the question of whether "a bit facile" is a meaningful RELIGIOUS problem. You want to know the science, fine. But life's values doesn't rest on it. Nor should you assume science can't his a wall. : So what's the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, : or was it just made to look that way? REED says both. Because, in his typical Kantian perspective, he has science address the world as humans perceive it, believing the world as it exists "out there" is actually unknowable. And so, the world before eitz hadaas and observation by human consciousness of our sort is amenable to different descriptions. Each capturing a different shadow of the basic unknowable. On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. That natural is just a term we use to describe the patterns by which Hashem usually acts. It is all "by Himself". >From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> + When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. :-)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 From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:41:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:41:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters In-Reply-To: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> References: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181026184149.GC20611@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:02:52AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim [2]:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to : harvest because they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. ... : What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here : and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or : twice with them. I assume you're llimiting your question to pei'ah. Because leqet requires getting out of a habit when you're in the middle of gathering. And for the same reason, why not worry about shikhechah? I would think that even with instructions, it's leqet and shikechah that's hard to get used to and get right. :-)BBii! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:36:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:36:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026183619.GB20611@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:20:01AM -0400, Looking ForInspiration via Avodah wrote: : Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that : when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, : it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this : mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? It didn't. The mishnah took a 3 generation process: R' Aqiva, R Meir and Rebbe. Stam mishnah is usually like R Meir, although the gemara at times proves a different maqor, not even the final redactor. (Stam Sifra keRabbi Yehudah, even though the Sifra is not by Rebbe, but by his student, Rav.) You have statements like on RH 19b, where you're told the mishnah is not in accord with R" Yehudah haNasi. So the notion that the opinion of the mishnah is necessarily the opnion of the redactor is not a given. Nor is the stam mishnah always R' Meir. Therefor conflicting opinions isn't proof of multiple redactors. (Although,as I wrote, redaction was one school, not one person.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:05:56 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:05:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20181028150556.GB10183@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:10:21PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : Zev Sero commented: :> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, :> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. : What, if anything, does this teach us -- about Halacha or morality or : the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Perhaps it tells us that more die when the appeals process is endless? And thus, once the case is closed, it's closed. And we trust G-d to insure that any miscarriage of justice in the case is just in the broader context. Just thinking out loud to keep the topic going... It needs more discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 28 05:04:29 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:04:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:19:23 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:19:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf : The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of them a couple of decades ago. Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an artificial evolution of halakh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 10:09:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 13:09:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: At 11:19 AM 10/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: Please see >http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. > >And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >them a couple of decades ago. > >Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an >artificial evolution of halakh. I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that RYBS said this. In any event see http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf From there The findings in this article seem to confirm the judgment of some scholars that the rabbinic sources cited by R. Epstein should not be taken as accurate and that they require independent confirmation from the original sources.61 Certainly the inconsistencies found in MB cast serious doubt as to its value as a completely accurate historical account. We will never know what lies behind the puzzling inaccuracies in R. Epstein's oeuvre, nor is it for us to speculate. R. Menachem Kasher, after setting severe strictures about the reliability of R. Epstein's citations, nevertheless expresses a charitable understanding of the circumstances that may have brought this about. Noting R. Epstein's statement in MB that he lived a "life of suffering" (hayyei tsa)ar), R. Kasher writes that R. Epstein was a "great man" (adam gadol) whose )) is "a monumental work" (avoda anakit), and he attributes the many inaccuracies in the work to R. Epstein's difficult and inordinately busy life which did not permit him to check his sources as carefully as he should have. One old lesson emerges reinforced from all this-a lesson for researchers in any field, especially the field of Torah scholarship. Primary material must be carefully examined, and if only secondary sources are available, their veracity must be meticulously ascertained. Rayna Batya seems to have been an extraordinary woman, but the inaccuracies in R Epstein's telling of her story cloud our ability to know her and her absorbing story. We close this article, which is written in sadness rather than glee, by noting one final irony. When Mesorah Publications published a translation of R. Epstein's MB, tided My Uncle the Netziv, it deleted certain key words.64 The passage in which we learned of Rayna Batya's scholar- ship was one of the changed passages. The original passage, for example, mentioned the venous books she used and included, among others, Mishnayot and books of aggada. In the English translation, these books were deleted from the list, causing much indignation in the scholarly world at this attempt to revise history. How ironic it is that this effort to "sanitize" R. Epstein's reputation should have inadvertency hit upon the truth: that the story of Rayna Batya lie many other elements in MB and Torah Temima are in fact in need of serious revision. _________________________________ In light of all this can we really be sure that the Netziv read newspapers on Shabbos? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:25:15 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 12:09 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the > accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that > RYBS said this. > > In any event see > http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition article would Certainly qualify. HM From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 14:35:04 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 17:35:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 05:25 PM 10/28/2018, Harry Maryles wrote: >FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical >of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to >R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition >article would Certainly qualify. IIRC Rabbi Meir Fund is the one who told me that RYBS said that there are many inaccuracies in the writings of the Torah Temima. Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be well documented. YL From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:49:03 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:49:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <5E34DB8F-9432-4A3B-BD90-808E37069230@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be > `well documented. I glanced at it. But I did not read it. All I was doing was saying what my rebbi told me personally HM From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 19:06:13 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 22:06:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage > ... > RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends > up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who > reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who > goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed > not be Jews. One must be wary of the phrase "would indeed not be Jews". As RAL reiterates there, over and over, "Jew" can mean different things in different contexts. For example, Please see what he wrote there on pages 66-67, distinguishing between "shem Yisrael" and "kedushat Yisrael": > If we ask, in purely descriptive terms, whether anyone born of > Jewish parents is a Jew, the answer must be yes. As an epithet, > the term "Jew" remains applicable to any individual who was > ever endowed with Jewish status - even to a mechumad. Hence, he > is obligated to pursue a Torah life, and should he decide to > return, he would perhaps require no new conversion.[38] > However, if we ask whether a meshumad has anything of a Jewish > personality and character, and whether, therefore, he continues > to be endowed with the personal status of a Jew, the answer is > a ringing no. He remains a Jew without Jewishness. What he > retains is simply the descriptive epithet: shem Yisrael. Of > kedushat Yisrael, however - of the sacredness of the Jewish > personality, that which essentially constitutes being a Jew - he > is bereft. > [38] The first point, that the obligation remains, is certain. > The second, that reentry would not necessitate gerut, is open > to question. One might argue that even for one who is endowed > with shem Yisrael, the recovery of kedushat Yisrael requires > gerut. It may also be contended that gerut would not be required, > but only because the return to the fold would retroactively > cancel the earlier renunciation. My point is that - according to RAL - even the very most extreme meshumad, who severs his connection to the Jewish people so completely that he has totally lost his kedushat Yisrael, still has shem Yisrael, and IS STILL OBLIGATED IN MITZVOS. This is a critical distinction. To refer to such a person as a non-Jew would easily mislead people to think that he is now relieved of his Jewish obligations. It would be most tragic if the meshumad himself was led to such a conclusion, for it would divest him of the last shred of motivation to return. He would think of himself as an ordinary outsider, for whom gerut is totally optional. (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say about the next generation. Suppose we are talking of a woman meshumedet, who still has shem Yisrael, but abandoned her kedushat Yisrael. Do her children have shem Yisrael or not? It has always been my presumption that her children (and the children of her daughters, etc etc ad infinitum) would be obligated in mitzvos, but this article makes me wonder about that. To phrase it in more technical terms: For a newborn to have shem Yisrael, does it suffice that his mother has shem Yisrael, or must she also have kedushat Yisrael?) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:03:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181029190301.GE13649@aishdas.org> So, here are the three shitos RALichtenstein discusses about how to resolve the apparently conflicting gemaros. 1- The Rashba (Yavemos 22a) takes the case of the marriage of a backslid geir (Yevamos 67b) as primary. And the gemara about Kusim does not mean that Chazal reject their attempt at conversion. Rather kol demeqadeish al daas chakhamim meqadeish gives Chazal the power to deny the validity of their attempts to marry (other) Jews. Variant on this theme: 1b- The Ittur (quf, Qiddishin 78a) says that R' Yehudai Gaon says that Chakhamim DO allow their marriage to a Jew, and that the statement is about stam yeinam, shechitah, and other laws that are limited to maaminim. Th SA (YD 159:3) similarly says that we may not pay a Kusi ribis, but we may charge him. 2- HaGahos Mordekhai (Yevamos 107) holds that the person is literally not a Jew -- but. Because we cannot know the extent of someone's apostacy, we aren't mindreaders, for something as major as eishes ish, we recognize lechumerah his marriage to a Jewish woman. 3- R' Chaim Solovei[t]chik notes that the Rambam WRT seider nashim (Ishus 4:15, Issurei Bi'ah 13:17) as following Yevamos, like #1. And yet WRT taharah, Peirush haMIshnayos (Nidda 7:4) says a Kusi's body is not metamei tum'as ohalim, because nakhriim don't. R' Chaim says that Yevamos refers to a geir who returned to his old practices, in RAL's terms "an apostacy of action". But the Kusim and the 10 Shevatim not only changed behavior, but also ceased identifying as Jews. The opinion I mentioned earlier as R' Aharon's was his following his wife's ancestor. The quote RAM provides from Leaves of Faith pp 66-67 I saw more as a subject - object distinction. In his own eyes, he has the din of a Jew. But in the eyes of how others are supposed to relate to him, he does not. And it's the latter -- how are we to classify others -- that was under discussion. To quote RAM on another point: : (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on : the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say : about the next generation... RAL writes a little later: > It might be be argued that it only applies to a mass secession, whereby > not only an individual but his whole social context becomes uprooted. Or > one might contend that only the children, born in complete ignorance of > their origins, are affected, whereas the apostate, paradoxically, might > remain a Jew. 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 emteitz at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 09:17:40 2018 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:17:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: RMicha Berger wrote: >>And yet, the Netziv spen[t] Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >>One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >>the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >>them a couple of decades ago. To which RDYitzchok Levine responded: >I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the >accurateness of his writings. Even granting RDYL's source, there is quite a difference between accuracy in the quoting of sources and accuracy in conveying an eyewitness account. The former would attribute carelessness and imprecision to R. Boruch Epstein; the latter would accuse him of being an intentional liar. Even granting the inaccuracy of his writing, it has no bearing whatever on the accuracy of what he attests to having seen. However, even if the N'tziv did read the newspapers, it is may have no relevance to the current discussion. As RMB cited, it was the haskala press. The Netziv may have been reading it for the purpose of "v'da ma shetashiv," which I believe would render his reading permissible on Shabbos. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:54:42 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:54:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: In-Reply-To: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181029195442.GF13649@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 01:33:46PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for : accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not : guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but : have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we : say lo palginon (we don't split)? QLbdRM applies to chaivei misos shogegin. Because it's shoegeig, BD doesn't kill him, but because he violated a law that carries dinei nefashos, he is off the hook for paying a plaintiff as well. Although in the case of shogegin, the Maharshal says he is chayav to pay midinei Shamayim, even if the court can't force him to pay, and the Qetzos questions this. REWasserman (Qoveitz Shiurim 93) says there are two issues -- which crime to try and which punishment to give. Because in the case of shogegin, there is only the first -- we try for the worse aveirah, but HQBH still holds him accountable for the onesh of the lesser one, since that's the only onesh he is up for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 18:40:39 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 12:40:39 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Toivelling a flower vase more used for food Message-ID: Is the classification of Kelie SeUdah determined by the manufacturer or the user? The Gemara (AZ 75b) rejects the proposition that scissors acquired from a G require Tevillah, only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. The reason we may have thought scissors do require Tevillah - since once Kashered, all food taste is gone, it's like a new device. In fact that's how the Gemara knows that new utensils do require Tevilla. Now, if new devices require Tevillah then it's got nothing to do with the food of the G. In that case scissors should also require. The Gemara rejects that because only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. Meaning it's got something to do with food, at least in the potential. The Ritva however, is troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food of a G. He explains that nevertheless, since they will be used eventually for food they have some connection to food, therefore even new utensils of a G require Tevillah, and he adds, because they're going to a sacred (kosher or Jewish?) use. But why was he troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food? Could this mean that if the G never intend to use it for food, but as a flower vase for example, but the Y chooses to use it for food, that it does not require Tevillah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 30 09:04:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:04:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Freshly Brewed Coffee- on Shabbos? Message-ID: >From the article at http://cor.ca/view-891-freshly-brewed-coffeeon-shabboshtml.html It is well known that there are various grades of roast of coffee beans, from light roast to dark roast. When does a coffee bean become fully roasted to the extent that halacha would allow for it to be cooked on Shabbos? Poskim have expressed doubt as to whether roasted coffee beans have the status of a food that is baked or roasted.8 Due to this doubt, we are not prepared to provide the heter to use microground coffee on Shabbos, even in a kli shlishi.9 ee the above URL for much more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Oct 29 14:12:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 21:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: Pasuk 24:4 in Bereishis says 4 But you shall go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son, for Yitzchak. RSRH comments: Eliezer is to be guided by two considerations: First, l'vni; she should be worthy of being the wife of my son; she should justify my hope that she will become my daughter even as he is my son. This is the general requirement regarding her character. But two people can each be of the most excellent character and still be incompatible. Hence, l'Yitzchak; Eliezer should make sure that the woman is compatible with Yitzchak's individual character. Avraham rejected the daughters of Canaan, preferring an Aramean woman for his son. Let us bear in mind, though, that the Arameans, too, were idolaters. Thus, the reason for Avraham's decision was not the idolatry of the Canaanites, but their moral degeneracy. Idolatry is basically an intellectual error, and that can be corrected. Moral degeneracy, however, takes hold of the whole individual, heart and soul. Hence, even a man such as Avraham could not hope to find among the Canaanites a modest, morally pure woman as a wife for his son, a woman who would bring with her a nobility of spirit and the purity of morality, as a pearl for his home. [Email #2. -micha] Someone who is a rabbi with broad based knowledge sent me the following in response to my earlier message with this subject line. It is amazing how RSRH always can find something so very thoughtful and true. The Rambam alludes at the same matter: that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo, and so he will lose his Chelemer in the Olam HaBo, while it is very possibly that he might do t'shuvo for hillul Shabbos, even if only on his deathbed. RSRH was indeed the kind of very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations. YL From t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 31 00:16:31 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 03:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> From: "Prof. Levine" >: Please see >: http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. My father asked me not to read novels on Shabbos. He didn't say anything to me about reading non-fiction. I was a teenager at the time. I said he asked me, not he told me. I understood that novels were not Shabbosdig. Secular novels, that is. There were almost no Jewish novels back then. It is possible that he phrased it as a request rather than halachic statement because he did not want to impose on me some stricture that might turn me off. Possibly we are now discussing chinuch advice for parents of teenage daughters rather than hilchos Shabbos. From: Micha Berger > And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. > One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from > the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of > them a couple of decades ago. > Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an > artificial evolution of halakha. Not Friday night and not maskilishe papers. I have a copy of the letter that was sent out by the Lakewood Cheder School, recalling the book <> which it had sent out as a fundraiser. The letter does not say what is wrong with the book. All it says is, <> There seems to be a little dig there at the Torah Temima, R' Baruch Epstein, who was the Netziv's nephew and also a ben bayis in the Netziv's home and of course a talmid of the Netziv in the Volozhin yeshiva. But apparently because he thought his uncle was human, a very great man but still human, he somehow didn't <> know his uncle. After the death of his first wife, the Netziv married the sister of the Torah Temima (yes, married his niece), thereupon becoming not only the uncle but also the brother-in-law of the TT. Who nevertheless never really knew his uncle/brother-in-law, according to Lakewood. My father (R' Nachman Bulman) wrote a haskama for the book My Uncle the Netziv, which is a translation (by Moshe Dombey) of parts of the TT's memoirs, called in Hebrew <> The book came out in 1988. To quote part of my father's letter, which is the first page of the book: > The experience of Torah life derives first and foremost from Torah > learning. But the impact of Torah learning is immeasurably richer when > the lives of living Sifrei Torah, of Torah Sages, become educative models > for our people. Further, such lives are vital links in the chain of Jewish > historical knowledge. Mekor Baruch is a matchless compendium of biography, > memoirs, and lore....A glowing portrayal of Volozhin and its last central > figure, the venerable Netziv, is a major part of the work.... I ran into a friend of mine in Brooklyn shortly after Lakewood recalled the book, and he asked me, <> At that point I had no idea who the Netziv was and had never heard of the book or of the Lakewood recall, but I knew my father. <> was my instant reply. I called my father up and asked him for the lowdown. He said that some people in Lakewood were upset because the TT said his uncle read newspapers, but it was because Lakewood was unfamiliar with the papers mentioned in the book. My father actually laughed out loud as he told me this. <> (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was amused by this, too. <>) I will quote a couple of paragraphs from My Uncle the Netziv, to give the flavor of the book and of the humanity, the depth and breadth of the Netziv's personality. He used to say that he considered the newspapers like greetings from the entire world and therefore waited expectantly for their arrival. [They were weeklies that arrived on Friday.] He would not look at the paper Friday night as that time was set aside for reviewing [his Torah learning]. He would save his perusal of the paper for Shabbos morning [after kiddush]. It upset him greatly when one newspaper slandered another....My uncle's wrath was particularly provoked by his favorite papers--the Magid and Levanon--who could not seem to talk about each other with any sense of dignity and derech eretz....The owner of the Levanon, Yechiel Brill, had unilaterally decided that his paper would be the sole voice of the rabbinical community and Torah outlook on all the issues of the day....to his great chagrin, he found out that many rabbonim and members of the Torah community were also avid readers of his arch rival paper, the Magid... The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe newspapers! I recently heard, by the way, that My Uncle the Netziv is once again being sold openly in Lakewood seforim stores (apparently it has been reprinted) and no one remembers that old controversy anymore. They will sell you the book without putting it in a plain brown wrapper, and I wouldn't be surprised if some people read the book on Shabbos. -Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From micha at aishdas.org Thu Nov 1 10:11:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:11:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181101171103.GI32359@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:16:31AM -0400, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the : book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to : learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was : amused by this, too. <>) Also, Zionism. The Netziv supported Chovevei Tziyon. I enjoy pointing out to people that although Zionism was a hotly contested issue in 19th cent Eastern Europe, it was not a communal division line. And so the Netziv's yeshiva had no problem having R' Chaim Brisker as its segan RY. (We really don't see Zionism opening up as a community-defining matter until sometime during or shortly after WWI. The Agudah's first attempt to have a Kenesiah Gedolah was interrupted by that war. Many rabbanim were stranded on the way to it. Including RAYKook, who spent WWI in Switzerland and then England. On their second and successful attempt, in 1923, being a Zionist made you ineligable for membership in the Agudah, and RAYK wasn't invited.) : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic ways.) Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Nov 1 04:37:27 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:37:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: ?that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo,? This is, indeed an intelligent and worthwhile statement. Yet it also is, as I see it, basic common sense that does not require a ?very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations.? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Nov 2 06:29:57 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:29:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Between Eating Meat and Milk Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I know that there are various customs as to how long one must wait between meat and milk. Is waiting between meat and milk a Rabbinic obligation or is it a custom? A. The Gemara (Chullin 105a) states in the name of Rav Chisda that one who eats meat is forbidden to eat cheese afterwards, but one who eats cheese may eat meat. Mar Ukva qualifies that when he would eat meat, he would not eat cheese until the next meal. There is disagreement among Rishonim as to how to understand the ruling of Mar Ukva. * Rambam held that Mar Ukva was teaching us that one must wait approximately 6 hours, the length of time between meals. Shulchan Aruch follows the opinion of Rambam although he states precisely 6 hours. * Tosfos understood that Mar Ukva meant that once one eats meat, it is forbidden to eat cheese until the meal is concluded by reciting Birkas Hamazon. In addition, the mouth must be cleaned. The Rama follows the opinion of Tosfos, but writes that there is a minhag to wait one hour and that the custom of those who are careful is to wait 6 hours. Interestingly, the common German custom is to wait 3 hours. So while all agree that there is a definite Rabbinic obligation to wait between eating meat and milk, there are different opinions as to how long one must wait. For Sefardim who follow the ruling of Shulchan Aruch, waiting 6 hours is an absolute obligation. For Ashkenazim, who follow the ruling of the Rama, the obligation ends once one cleans out one?s mouth and recites a bracha acharona. Waiting one hour, three hours, or six hours are different customs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Nov 4 06:33:48 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 14:33:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Asking a Non-Jew to Perform Melacha Part 1 Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Amira%20l'Akum%20101.pdf The author is Rabbi Shmuel Stein, originally from Brooklyn, is a talmid of Mesivta and Yeshiva Torah Temimah, Yeshivas Yagdil Torah in Eretz Yisroel and Bais Medrash Govoha. Rabbi Stein teaches the popular Wednesday evening In Hilchos Shabbos Shiur and writes a review sheet which is disseminated each week before Shabbos. He organizes the Kollel?s youth programs including Masmidei Erev and Miami Masmidim program. Rabbi Stein is the new resource director at Yeshiva Elementary school and teaches at Mechina of South Florida. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Nov 4 21:03:58 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 07:03:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: [Micha wrote:] > On 11/1/2018 7:11 PM, [RnTK] via Avodah wrote: >: The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the >: Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe >: newspapers!> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos Haskalishe newspaper. > About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist > papers. I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content is like. If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content In addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based content. I don't think of these papers as being Torah publications, rather they are party newspapers that include some Torah". I would ask a different question though: What constitutes a Torah publication? Does it have to deal with parshat shavua, Gemara, mussar, exclusively? Would reading about an opinion piece, written by a rabbi, on world affairs constitute Torah? Rav Kook regularly wrote news columns. What about a mixture of Torah and news? How much of each? Is the content of each article reviewed to make sure that it doesn't violate the laws of lashon ha-rah? From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 09:22:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 17:22:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 25:27 27 When the lads grew up, Esav was a man who understood hunting, a man of the field, and Ya?akov was a totally dedicated man, living in tents. Our Sages never hesitate to point out to us the errors and shortcomings, both great and small, of our forefathers, and precisely thus they make Torah great and glorious, heightening its instructiveness for us (see Commentary above, 12:10). On our verse, too, an observation made by our Sages indicates that the sharp contrast between the two grandsons of Avraham was caused not only by their natural tendencies, but also by mistakes in their upbringing (Bereshis Rabbah 63:10). As long as they were little, no one paid attention to the differences in their hidden natures (see v. 24); they were given the same upbringing and the same education. Their parents overlooked the cardinal principle of education: 'chanoch lanar al pi darco, ?Bring up each child in accordance with his own way? (Mishlei 22:6). Each child should be guided in accordance with the path intended especially for him, the path that suits the qualities and tendencies latent in the depths of his personality, and thus he should be educated, both as a man and as a Jew. The great Jewish task is basically one, but the ways of its fulfillment are manifold and diverse, as human character traits and paths of life are manifold and diverse. Precisely for this reason, each child must be brought up al pi darco; educate him to the one great goal, according to his own unique way, in keeping with his potential. To attempt to educate a Ya?akov and an Esav together in the same classroom, in the same routines and in the same manner, to raise both of them for a life of study and contemplation, will inevitably mean to ruin one of the two. A Ya?akov will draw from the well of wisdom with ever-increasing interest and desire, whereas an Esav will hardly be able to wait for the day when he can throw away the old books and, together with them, a great life-mission, of which he was taught in a one-sided manner, totally unappealing to his nature. For much more on this topic see Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 12:49:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 15:49:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah Message-ID: <20181105204918.GA15965@aishdas.org> The AhS discusses length a few times, but I just passed CM 218:1. It ends: And know that according to the measure in our country of Russia, every 4 amos in the gemara is 3 arshin of ours, which is 7 regel ["fut"] which is one sazhen. And every tefach is 2 vieshoks. Well, there is the translations from wikipedia's page on "Obsolete Russian Units of Measurement" >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete_Russian_units_of_measurement>. 1 fut = 30.48 cm (= 1' British Empirial) = 3/7 arshin 1 arshin = 71.12cm = 2-1/3' 1 sachen = 3 arshin = 2.1336m = 7' So, 4 amos = 3 arshin 1 ammah = 3/4 arshin = 3/4 * 2-1/3 ft = 1.75' = 21" 1 vershok = 1/16 of an arshin = 4.445cm = 1-3/4" Meaning a tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 ammah) Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). Given the round numbers the AhS is working with -- 3/4 of a local unit of measure -- RMF and the AhS could differ only by rounding tolerance. 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 llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 13:16:27 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 21:16:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? Message-ID: RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf For more on this see https://www.ajol.info/index.php/samj/article/viewFile/157422/147034 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 13:35:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 16:35:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181105213511.GA31108@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:16:27PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See : http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf There was a 1979 paper by [Dr?] Philip Lanzkowsky in the American Academy of Pediatrics Journal on the topic. The AAP Journal even cites RSRH! Abstract: Polycythmia as a result of twin-to-twin transfusion in monozygotic twins has only been recognized as a clinical entity in the last few decades. The first recorded case of polycythemia in the newborn due to twin-to-twin transfusion, however, was reported in the Bible: "And when her (Rebekah) days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first came forth ruddy, all over like a hairy mantle; and they called his name Esau...". Genesis XXV, 24-26. A ruddy newborn twin is a clear description of polycythemia in the newborn presumably due to twin-to-twin transfusion. According to Hirsch,[1] despite the contrastrating differences between Esau and Jacob, they were identical twins with complete exterior similarity. Twin-to-twin transfusion occurs in 15% of identical twins. One may further speculate that because of the marked intellectual and emotional differences between Esau and his brother Jacob, that Esau's intellectual restrictions might very well have been evidence of brain damage due to cerebral sludging as a result of polycythemia or kernicterus due to uncorrected hyperbilirubinemia pursuant to polycythemia. "... nothing is new under the sun.... It has already been in the ages before us."[2] The article itself is behind a paywall, though. The problem is that Rabbeinu Chananel quotes R Yosi that Yaaqov was conceived first. And R' Yosi is an amora. As my kids and I each learned in our respective parashah classes in elementary school, Yaaqov was allegedly really the bechor, because the pebble that comes out of the vessel last was the one put into the vessel first. It's the one nearest the exit, after all. I say allegedly, because bekhorah doesn't really go to the second twin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Nov 5 13:36:32 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 16:36:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] RYS and His Son Going to College (was Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: <38.4E.22391.2E7B0EB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:17 PM 11/5/2018, R Micha wrote: >HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, >they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch >Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in >math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it >happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. >And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic >ways.) He did not agree with nor approve of his son's decision to get a college education. >> From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 1 pages 313 - 314. >>R. Israel, however, was deeply distressed that his son had >>abandoned the study of Torah, since the son had excelled so well in >>it in his youth. The father derived no comfort at all from the >>son's remarkable achievements in the world of science, and cut off >>his support during all the son's student years. R. Israel exerted >>every effort to restore his son to Torah study. When Hamaggid >>reported in 1865, that "Mr. Lipkin was on his way to Koenigsberg to >>engage in advanced research, "the editor added that this was the >>son of R. Israel of Salant, and that he was "a pride to his saintly >>father, the Gaon, as well, may he live, who did not prevent the son >>from attending lectures at university, and so to integrate Torah >>and science, for the greater glory of the sons of our people." A >>few weeks later the same periodical (No. 11) carried a letter over >>the signature of R. Israel with these remarks: "Since Truth is the >>lamp at the feet of the righteousness that goes about on earth, I >>find it my duty publicly to proclaim that no glory accrues to me, >>as the slip of your pen would seem to indicate, in respect of my >>son. On the contrary, to me this is a 'bitterness of the spirit'. >>My heart grieves at the path which my son has wanted to set for >>himself. Whoever loves his soul and has the power to persuade him, >>to turn his desire not to run counter to my will and wishes, will >>do a great favor to one as depressed in spirit as I am today". >>Nor was there any contradiction between R. Israel's personal >>attitude and his simultaneous efforts to spread Judaism in academic >>circles. There was nothing in his views to prevent him from trying >>to infiltrate Torah inside the walls of the university and to >>influence students. Furthermore, he employed every means at his >>disposal to guard his son against straying from Judaism. He >>journeyed specially to St. Petersburg to extract a three-fold >>promise: that his son would observe Shabbat, refrain from eating >>trefah food, and not shave. [27] He would say that were he able to >>disguise himself as a woman, he would go to work in the restaurant >>patronized by his son, so as to supervise the kashrut. He also >>requested R. Isaac Blazer, then rabbi in St. Petersburg, by mail, >>to keep an eye on the son. [28] In this way, it is said, the son >>remained a loyal Jew. >>[27.] As related by Rabbi A. D. Berkovsky. Presumably this was the >>journey to St. Petersburg undertaken that year, 1872, as mentioned >>above, in connection with his political activities. R. Naftali >>Amsterdam is reputed to have related that, when R. Israel was in >>St. Petersburg, several of the university professors remarked to >>the son that they would want to see what made his father so great. >>The son suggested that they ask his father the most difficult >>question in geometry they could propound. They submitted a problem >>which had engaged their minds at that time. R. Israel studied it >>for a few minutes, and solved it to the astonishment of all the >>specialists in the field (told by R. Abraham Braude). >>[28.] R. Israel's last letter to R. Isaac Blazer concerning his >>son's conduct elicited the reply that the son had not tasted >>gentile baked bread for the past three months R. Israel understood >>this to imply that his son had been dead for three months, since no >>other bread was available in the capital. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t613k at aol.com Mon Nov 5 19:18:40 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:18:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> From: Micha Berger : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! [--old TK] HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. ? ?>>>> ? You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? When we speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a secular intellectual and academic movement and of? people who were not religious and who were often virulently anti-religious.? Wissenschaft des Judentums types. There definitely were secular, anti-religious journals being published in Europe in the 19th century, some in Hebrew, others in European languages.? These were not the journals that the Netziv was reading and discussing with his talmidim on Shabbos morning after kiddush. ? You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. ? The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were definitely Orthodox.? However, the use of words like modern, worldly, charedi, Orthodox and Zionist is anachronistic.? Those terms weren't used in the 19th century as they are today.? Nineteenth century Europe was not 21st century America.? Yechiel Brill, the editor and publisher of the Levanon, was a <> only in the loosest sense of having worldly interests and being a little bit on the modern side of the frum spectrum, but he was anti-Haskalah and anti-Reform.?? ? I don't know why you want to paint the Netziv as an avid consumer of secular newspapers.? That is just not accurate. ? Now, Ben Waxman wrote: ? >> I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content >>is like. >>If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah >>publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their >>content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all >>write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content. In >>addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based >>articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. >>So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, >>he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based >>content. Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view.? The letters to the editor could be long, weighty essays themselves.? You can't really compare them to Hamodia or Yated.? They were more like an Orthodox version of today's _Commentary_ magazine, but with more flame-throwing. ? The main thing they had in common with today's charedi newspapers is that they did not carry pictures of women.? But then again, they did not carry pictures of men, either. No pictures of anything!? Just pages and pages of words.? ?:) ? Ah, I remind myself of that song from <>?? ? Words Words Words I'm so sick of words I get words all day through First from him, now from you Is that all you blighters can do ? All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the far side of the moon. ? ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 23:28:59 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 09:28:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles Message-ID: This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgluck at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 6 05:10:10 2018 From: mgluck at mail.gmail.com (Moshe Y. Gluck) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 08:10:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sent: November 6, 2018 5:37 AM Cc: marty.bluke at gmail.com This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and obligatory on both parents? KT MYG Sent via the BlackBerry Hub for Android From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:35:51 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:35:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday, November 6, 2018, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not > mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and > obligatory on both parents? > > I didn?t understand this point either as this is not an inyan of chinuch but pikuach nefesh which would apply to the mother also. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:07:42 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:07:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Toby Katz via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive > today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with > access to old library archives. > > > All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the > far side of the moon. > This is not quite true: together with lots of other Hebrew journals, they are all available online at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/JPress/English/Pages/default.aspx I doubt if that site gets as many hits as the New York Times, so basically you are right, but at least anyone who cares can judge for themselves what these newspapers were like -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Nov 6 10:59:09 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 20:59:09 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <5b8a21c0-a020-2f8a-c85c-af2e6568db4e@zahav.net.il> If no one has seen them, how do you know what was in them? You did a research paper? Ben On 11/6/2018 5:18 AM, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one > alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic > researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies > and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's > intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the > issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 6 12:04:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:04:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181106200428.GC28629@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 10:18:40PM -0500, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : From: Micha Berger :> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... :> Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of :> whose paper.) : You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way. When we : speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a : secular intellectual and academic movement and of people who were not : religious and who were often virulently anti-religious. Wissenschaft des : Judentums type... This is revisionist. When Beruriah David's PhD paper talks about the Maharatz Chajes as a Masekil, she was indeed talking about Wissenschaft types, but certainly not unobservant, never mind "virulantly anti-religious". In any case, the modern parallel to what we're talkiong about is if one of today's "yeshivish" rashei yeshivah, who happens to also be a Zionist, read a newspaper -- not a Torah magazine like JO -- put out by a LWMO "Academic Orthodox" type institution. : You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were : pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to : Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. I think you misunderstand the history. This is Chovevei Tzion, the people who brought you Achad haAm. These were Orthodox Jews who aligned with Secular Zionism. The people who founded Petach Tiqva in 1882. Bilu was also well on its way by the Netzi's hayday. But that has little to do with haMad. : The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, : moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were : definitely Orthodox. Nope. This is also revisionist. At least "moderate chareidi" is. : Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one : alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers : with access to old library archives.... Or Google. http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=tab&tab=browse&pub=MGD&_ga=2.44647777.412515131.1541534577-590544565.1541534577#panel=browse 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Nov 7 07:15:12 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:15:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0e8301d476ac$adf40550$09dc0ff0$@com> > Meaning a AhS tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 > ammah) > Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an > ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). You meant to say: RMF (IM OC 1:136) tefach is 3.54" (9cm) and ammah 21-1/4" (53.98cm). [Yes, I typoed -- 3 and 4 are adjacent keys. Which is how the error didn't reach my times-6 result for the ammah. -micha] From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 7 07:16:46 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:16:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1a5d3f60-a1f2-d250-1c3d-fc81959fdb40@sero.name> On 6/11/18 8:10 am, Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm > not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek > and obligatory on both parents? My guess is that these decisions are usually left to the mother, and the anti-vaxx nonsense has spread mostly among women, so he's now telling the men that it's their duty to insist on vaccinating the children even if their wives are opposed. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 7 11:25:01 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:25:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn Message-ID: I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" be to daven first, then learn? 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 Tue Nov 13 10:06:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181113180654.GA7634@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 07:25:01PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven : (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning : starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" : be to daven first, then learn? Perhaps it's because of Berakhos 31a: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven neither from din, nor from devar halakhah, ela mitokh halakhah pesukah. And what is halakhah besukah like? Abayei said, like what Rabbi Zeira said. ... and then quoting a settled halakhah that Rabbi Zeira said once. ("benos Yisrael hichmiru al atzman...") Rava said, like that which Rav Hoshia said.. But I think you get the idea. So, maybe people assume 1,600+ year-old discussions in the gemara qualify. I don't think that's shitas Rashi, though. Rashi ('halakhah pesuqah") says the gemara is worried about topics that a person would continue thinking about during davening. (The Be'er Heitev holds like Rashi.) But in any case, looking a little more meta: The gemara's assumption is that one is supposed to learn before davening, and the gemara then discusses what it is one should be learning. Later on in the sugya: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven from within sorrow, nor laziness, nor silliness, nor chatter, nor qalus rosh, nor devarim beteilim ela mitokh simchah shel mitzvah. Perhaps the learning is indeed seen as a prep for davening. (In addition to talmud Torah.) See OC 93. In the SA, that second TR is in se'if 2, and the first, in se'if 3. Se'if 4 amos, "Ha'oseiq betzorkhei tzibur ke'oseiq baTorah", because there is similar simchah shel mitzvah. 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 zvilampel at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 13 17:07:16 2018 From: zvilampel at mail.gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:07:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:13 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality > : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means > : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are > : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem > : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature* Just to be clear, that was a quote of the Maharal. > While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your usage. > the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent. Rambam teaches that during maaseh breishis, Hashem put the normal properties and behaviors into the natures of the things He created and formed. He also instilled in them the potential for certain aberrational behaviors, to be actualized upon certain conditions, such as the staff turning into a serpent. But such changes open can only last temporarily. But then there is the constant reaction of natural events to mankind's good and evil deeds, which is a neis nistar. This, Rambam explains, is nevertheless the greatest miracle of all: > "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with > loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a > continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of > metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". > (Rambam's Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end]) This view as well is shared by the Ramban. And this is his point in the passages in which he is mistakenly understood to be saying that "there is no 'it' to nature." As an example, in Toras Hashem Temimah, he cites the Rambam approvingly and says, "Most people think that the Alm-ighty does not constantly enact miracles, that the world proceeds in its way, and many of the chachamim think so, too, but the Rav (Rambam) curses them....All our affairs are entirely miracles, there is no nature and way that the world proceeds, for behold the promises of the Torah are all absolute miracles ...The fact of "And I shall give your rains in their time [if you keep the mitzvos]," Hashem will open for you his good treasure-house, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its time an d to bless...is the same as the plague of the firstborn, the dever and arov, and the drowning of the Egyptians in the sea...the only difference is that between the hidden and the open...." So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago shel olom, no "it" to nature. > From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? >Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? >See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam. The Ralbag demonstrates he was well acquainted with the Rambam's writings on the subject, and he himself states that none of his fellow rishonim before him "realized" that this was what Chazal were saying. The two issues raised in this post, the issue of time with the issue of miracles and ha-olom beMinhago noheig, actually tie together. Rambam in the above mentioned payrush on Avos famously maintains that it was on erev Shabbos that Hashem instilled potential aberrational behavior in the nature of the 10 things listed. However, the potentials for aberrational behaviors were instilled in the natures of all other creations ON THE DAY THE TORAH INDICATES. E.g. one example he gives is that the nature of water to split was instilled on day 2. So he is understanding the days as units of time, in which there were days 1-7 and a 6th day bein ha-shemoshos. If one were to attempt imposing the concept of "step of logic" on the use of the word "day" in this passage, the passage would not make sense. Moreh Nevuchim 2:30 does not differ. In MN 2:30, Rambam emphasizes that time itself is something Hashem created. It is a result of the turning of the sphere, which itself is something that was created. Thus, creation did not happen after a certain amount of time, because time could not exist before creation. This is the meaning of his saying that creation, the initial creation ex nihilo, happened "outside of time." (See Abarbanel ?(p. 8, left-hand column, middle), Crescas and Ephodi. Shemtov does attribute the "levels" peshat to Rambam.) But then he poses a question: If the sphere and heavenly bodies were first created the fourth day, how were the first three days measured? He is obviously assuming, in his question, that the creation days of the Torah are units of time. The question is how could there be a first, second and third day, if the thing that produces time, the revolving sphere, did not exist until day four. The question includes the assumption that each day of maaseh breishis witnessed a new creation ex nihilo of the rakia, the vegetation, the creatures, etc., so the heavenly bodies that determine units of time did not exist until the 4th day. He answers that day does not mean a unit of time, but a step of logic. No, wait, he doesn't. He answers that Chazal teach that despite the impression one may get from the pesukim, there was not a new creation ex nihilo each of the 6 days. There was one creation ex nihilo of everything, and then a "revealing"/separation/extraction of each component. What occurred on day 4 with the heavenly bodies responsible for time was not their creation. Their creation and behavior of determining time began at the instant of creation ex nihilo. He cites the Chazal comparing the process over the six creation days to that of various types of seeds. Even though they were all planted one day, each one sprouts later, on a different day. Repeat: later, on different days. The question of how there was time and days 1, 2, and 3 before day 4 is answered with the principle that the heavenly bodies responsible for time existed from the moment of creation. Nothing in the Rambam's words (either here or in his treatment in the first chelek of word meanings) about days meaning levels. "The particle "ess" in the phrase "ess ha-shamayim ve-ess ha-aretz ("the heavens and the earth") signifies "together with." Our Sages have explained the word in the same sense in many instances. Accordingly, they assume that God created, with the heavens, everything that the heavens contain, and with the earth, everything the earth includes. They further say that the simultaneous Creation of the heavens and the earth is implied in the words, "I call unto them, they stand up together" (Tehillim 48). Consequently, all things were created together, but revealed (nisgalu) / were separated from each other (nivdelu) one by one (rishon rishon). Our Sages illustrated this by the following simile: We sow various seeds at the same time; some spring forth after one day, some after two, and some after three days, although all have been sown at the same time. This outlook, which is undoubtedly the correct one, solves the problem of... how the first day, the second day and the third day were determined.... This is explicit in the words of our Sages in Bereshis Rabba. They said, regarding the light the Torah says was created on the first day. They said it as follows: These [lights of the luminaries mentioned in the Creation of the fourth day] are the very same lights that were created on the first day, but were not hung in their places until the fourth day. Behold, they explicitly stated this idea." All this would be an awful way to express the simple idea that by "day" the Torah means not a unit of time but a logical step. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 14 09:01:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:01:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Did you intentionally reply off-list? Or should I copy your email and this one onto Avodah? On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, : Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your : usage. A lot resided in the word "hypostasis", and a reason why I couldn't find a more apt word among normal English ones. :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. But it's minhago shel olam. Not an "it". The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH. It is this direct causality that people mistake for his saying there is no teva. According to the Rambam, nature is the product of the Seikhel haPo'al, which is acted upon by mal'akhim, which, if you chase the chain of causality up to the start, is a product of hashgachah kelalis and Divine Da'as. But there is an "it" there. Teva is a metaphysical object, not a pattern. See Moreh 2:11-12 (ch. 10 may be a useful prelude.) (Nevu'ah is also mediated through the Seikhel haPo'al [2:35], but that's a different subject.) A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a person, and thus to that extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH delegates his fate. I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to nature". But you apparently took me to mean there is no nature. Rather than no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on. That's what I was talking about, and most of your reply doesn't actually address the chiluq I'm making. : So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. No, but he does mean there is no such "thing" as nature. It's not a hypostatis. : His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago : shel olom, no "it" to nature. : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. See also the Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. The Abarbanel specifically endorces the Ralbag's "yesod" in understanding the Rambam. https://www.sefaria.org/Abarbanel_on_Torah%2C_Genesis.1.1.10 This is how the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian like R' Yitzchaq Arama. RYBS too, Mainodies between Philosophy & Halakhah, pg 187. In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of time. His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before the sun. And it's not a problem we modern people would face, anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 14 21:37:51 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:37:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli Message-ID: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html Me-Yet R' Ellman would not ( at least when I asked him) say that any of these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food for thought 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 Nov 14 21:35:38 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:35:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions Message-ID: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? Do we see this same propensity in prior authorities who were not writing codes in this manner? Other reason why different authorities might deal with this issue differently? 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 Nov 15 10:52:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:52:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> References: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20181115185222.GA28484@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 10:31:20PM -0400, R Akiva Miller replied to my post: :> So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted :> keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be :> when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than :> the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged :> YhR? : Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal : encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to : the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate : the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the : fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But that's the converse of my question. I didn't ask why Chazal found the taqanos they did. Or in the case of ribbis, engineered a solution using a pre-existing loophole. I asked why the RBSO didn't. If Chazal knew that people couldn't keep up the moral standard, obviously the Author of the deOraisos did too. And therefore, why didn't He allow ribbis for the same "lo diberah Torah ela keneged YhR" reasons as eishes yefas to'ar. Once we have G-d making compramizes for EYT, why did He leave ribbis to Chazal? Why did Hashem make it that money is qoneh? He knew better than chazal that it would create situations where a seller is still holding something he no longer owns, and sometimes that will mean carelessness in how the item is guarded. Why did Chazal need to invoke hefqer BD hefqer and totally rewrite how sale works? (That said, I am almost satisfied with RDR's answer, below.) : But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. : The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her : (unless he follows the prescribed procedure)... Today's militaries assume otherwise. Avoiding ribis is less of a problem when "money" is primarily a metal or contract to swap, only a half-step beyond barter. One is "only" losing opportunity cost. But once we got prime rates etc... so that there is a difference between present and future value of money can be done in some settings, avoiding ribbis became something not enough lenders could afford, and the poor suffered. Eishes yefas to'ar is similarly situational. Whether it is "unwinnable" at best depends on the kind of war one is fighting. Maybe when fighting barbarian tribes. But not as a general rule. : Alternatively: : D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. But they can allow things explicitly denied by the Torah? If you can engineer heter isqa into something that covers most of the situations where ribbis is needed, they could have engineered and issur. But I also recently encountered while learning Arukh haShulchan something that may be a counter-example. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that there are no shevu'os when the dispute is over qarqa. So, while modeh bemiqtzas (e.g.) about money or metaltelin requires a shevu'ah deOraisa, if it is about real estate there is no shevu'ah deOraisa. However, Chazal still require the nitba to make a shevu'as heises in order to retain his chazaqah on the land. And on Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:16:00AM -0400, R David Riceman replied to the same post: : It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it : is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical : level, however, I don't see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah : prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. I am sure the same was said before heter isqa. Chazal were a bunch of rabbis capable of finding 49 ways to be metaher a sheretz. Our inability to figure out how they would have created a law like eishes yefas to'ar doesn't prove it impossible. For that matter, the gemara apparently concludes that pruzbul was only enacted because shemittah today is derabbanan. Although I think it's left open whether pruzbul would not work when shemittah is deOraisa. Or whether hefqer BD would meant it would work, but they question the hava amina that Hillel would circumvent a deOraisa like that. What kind of "you don't" the gemara is talking about would impact your answer. That said, I like RDR's "more important point". Repeated here, since it's been nearly a month -- an eternity as list-time goes: : But there's a more important point. What's weird about war is that : it's not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between : civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those : different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say "hasatan : mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama" that's partly because the soldiers don't : have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. : But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to : rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person : to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over : his lifetime. : So it makes a lot of sense that k'nagged YhR is specifically mentioned : in the context of milhama. The reason why I said above I am only "almost satistfied" is that it borders on explaining too much. We aren't looking only for a chiluq between EYT and my sample dinim derabbanan. But also between deOraisa and derabbanan. You are left saying there is a whole set of dinim on a tightrope -- they are lifelong challenges and therefore controllable enough for HQBH not to want to compromize for human nature, and yet history evolved the situation to the point where they pose impossible challenges that chazal needed to accomodate. Well, not necessarily "impossible". At least: by Chazal's day these grew into challenges that are so rarely met, the usual outcome is more costly than the din -- such as the poor not being able to get a loan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 14:57:30 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:57:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli In-Reply-To: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119225730.GA28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:37:51AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: : https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html : : Yet R' Ellman would not (at least when I asked him) say that any of : these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food : for thought I like RARakeffetR's mashal (and recall, he is a RIETS RY with a PhD in Jewish History): You can ask a historican how the electric refrigerator was invented, and you will hear about the social forces involved, the wiring of the American home for power, etc... None of which tells you how the refrigerator actually works. (He might even give you the history of the application of thermodynamics and the Carnot cycle without ever explaining that particular bit of science.) Similarly: Knowing that a particular area of halakhah was mined in response to a given situation doesn't change the fact that the halachic principles had to be there and had to be applied. And the knowledge does little to teach you the principles themselves. 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 15:06:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 18:06:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions In-Reply-To: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119230604.GB28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:35:38AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan : aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority : opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach : rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? ... I think the SA tried to reach conclusions. For that matter, he tried to follow majority of his short list of major posqim. I think for him it was just a way of dealing with not being sufficiently convinced; and not having his triumverate answering the question for him. For the MB... Not sure I want to reopen that whole "the MB was written to help posqim, and its 'rulings' are lehalakhah velo lemaaseh" -- not always even followed by the CC himself. (Who was author of most of the book, and editor in chief of the rest.) : Other reason why different authorities might deal : with this issue differently? The AhS has enough confidence in toras imekha that he would use it to say that lemaaseh we pasqened like a minority, or like (what seems to me to be a) dachuq peshat. There are exceptions, where he holds that common practice is just too dachuq, but they're rare. So, for the AhS, being stumped means that not only is there no clear textual winner, there is no clear minhag (accepted practice) either. So holding out in fear of a mi'ut isn't likely. Holding like a mi'ut because the tzibbur already does, much more comomn. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 20 09:08:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181120170828.GA27185@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, ... :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. Actually, it's real, but I think you misunderstood what I meant. (As I said in the previous email.) Relevant is this excerpt from a recent shiur from Gush's Vitual Beis Medrash. Rav Bednarsh gives 2 chiluqim that are orthogonal to the one I mentioned (whether there is an "it" behind teva, or if nature is "merely" a pattern of Divine Action): 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. About fn #4... I spoke to RDBerger about his paper. I can ask a parallel question on RAB's article to introduce the same answer, so I will do so here. RAB writes (below): > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The > Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only > the principle of hashgacha pratit. > Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these > two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more > nuanced. > In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise > of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God > and not to doctors for healing.... ... > For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) > that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on > a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, > to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or > punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in > the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence > and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness... > In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that > his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh > Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and > tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully > on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the > Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order... Okay, so it's much more nuanced, but then what does he mean in the two places we started with? What I pointed out, that the Ramban is denying teva as an it -- that even teva is through the same direct Influence as neis -- adds the same nuance without ignoring those two more famous comments of the Ramban. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Yeshivat Har Etzion PHILOSOPHY > Topics in Hashkafa > Shiur #06: Divine Providence and the Natural Order 1 Rav Assaf Bednarsh Adapted by Leora Bednarsh Should one attempt to provide for one's needs in this world by working through the natural order, or should one do so by keeping mitzvot and trusting in God to provide? Are the events of this world caused by direct Divine Providence or by the natural scientific order? This question has tremendous practical significance and is the subject of much debate in the contemporary Jewish community. This topic is often portrayed as "hishtadlut (effort) vs. bitachon (trust)." ... The Position of the Rambam No Jewish philosopher can entirely deny the doctrine of hashgacha pratit. There are many examples in Tanakh that very clearly indicate that God miraculously takes care of the righteous in this world in accordance with His Divine plan.[1] However, almost all the cases in Tanakh deal with exceptionally righteous and spiritual individuals. That may be because most of Tanakh deals with these great individuals; these are the people we need to learn about in order to learn to be good Jews. The Rambam, however, maintains that this is not coincidence. It is not simply that these happen to be the main characters in Tanakh. According to the Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim III:18), hashgacha pratit is not something that God automatically utilizes in running the world. God relates to us when we relate to Him. When we open the channel, God's bounty flows through that channel. If we don't bother to create those lines of communication, then He does not communicate with us either. Those who have achieved philosophical sophistication, who have studied what the Rambam understands to be the Jewish mystical philosophical tradition and focus their thoughts on God, enjoy the benefits of Divine Providence. According to the Rambam, not all people enjoy equal Divine Providence. Those who are pious and good and religious enjoy more Divine Providence because of their understanding of God, which fuels their piety and goodness. Those who are prophets enjoy a higher level because of their deep understanding of God. Those who are on a very rarified level of philosophical spiritual achievement can be assured that God looks out for them in this world. The wicked and the religiously ignorant, however, have no such promise of Divine Providence. Even regular people who may be reasonably religious and try to think about God quite often still have not achieved that level of understanding at which they can assume that they are beneficiaries of constant direct Divine Providence. For the Rambam, then, most people do not enjoy the benefit of direct Divine Providence all the time. Accordingly, it makes perfect sense that we are expected to work through the natural order. The natural order is the default. When we change the rules by achieving philosophical knowledge of God, our lives begin to be run by the principles of Divine Providence. But much of the time the world is run by the natural order and God does not involve Himself. Thus, we should be expected to provide for ourselves and to achieve whatever goals we feel the need to achieve by means of the natural order. The natural order is the one thing that is guaranteed. God created the world and created the scientific order as the way in which the world will run until God decides to get involved because someone let Him in to his life.[2] And even then, God is only involved partially, to the extent that someone partially perfects themselves and meditates upon God. Of course, this does not mean that God has no part in our lives when we do not enjoy Providence. There is still hashgacha klalit, general Providence. God still arranges the world generally in such a way that our needs are provided for. We say blessings, thanking God, for example, for creating fruits of the tree, but not because He created this particular fruit for me to eat today, rather because He created a wonderful world that provides for much of our needs. It is our job to appreciate that. But when I stub my toe or win the lottery, is that God's direct intervention? According to the Rambam, most of the time it is not. Rather, it is the natural order. The Position of the Ramban It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only the principle of hashgacha pratit. Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more nuanced. In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God and not to doctors for healing. He states that when the masses of the Jews are perfect, their lives will not be run by the natural order, but rather directly by God; He will be their doctor. According to Ramban, that is what the righteous did in the days of Tanakh, during the era of prophecy. Anyone with access to prophecy does not need a doctor, and in case of illness should turn instead to a prophet, who will tell him which of his actions needs to be improved; he will then repent and repair those actions so that God will heal his disease. "What business do doctors have in the house of someone who fulfills the will of God?" asks the Ramban. Although the Rabbis interpreted the verse "ve-rapo yerapeh" (Shemot 21:19) as evidence that the doctor has permission to heal, the Ramban restricts the significance of this inference. If someone asks for help, the doctor should heal the patient - but Chazal never said that the patient should seek medical care, only that the doctor should provide it. The patient should ideally put all his trust in God and not in the natural order. However, if the patient has already put his trust in the natural order, the doctor has no choice but to heal him, because that is the only option left. When someone puts his faith in the natural order, his live is unfortunately run by the natural order. But when someone puts his faith in God, his life is controlled by direct Divine Providence. Similarities Between the Ramban and the Rambam The Ramban here seems to take an anti-Maimonidean stance, focusing on Divine Providence. However, on closer analysis, he does not deny the existence of the natural order. He acknowledges the existence of teva. Of course, he believes that it is far preferable to live by faith in God and not by teva, but once our spiritual level fell and we became accustomed to using medicine and working within the scientific order, God "abandoned us to the happenstance of teva." If we read the Ramban very carefully, we notice that the examples he uses of those who should not seek medical help but rather turn directly to God are limited to a time when the masses of Jews are righteous, during the time of prophecy. The Ramban is referring to people on a very high spiritual level. They enjoyed the benefit of constant Divine Providence and therefore had no business working through the natural order. The implication is that the situation is quite different for regular people in regular times. Even righteous Jew nowadays, when, unfortunately, the masses of Jews are far from perfect and when prophecy has not been restored to us, are not on the same high spiritual level. Therefore, they cannot have a reasonable expectation of constant Divine Providence in their lives, and perhaps they should visit doctors. Although everything that happens in the world is subject to Divine Providence, God has decided to abandon us - regular people in the contemporary era - to the workings of the natural order. We no longer merit constant Divine Providence. This is, in fact, explicitly the opinion of the Ramban in several places. For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness. But Yaakov himself was not sure that he was righteous enough to enjoy Divine Providence, which is why he prepared using natural means to make peace, or if need be, war, with Esav. He made various preparations using the natural order because in his humility, he was not certain that he was on the level to expect Divine Providence. If Yaakov Avinu questioned whether he deserved Divine Providence, the clear implication is that we can certainly not rely on it! In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order. We are instructed to conscript an army and go out and fight in the event of war, not just to sit and pray and wait for God to fight for us. We cannot always expect to be on such a high spiritual level that we enjoy constant Divine Providence. Rather, we must work under the assumption that we may not always be experiencing Divine Providence, and we must therefore work under the natural order. The Ramban tells us that if God wants us to win a war, we will win without an army, and if, God forbid, He wants us to lose a war, no matter how strong our military is, we will lose. But sometimes, when we are neither completely righteous nor completely wicked, God does not want any particular result, because He is not exercising Divine Providence at that point. That is why it is so important that we work through the natural order. The Ramban in this commentary seems to be in line with mainstream religious Zionist ideology. We work through the natural order because not everything always is decreed by God.[4] Differences Between the Ramban and the Rambam As much as the Ramban claims to agree with the Rambam, there is still a significant difference between their philosophies. The Ramban in a number of places, including his commentary to Iyov, tells us that Divine Providence can be either positive or negative. If someone is truly righteous, then God watches and guards him all the time. If someone is evil, God will intervene in the world to punish him. Those in the middle, neither wicked nor righteous, are left to the natural order. The Rambam, on the other hand, holds that Divine Providence can only be positive, not negative. It is purely a function of one's connection to God. Therefore, the more connected one is to God, the more Divine Providence; the more disconnected one is, the less Divine Providence. Punishment only occurs in this world because when God removes His Providence, one is exposed to the many perils of the dangerous world that we inhabit. While the Ramban has a volitional model of Divine Providence, in which God decides to exercise Providence when a person deserves reward or punishment, the Rambam has a more mechanistic model, under which Divine Providence is an automatic result of spiritual achievement. What the Rambam and the Ramban have in common, however, is their belief that while Divine Providence is an ideal to strive for, it is not the default, automatic way in which the world works. God sometimes involves Himself through the principle of hashgacha pratit, but often does not. The natural order is the authentic way in which God created the world to run when He doesn't decide to get involved and change things. For the Ramban and the Rambam, then, the answer to the question of faith (bitachon) versus effort (hishtadlut) is clear. We are expected to take care of providing our needs in this world the best we can using the natural order. None of us are arrogant enough to assume that we are so holy and righteous that we have constant Divine Providence. Of course, we strive to be more holy, spiritual, and righteous. We strive to enjoy more Divine Providence. And, at least according to the Ramban, perhaps our ultimate goal is to reach the highest spiritual levels and abandon the natural order. Nonetheless, in regular life, the Rambam and the Ramban would have us work in the natural order because we can never be certain that anything that happens to us in our lives is the result of God's direct intervention. Our success or lack thereof may be purely a function of the natural order. Therefore, we must take care of ourselves. God is not always taking care of us, as we may not be sufficiently righteous. _______________________ [1] For example, the Exodus and figures such as the Patriarchs, Daniel, and Chananya, Mishael and Azarya. [2] Even in this case, Rambam nowhere states that one who enjoys Divine Providence should not work within the natural order. In the next two shiurim, we will present various explanations of why even one who enjoys Divine Providence might be required to work within the natural order. [3] The Ramban understands God's "knowledge" of Avraham as constant Divine Providence [4] Many attempts have been made to resolve the apparent contradiction between the Ramban's statement in his commentary to Shemot 13 and his sermon Torat Hashem Temima and his formulations in his commentaries to Bereishit 18 and 32 and Iyov 36. It seems likely that the Ramban intended to claim not that everything that happens is a miracle, but that miraculous Providence ultimately controls everything. Since even nature was created by God, Providential intervention can override the laws of nature, but the laws of nature do not restrict Divine Providence. When Providence chooses not to intervene, however, nature still follows its course. For further reading, see the original texts, as well as David Berger, "Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmanides," in Isadore Twersky (ed.), Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuosity (Harvard University Press, 1983), available at https://www.biblicalnaturalhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/MiraclesNahmanides.pdf. From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 06:41:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:41:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yaakov and Esav Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32:8. 8 Ya?akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. In Ya?akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya?akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya?akov?s attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 08:24:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:24:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? Message-ID: One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the ?Medina shel Chessed? is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic issues of this very American holiday... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 22 04:30:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? Message-ID: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is it equivalent of free will? What does it mean to have free will without consequence? How then do we understand the medrash in Breishit that the trees were punished for not following HKB"H's direction? The dogs being rewarded for not barking? 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 zvilampel at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 09:30:07 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:01 PM Micha Berger wrote: > > RMB: > :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. > > ZL: Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no > less > : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of > : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that > : minhag permanent. > > ... > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. Where does Ramban say this? As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent at maaseh breishis. See, for example, on Shmos 6:6. ''The posuk says 'Vay-hiH khein'' because that is the teva that was instilled in them forever...and they will remain with the first teva that was instilled in them at the time of their formation (Vayamdual haTeva haRishon asher hussam bahem bEis yetsirasam). And on Vayikra 26:11, in the passage about refuah, he uses the phrase, VaHashem Heeneecham lemikrei haTivee-im, Hashem leaves them to the natural mikrreim. How is this insisting that, contra Rambam, ''those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH''? Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. RMB: [According to RambaM:] A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a > person, and thus to that > extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva > (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH > delegates his fate. > ZL: You are making a distinction that you attribute to RambaM, between teva and minhago shel olam. Teva is something that a daas-lacking person is left to. Through it, Hashem delegates his fate. Minhag shel olam is something else. I don't follow. Where is such a distinction made? And I thought you maintained that contra RambaN, RambaM does /not/ hold that HQBH delegates the fate of lesser people. Only ''the RambaN talks about nature being a pattern in events... /directly/ caused by HQBH. Is there also a distinction between ''directly causing'' and ''delegating''? Do you mean RambaM holds Hashem HAD delegated their fate (by setting up the mechanisms at Creation)? RMB: > I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to > nature". ... no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on... there is no such > "thing" as nature. It's not a > hypostatis. ZL: Where do you see what you are trying to explain in Ramban? Regarding the shiur by Rav Bednarshom, and the point that 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. The last sentence should be about RambaN, right? And here's something to ponder: As I wrote previously, the Rambam writes that the greatest miracle of all, is nature's responding to man's behavior, favoring good behavior and punishing bad behavior. Granted, favoring good behavior is miraculous. But l-fi Rambam's shittah, what is miraculous about leaving the practitioner of bad behavior to the wiles of nature? Also, regarding: > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. Obviously, this is just the hava amina. The Ramban did not write that ''everything that happens'' is a miracle. His wording is that the whole [teaching of the] Torah [about reard and punishment] is a miracle. Meaning, as the maskana is, that the Torah's system of award and punishment is miraculous. Secondly, the Ramban does not say that everything is a miracle,without causation, except reward and punishment. The causation between behavior and reward and punishment is an explanation of, not in contrast to, his statement that the whole teaching of the Torah is that there are miracules. > > > :ZL: His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a > : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the > forces > : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, > : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no > minhago > : shel olom, no "it" to nature. > > : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand > : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is > : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified > model, > : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. > > : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, > > : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, > note > : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? > > : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and > : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being > in > : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya > : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? > > :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. > > : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given > : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say > : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. > But > : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... > > It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. It is not his peshat in the Rambam. He does not mention Rambam, much less attribute to him, the ''levels'' peshat, neither in his Torah commentary nor in his Milchamos Hashem. If you can find such a passage, please locate it for me. On the contrary, here is how he addresses the question of how there could be days before the fourth day when the sun materialized. He gives two possibilities. And he gives the ''levels'' approach as an /alternative/ explanation to the answer that the sphere, by which time and days are produced, was in operation from the moment of creation.They are two /different/ ways of answering how there could be days one through three before the existence of the stars, although both answers are predicated on the Chazal-based view that everything in the universe and earth was instantly and simultaneously created in its complete form (besides vegetation and Adam and Chava). And if the virtually identical verbiage to that of the Rambam is an indication that Ralbag was intending to give peshat in the Rambam, note that he is explicitly using that verbiage in the answer granting that ''days'' are units of time, in /contrast/ to the notion of ''days'' meaning ''levels''. And also remember, as I have noted before, that Ralbag explicitly says (Torah commentary, on VaYchulu) V-im nim-tsi-u rechokim meod mei-hakavana asher matzanu kahn, kmo shetireh mimah shebier bazeh haRav HaMoreh besifro hanichbad Moreh HaNevuchim, ViHachcham R. Avraham Ibn Ezra.... that his new approach is /very far/ from that of the Rambam. And he repeats this in Sefer Milchemes Hashem, Presentation VI, ?Part II, Chapter 8, Conclusion. Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. This is how > the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian > like R' Yitzchaq Arama. > But you see, you have to resort to secondary sources to support the claims about what Rambam and Ralbag held, whereas we have the first-hand sources in front of us. The fact is that the Ralbag does not attribute the ''levels''approach to the Rambam, and in fact considers the ''levels'' approach as an alternative to what the Rambam wrote.. Abarbanel is known to repeat ideas of his contemporary, R. Y. Arama. He is also known to have a very eclectic style. You are of course correct that in his 9th shayla he attributes the ''levels'' approach to the Rambam. But look how he does it, and explain to me how it makes sense: > The 9th shayla concerns what is mentioned in the Moreh Nevuchim. Rambam > notes that time ?cannot exist without the movement of the celestial > spheres, the sun and moon. However, this raises ?the question as to how > there could be time before the fourth day on which the celestial spheres > and sun were ?created. The Rambam answered this question by asserting that > in fact the spheres and the sun were ?created on the first day. Thus time > existed for the first 3 days in the same manner as it existed on the > ?subsequent days. He explained that in fact everything ? both the Heavens > and the Earth ? were created ?on the first day. Stop here. Do you not see the Abarbanel explaining Rambam as holding that the days of Breishis were units of time, and not ''levels''? Let's continue: The Rambam cited Chazal that the word ?es? indicated that the creation on > the first day ?included everything associated with the Heavens as well as > everything associated with the Earth. He also ?cited the gemora (Chulin > 60a) that everything that was created was created in its final form. He > also cited ?another statement of Chazal that the Heavens and Earth were > created simultaneously. Thus the Rambam ?believed that the work of Creation > happened all on one day and was not divided amongst six days. He ?claimed > that in a single moment of creation everything came into existence. And of course, the Rambam continues (and Ralbag includes it) that whereas all was created ex nihilo from the first instant of creation, following that was a process of separating the components of the universe, forming things, as he says elsewhere in the Moreh, kach mikach. How then does the Abarbanel say in the next breath: > He explained that the reason ?for the Torah stating that there were six > days of Creation was to indicate the different levels of created ?beings > according to their natural hierarchy. Thus the Rambam does not understand > the word day to be a ?temporal day and he doesn?t read Bereishis to be > describing the chronological sequence of creation?. Kasha reisha al sefa! And note that in shayla 5 as well Abarbanel had written: That which the Torah mentioned of the creation of the stars on the fourth day, made HaRav haMoreh answer, as it seems from his words, in that chapter 30 of Part Three, that on the first day the sphere was created with the stars and light. But their actions had affect on the fourth day upon the vegetation.Such is apparent from the words of the Rav...Perhaps RambaN too meant this, since he mentions this approach in the name of yeish meforshim. And if one is to treat this as Abarbanel changing his mind, well then consider another about-face over 80 pages later (p. 85 in our editions) Behold you see that the opinion of the Rav was ...that all that is mentioned regarding the activity of the six days, ?from the creation of the heavens and the earth, and all of the phenomena, and the creation of Adam and ?his wife, up until ?vayechulu? have no allegory whatsoever, for everything was ?literal to him [the Rambam]. Therefore you will see that in this very chapter, no. 30 in the second section, ?in all which the Rav has explicated regarding the activity of the six days, he did not make an allegory or a ?hint at all. Rather, he did the exact opposite, for he made a concerted effort to support the doctrine of ?creation ex nihilo and accepted all of the verses literally?? Obviously, Abarbanel was not consistent as to whether the Rambam understood the creation days to be ''levels'' rather than units of time. So he should not be cited with such certainty that he held so. ?I would also caution against uncritically accepting A?s description of B?s opinion if A goes on to ?lambaste it, as the Abarbanel did with his original reading of the Moreh Nevuchim. ?(The question presents itself, then, how did the Abarbanel?s contemporary, the Akeidas Yitzcahk, ?and the commentary of the ShemTov?who is not regarded as a rishon?as opposed to the ?commentary by Crescas), and the Abarbanel himself in his second take, get from (a) the Rambam?s ?classical rendition of a six-day meta-natural development of potential created on day one, to (b) ?seeing the Rambam as promulgating that ?the six days are a metaphor for six levels in the hierarchy ?of natural objects: light/darkness, water, minerals, flora, fauna, man??? My theory is that the earlier commentators of the Moreh, such as Narboni, greatly influenced by ?the Aristotelian academia of the time, anxiously imposed their radical views on the Rambam. (We ?see that in the Rambam?s own time, he complained of people radicalizing his views?including those ?who as accused him of (or ?complimented? him for) denying techiass ha-meisim). They hijacked the ?Moreh so efficiently that it became popular to think the Rambam thought like Narboni. This ?became the starting point from which later commentaries saw the Moreh (similar to, l?havdil, Rashi?s ?commentary being one?s first impression of what the Chumash says, and one?s natural thinking that ?what Rashi says is necessarily what the Chumash undoubtedly means.)? > In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, > following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, > there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which > processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the > Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of > time. > Not my issue. > > His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before > the sun. > *In the words of Ralbag the **problem is with zeman before the sun. His answer is that the sphere, even without the sun, produces zeman. * The problem that bothered the early ones, with what were day one, day two and day three measured? Behold, the light-bearers were not in existence until day four! [The answer is that even though the light-bearers did not appear until day four], the heavenly sphere was in existence on day one, and each revolution of it formed approximately one day. Abarbanel puts it that the problem is zeman before the sphere, sun and stars. The answer is that they all existed and formed zeman from the first act of creation. ???"? (?????, ??? ?) (?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? (?, ?-?) ...??????, ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? (??? ? ??? ?), ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???, ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?????; ???? ???? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?):... ??????? ??????: ?? ??? ???? ?????, ?????: ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????, ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? (?????? ??, ??). ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????: ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??????????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? (?, ?) ?* ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ???.* ???? ?????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??????,??? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ????, ????? ???? ???? ??? *.??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? .* *??* ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???, ????? ?? ????? ?????? *???? ??????*, ?? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ??? ????? *???? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????*; ??? ????? *??? ????? ???????,* ?? [??"? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????, ?"?] *?**??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????, ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? *? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??. ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???????, ??? ????? ?????. *???? ????? ????? *??? ???? ?????, ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?????. ??? ?? ????????? ??????? ??? ??????: ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?), ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?????. ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? (??? ? ????? ???? ????), ?????: ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??. ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????, ?? ???? ?????? ??, ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???????, ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? > > But the bottom line,to which we both agree, is that traditional Judaism holds that Creation, regardless of our issue about zeman, was not a natural process. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162531 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 23 02:58:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. : : : Where does Ramban say this? ... This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, it directly from G-d. : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag : permanent at maaseh breishis... Which is not in contradicction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain ways. To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel hapo'el, but still thimk you can reach what the rishonim are talking about? :-)BBii! -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 zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 15:37:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 18:37:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those > events > : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. > : > : > : Where does Ramban say this? ... > > This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > from G-d. Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or uses intermediaries. > > : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times > that > : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag > : permanent at maaseh breishis... > > Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern > of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that > behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain > ways. I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures. Yes, Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but they would be in agreement that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM, and just as much not a ??thing?? ?to RambaM as to RambaN. The disagreement would be whether Hashem at Creation set up intermediary steps ?in creating the world?s components and their behaviors. According to both of them, at the end of the Creation period Hashem established what the normal behaviors (patterns) would thereon be, and up to then the nature of the world was not stabilized. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but both agree that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. RambaM cites Chazal that ?Hashem at Creation also imbued in the things of the world the potential for aberrant behaviors ??(miracles) to be triggered when Hashem so decrees. I do not see RambaN disagreeing, but even if he does, I do not see framing it in terms of a dispute over whether nature is a ??thing.?? It would be a dispute over whether the miraculous natures were imbued at Creation or first initiated at their enactment, and in view of the Chazal cited by RambaM, RambaN would have some explaining ?to do. And of course, although the Rambam strongly objects to the idea that Hashem is constantly recreating the world, he also famously states that Hashem is constantly maintaining it, and that if He would remove His maintenance, the world would cease to exist. ? And if one insists on inferring from RambaM?s words an issue of Nature being considered a ????thing??, as opposed to a mere normal pattern of behavior, consider this quote:? http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=38545&st=&pgnum=14&hilite? The One Who created it [the world] made its general properties as a kiyum gadol. ??...This is what it means when it says, ??I know that all that G-d will make, IT will be ?forever.??...The yesodos ... all these are kayamim l-olom. It is impossible to add upon or take away from them, for it says, ??And G-d MADE [things] so that [people] will be in awe before Him, for ...these [things] stand forever. The above are the words of RambaN, in his Drasha on Kohelles. One could argue therefrom that he considers the general properties of the world as ??things?? that are permanent. Or not. > To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. To the Rambam, as well. > > : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to > : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. > Especially > : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. > > You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel > hapo'el, but still think you can reach what the rishonim are talking > about? No. You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? Zvi Lampel -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban Drasha on Kohelles.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 500027 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 25 17:29:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:29:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the Destruction of Sodom? Message-ID: <20181126012932.GA7767@aishdas.org> See https://www.sciencenews.org/article/exploding-meteor-may-have-wiped-out-ancient-dead-sea-communities or . I am including just a teaser. I intentionally ended with the note that the researcher works at a Xian university, as that does speak toward objectivity. We'll see what peer review says of the evidence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Science News Archaeologists at a site in what's now Jordan have found evidence of a cosmic calamity An exploding meteor may have wiped out ancient Dead Sea communities By Bruce Bower 10:00am, November 20, 2018 Preliminary evidence indicates that a low-altitude meteor explosion around 3,700 years ago destroyed cities, villages and farmland north of the Dead Sea (shown in the background above) rendering the region uninhabitable for 600 to 700 years. DENVER -- A superheated blast from the skies obliterated cities and farming settlements north of the Dead Sea around 3,700 years ago, preliminary findings suggest. Radiocarbon dating and unearthed minerals that instantly crystallized at high temperatures indicate that a massive airburst caused by a meteor that exploded in the atmosphere instantaneously destroyed civilization in a 25-kilometer-wide circular plain called Middle Ghor, said archaeologist Phillip Silvia. The event also pushed a bubbling brine of Dead Sea salts over once-fertile farm land, Silvia and his colleagues suspect. People did not return to the region for 600 to 700 years, said Silvia, of Trinity Southwest University in Albuquerque. He reported these findings at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research on November 17... From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:49:35 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:49:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Weight of a Shekel Message-ID: <20181126204934.GA12575@aishdas.org> No, they didn't find a sheqel, they found something just as good -- a beqa from bayis rishon, as in machatzis hasheqel "beqa lagulgoles". Just multiply by 2 to get a sheqel haqodesh. (Ie a beqa is a plain old sheqel.) (There apparently weren't 1/2 sheqel coins during basyis rishon.) See or https://www.timesofisrael.com/straight-from-the-bible-tiny-first-temple-stone-weight-unearthed-in-jerusalem/ The Times of Israel Straight from the Bible: Tiny First Temple stone weight unearthed in Jerusalem By Amanda Borschel-Dan 21 November 2018, 12:57 pm Volunteer at City of David sifting project finds rare `beka' measure, used by pilgrims paying half-shekel tax before ascending to Temple Mount, in dirt from dig near Western Wall [Picture of weight, bearing the word beqa in kesav Ivri in mirror writing. The caption reads:] A First Temple period weight measure called a 'beka' was unearthed in a City of David excavation in the Davidson Archaeological Park and discovered in the wet sifting project in Jerusalem's Tsurim Valley. (Eliyahu Yanai, City of David) An extremely rare, minuscule biblical stone weight inscribed in ancient Hebrew script with the word "beka" was discovered in rubble taken from excavations at the foundations of the Western Wall. Only a handful of similar stone beka weights have been unearthed in Jerusalem, said archaeologist Eli Shukron... Unlike several hundred years later, during this era, there was no half-shekel coin. Pilgrims brought the equivalent weight, a beka, in silver to pay their tax, which would have been measured out on scales in the very spot under the Temple Mount where the tiny stone weight was unearthed. Shukron said in a press release, "When the half-shekel tax was brought to the Temple during the First Temple period, there were no coins, so they used silver ingots. In order to calculate the weight of these silver pieces they would put them on one side of the scales and on the other side they placed the Beka weight. The Beka was equivalent to the half-shekel, which every person from the age of 20 years and up was required to bring to the Temple." According to the release, the biblical shekel weighed 11.33 grams.... To give you an idea of where that stands halachically, the Rambam's (H' Sheqalim 1:2) 384 se'or. A barleycorn is 0.044 and 0.05 gm, so the Rambam's sheqel would be at least 16.9 gm. Rashi (Shemos 21:32) says that a sheqel is half of a the ounce used in Cologne. Which today we would call .5 troy oz, or 15.55gm. The CI holds it's .51 troy oz (15.86 gm). Once again, the evidence about shiurim from Har haBayis is below even the Rambam's shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:26:21 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:26:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly :> from G-d. : Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or : uses intermediaries. Except that he calls it a neis. It can't both be Divine Intervention AND left to metaphysical mechanics. I mentioned that RDBerger et all never go around back to the first Rambans they discuss to explain what they do mean after all. He does deny teva in the famous comment at the end of parashahs Bo (13:16) (where he refers you back to comments on Beresishis 17:1 and Shemos 6:2). For that matter, he even denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. We have to close the circle somehow. Teva = nisim nistarim. Nistar through allowing patterns, minhago shel olam. ... :> Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern :> of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that :> behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain :> ways. : : I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that : it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow : apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the : behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". (I think this description of the Ramban is the belief most of us leave yeshiva day school with.) : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. Physics does not inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His Action to be hidden by routine. : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim in the usual sense. ... :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : : To the Rambam, as well. To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. To the Ramban, a person who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from Him as needed. Tir'u baTov! -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 llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 27 06:18:44 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:18:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why Didn't The Brothers Tell Yaakov "Yosef is alive"? Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 37:35 35 All his sons and daughters arose to console him, but he refused to accept consolation. He said: I shall go to my grave, mourning for my son. Thus his father wept for him. (?His daughters? probably refers to his daughters-inlaw.) All of them ?arose? to console him. They did not ?go? or ?come?; they ?arose? to console him. ?To arise? in order to perform an act implies that the act is born of resolution, an act one must bring oneself to perform. Until this point, they themselves were immersed in grief. No one feels so much grief as do those who must console a mourner. To see one?s aged father inconsolable, viewing every cheerful thought as a sin, would move even a heartless scoundrel to agonized remorse. He would be too distraught to offer consolation, because he would be in need of consolation himself. But why didn?t any of them attempt to sprinkle soothing balm upon the wound? Why didn?t they reveal to him: ?Yosef is alive!?? The answer: because that would have been the greatest cruelty of all. In the minds of parents, a child who was torn by wild beasts is never lost, but a child who is wicked is worse than lost. Therefore, he who would not aggravate the father?s grief a thousandfold would have to remain silent until the day when Yosef would return and the joy of the reunion would mitigate in the father?s mind even the crime that had been committed by his other sons. Had they told Ya?akov at that time the truth about what had been done to Yosef, Ya?akov would have felt as though he had lost not only one son, but ten sons at one time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 06:39:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gradations of Lifnim miShuras haDin Message-ID: <20181128143951.GA12638@aishdas.org> Surprisingly, not a subject I've thought about before. Apparently, there are different kind of lifnim mishuras hadin callings. See Arukh haShulchan CM 222:8. The SA (se'if 2) talks about the case where someone buys something from one of 5 people, doesn't recall which, and each of them are tov'im for payment. The money is held in escroe by BD until the claimants come to agreement or Eliyahu arrives and sorts it out. And if he is a chassid, he should pay each of them, kedei latzeis yedei Shamayim. The AhS adds: And a chassid adif miyarei Shamayim (YS) because a YS does not want to be mevater his own property in a business matter, and a Chassid is mevater. (Shabbos 120b). Presumably a YS is the person concerned latzeis yedei Shamayim (or else I can't understand the AhS). And this goes on to the case of the yoreish of one of the potential sellers, claiming he would be patur even LYS (Sha"kh, Ramban, Ritva.) Whereas the Qetzos says that while he is patur even LYS, chassid, ra'ui lo la'asos kein mimidas chassidus. So, there seems to be two kinds of lifnim mishuras hadin involved here, and there is a nafqa mina lemaaseh: the YS who is concerned LYS, and the chassid who is pursuing his midas chassidus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 11:48:46 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:48:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Baalus and Chameitz (was: help with 2 sugyot) Message-ID: <20181128194846.GA21056@aishdas.org> On 1 May 2013 (v23n74 ) I replied to a question by RAM with (in part): > But I think the key here is the word "property". I suggested in the past > that there is no such thing in halakhah. (With a probable exception of bal > yeira'eh bal yeimatzei.) There is baalus, but that's a different concept. > Returning to bal yeira'eh as an example... A son does not inherit chameitz > from his father who dies while owning it on Pesach. The issuer hanaah > means a lack of baalus. Even though it's the father's in the sense of > being chameitz she'avar alav haPesach (for the part of Pesach the father > was alive to own it). > As is implied in what RAM writes, baalus is more like custodianship than > what we think of when we hear "property". Which is born out in the word > "baalus" as well. Baalus revolves around control and responsibility, > not an abstract principle of how the world is divided up among people. > My previous thoughts on baalus and qinyan, as shaped by prior conversations > here, are at . Well, Arukh haShulchan Yomi adds another data point -- CM 245:10. Someone gives another a gift and the recipient uses a language of bitul (bitul, mevatel, mevuteles hi, tivateil, etc..) to reject the gift after it reached him, if it's metaltelin, the item is hefqer. The AhS notes the connection to bitul chomeitz that renders it hefqeir. However, he says this is no raayah because chameitz on Pesach isn't in his reshus, it's only made "ke'ilu hi birshuso" by bal yeira'eh. And that's why gilui daata is enough to get the chameitz out of his reshus. But (citing the Ran, beginning of Pesachim), something that is mamash his is different. The AhS concludes that bitul only makes the gift hefqer because it's a gift, but if it were actually his nekhasim, it wouldn't be sufficient. (Now that I wrote all that, I seem to recall someone did along the years mention that bitul chameitz only works because we're talking about quasi-baalus, and not real baalus. But I invested too much to what to skip sending this email now. And besides, I added another maqor.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 28 21:29:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 05:29:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. Message-ID: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to both monetary and spiritual liabilities. I was wondering, according to those who said you can waive the spiritual liability, whether that would also work retroactively (e.g. would somebody escape lashes for less than a penny's worth of damage -if the aggrieved party waived the spiritual damages after the fact of the hit) 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 Nov 30 10:19:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links Message-ID: <20181130181913.GA25124@aishdas.org> Einstein and G-d: http://nautil.us/blog/how-einstein-reconciled-religion-to-science Eistein said things about G-d that appear to contradict -- he both speaks of the Designer of existence and belittles the G-d of religion. Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's -- not emunah in a Borei but our standards, but far from atheism in their self-perception. --- Stephen Colbert explains his faith to Dr Neil de Grasse Tyson https://www.facebook.com/michael.bernstein.86/videos/10100134331341237/ He says that his faith doesn't come from a place of evidence, it comes from gratitude. Until they can explain why we exist rather than not exist, we need some basket to put that gratitude in. A little too Gcd of the Gaps. He could have made the same point using a more Non-overlapping Magesteria approach. IOW, he shouldn't be talking about belief until Dr Tyson and others in his profession can explain why we exist. Rather, he should point out they can't -- "why we exist?" isn't even a scientific question. Science doesn't cover all of human experience. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 18:36:04 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 21:36:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:26 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> RMB : This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > :> from G-d. > > : ZL: Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the > : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas > : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at > : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or > : uses intermediaries. > > RMB: Except that he calls it a neis.... ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' from Hashem than RambaM did. denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: > From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, > all our things and everything that happens to us is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago shel olom. It can't both be Divine Intervention > AND left to metaphysical mechanics. > Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine intervention manipulates but does not undo. The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force .'' > And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits > sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." > > Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. > We have to close the circle somehow. > ... According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". ZL: You are basing a lot on the Ramban using the expression ''hakol begeiras Elyon.'' But that expression, as well as ''neis,'' is no indication of disagreeing with the idea of Hashem intervening and conducting a neis nistar working through intermediaries to manipulate but not undo minhago shel olom. Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim has a chapter on this. And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own through the control of the angels over the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force . And behold the control was /from the time of their coming into being until forever more, *a gezeyras Elyon* [another girsa is Elyonim] that He placed in them/.'' The correct translation of ''gezeyras elyon[im] may even be ''a gezeyra about the upper world(s)/beings/forces,'' with elyon not being a reference to Hashem, just as it obviously is not in the first sentence of this passage. The gezeyas Elyon is what He placed into the forces that produce nature, the minhago shel olom. In the passage where Ramban declares that all that occurs to us is neis and not minhago shel olom or teva, he is contrasting our belief that Hashem, through neis nistar, manipulates minhago shel olom according to our deeds, with that of those who hold that nature runs mechanically with no connection to human behavior. Realizing this answers all that you proceeded to write: > > ...ZL: > : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem > : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... > > RMB: You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. ZL: I cited his repeated explanation of vayehi chein, and now his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12. RMB: [Ramban holds, contra RambaM, that] Physics does not > inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His > Action to be hidden by routine. > > ZL: : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that > : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and > : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of > : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. > > RMB: But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras > Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim > are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? > ZL: This is again your unwarranted inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras Elyon. > > ZL: : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you > : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a > : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much > : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... > > RMB: Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other > says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim > in the usual sense. > > ZL: This is again your inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras > Elyon, which I showed is incorrect. Rambam speaks in terms of Seichel > HaPoel setting up the world's machinery of spheres that influence matters > on earth. Ramban speaks in terms of Hashem creating influencing spheres > controlled by angels. Ramban considers Nature no less an ''it'' than > Rambam. Rambam considers Nature no more an ''it'' than Ramban. > > ... > RMB: :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. > : > ZL: : To the Rambam, as well. > > RMB: To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah > necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. > And RambaN (Devarim 18:13) speaks of Hashem redirecting the normal course of the spheres to act in favor of those who draw close to Him through their avodah. (In fact, Rambam in Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end], too, puts it terms of avodah: "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". According to both, Hashem intervenes to manipulate the machinery of minhago shel olom based upon man's closeness to him. > ZL: : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without > : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? > > RMB: The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is > saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, > he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. > > Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is > hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. ZL: I'll concede that point, although I'm still left with the question that the Rambam refers to minhago shel olom oneshim, too, as the greatest of nissim nistarim. How is abandonment to nature a neis? And he also refers to, for example, the Egyptians being punished for volunteering to fulfill the role of persecutors foretold of in the bris bein habesarim. The plagues were not a mere abandonment to nature... Tsaruch iyun.... > To the Ramban, a person > who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from > Him as needed. > ZL: That's an interesting twist on how to look at oneshim as a chessed. > > Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/03/18, 8:45:33 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban on astrology Devarim 18, 9-13.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2384560 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 4 09:31:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:31:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181204173107.GC16262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 09:36:04PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the :> : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas :> : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at :> : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or :> : uses intermediaries. :> RMB: : Except that he calls it a neis.... : So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar.... Different "it". The Ramban calls everything a neis. The fact that that doesn't imply what you would think if you only looked at those 2 comments doesn't change the fact that to the Ramban, teva is a neis. So: The Rambam acknowledges sekhar va'onesh via neis nistar, for those who earn such HP. (Hashgachah = both sekhar va'onesh.) And yet normal teva is the action of the Seikhel haPo'al, a metaphysical automaton "preprogrammed" by the Borei. The Ramban holds that all of teva is neis nistar, whether it's hashgachah (leshitaso: hashgachah = sekhar), onesh, or minhago shel olam. Again, but in significantly different words: To the Rambam, teva follows minhago shel olam because the Seikha haPo'al has a single mission and lack bechirah. According to the Ramban, teva is a word that means the subset of Divine Action that follows minhago shel olam rather than being selected by HP. I believe you agree that rishonim understand the Rambam's position on teva and the Seikhal haPo'al the way I explained it. I am not clear how you can insist they got it wrong. : ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, : > all our things and everything that happens to us : is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the : manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or : non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day : behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and : everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago : shel olom. Right, but that's not HP. According to both Rambam and the Ramban, not everything that happens to every person is HP. And yet they are all neis. You are also incorrectly deducing from the Rambam's talking about that whih happens to us that he means to exclude things that don't impact human life, such as the growth of a tree in the middle of the Amazon where it possibly effects no one. However, he is saying the Torah is founded on knowing how to view what happens to me personally. Not abstract knowledge about how the world works. That tree in the Amazon isn't on topic. ... : ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling : it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' : from Hashem than RambaM did. Even before we get to our point, not really. According to the Rambam, sekhar is a neis nistar. Onesh is almost always abandonment to teva. (Similarly, to the Rambam on Cheileq, gehenom is kareis is a lack of olam haba, and not suffering in olam haba.) Suffering as onesh is usually just what happens to a human being trying to fight what we would call today the law of increasing entropy. (It's easier to break things than make them.) On rare occasions, there is a Makas Bekhoros, but those are nissim geluyim. After all, leshitas haRambam, sin causes a lack of knowledge of the Borei, and thus a disconnection from Him, and thus a lack of hashpa'ah. HP itself is causal, leshitaso. Just as nevu'ah is causal, and it take a neis for Hashem to hide information from a navi who has enough yedi'ah to be connected up to be able to "look" for it. So, they disagree about whether onesh is HP / neis, even before we get started with our dispute. (Something also mentioned in the shiur from Gush I pointed you to.) :> It can't both be Divine Intervention :> AND left to metaphysical mechanics. : Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem : created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar : v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In : contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine : intervention manipulates but does not undo. And to repeat myself, you're nmistaken. The Rambam has a delegate Hashem gave nature to, and when there is a break from minhago shel olam, Hashem (via mal'akhim, beings higher than the Seikhel haPoal) is intervening. The Ramban does not have such a delegate. When there is a break from minhago shel olam, it's because someone earned Hashem making another kind of decision; another priority rose to the top in (kevayakhol) how He Chooses what to Do. Your reasserting otherwise still doesn't explain why you feel the Abarbanel and Narbonni got him wrong about this idea that a separate seikhel was created to do teva, that just runs minhago shel olam. And in fact, further down you stop denying this and instead argue from the Ramban in Devarim that the Ramban also has such sikhliim. I am not clear where exactly you stand. : The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm : of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each : ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago : shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. Runs like a machine, ie following a minhag. Whereas the Rambam gives it an actual metaphysical machine. : To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing : astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created : the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the : spheres. You are literally quoting a Ramban that says that even though there are kokhavim, mazalos, mal'akhim and sarim which has a nefesh, one cannot worship them or use astrology to tell the future (kesoa'avos hagoyim haheim) because they're only responding to His Will. A navi, who is looking at His Will, can know the future. : ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim : controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and : constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the : stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force : .'' Manhig = controller? : And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that : very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own : through the control of the angels over the spheres. Not on its own. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 04:19:47 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 07:19:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 > From: Micha Berger > > Einstein and G-d: > > ...Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's He said so explicitly ''I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... '' New Times, April 25, 1929, in answer to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/04/18, 7:16:09 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Tue Dec 4 08:24:16 2018 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 18:24:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Tuesday evening) begin Prayer for Rain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Tuesday evening), December 4, 2018, corresponding to the evening of 27 Kislev, 5779, the third night of Chanukka. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: https://www.lookstein.org/professional-dev/veten-tal-u-matar/ (Thanks to Russell Levy for suggesting the article.) In unrelated news, here's what keeps me busy: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/ Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky Post-doctoral Fellow Department of Mathematics Ariel University Ariel 4070000, ISRAEL ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Tue Dec 4 11:25:15 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One clear difference between the Rambam and the Ramban is the value of miracles as evidence; see H. Yesodei HaTorah 8:1 vs. Toras HaShem Temimah Ed. Chavel pp. 146, 150, 152, etc. I think the explanation is hinted at in the Ramban in Shoftim you cited. The Rambam holds that miracles are ad hoc, but the Ramban holds that miracles also follow laws and those laws echo creation. David Riceman Sent from my iPad From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 6 05:32:53 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 13:32:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] seuda shlishit Message-ID: <1c08882303fd4627b3659b0785fb9331@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> It is certainly preferable to either eat bread or stop eating before shekia (or close to it - beyond our present scope). If you partake in a full meal but refrain from bread for a certain reason, leniency has strong grounds. If you are picking at food according to your mood, and even more so if you previously fulfilled seuda shlishit, it is difficult to allow eating as night approaches. (Me- Is this generally followed?) 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 Thu Dec 6 14:45:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:45:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Havdalah or Menorah on Motzai Shabbos Which comes first? Message-ID: Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos - Chanuka? Not a recent question, this situation of competing halachic principles has been the basis of the centuries-old debate regarding which mitzvah has priority and should therefore be performed first. In other words, on Motzai Shabbos Chanuka this annual halachic dispute, simmering since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up... Please see https://goo.gl/oV2gpg YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 7 11:21:41 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 19:21:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: Q. I will be traveling to New York from my home in New Jersey for a Chanukah party at my parents? house and won?t be returning home until late at night. I have the following options: I can light at home at 4:00 PM (which is before sunset); I can appoint an agent (shliach) to light in my house for me at the proper time; I can light at my parents? house; or I can light upon returning home late at night when there are no longer any passersby. What should I do? A. The Mechaber rules that if one will not be able to light the Chanukah candles at the prescribed time, he may light them any time after Plag HaMincha (Shulchan Aruch OC 672:1). Plag HaMincha in the winter is approximately an hour before sunset. However, if one must leave immediately thereafter, it may not be advisable to leave candles unattended. The possibility of using an agent is questionable, since Mishnah Berurah (675:9) rules that when an agent lights for him, the person must stand next to the agent and hear him recite the brachos; obviously, this is not feasible in this case. The third possibility, lighting at one?s parents? home, is not acceptable. One must light where he lives (i.e. the place where he eats and sleeps on a regular basis). Since he does not live in his parent?s home but is merely eating a meal there, he may not light there. One should follow the fourth option and light upon returning home. As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. Therefore, one may light even if it is late and there will be no passersby to see the menorah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 8 17:32:58 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 20:32:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49e62b3e-cb2d-9d77-dbff-c94f400def1e@sero.name> > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit > primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising it, if not to the passersby? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 18:33:18 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:33:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: . Someone quoted the OU's Halacha Yomis: > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. R' Zev Sero asked: > What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising > it, if not to the passersby? I don't think the OU meant to suggest that one isn't yotzay if his family doesn't see the neros. When danger caused us to move the menorah indoors, *everyone* lit indoors. No exceptions were made for those who live alone. It seems clear to me that one is yotzay even if he is the only one to see them lit. Come to think of it, one is yotzay Pirsumei Nisa if no one hears him read the Megilla, or if no one sees him drinking Arba Kosos. Why should Ner Chanuka be different? It is true that the Mishne Berura 672:11 says that if everyone at home is already asleep, then he must either wake someone or light without the bracha. But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants to act like that, we don't stop him." Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 12 21:41:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:41:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music and literature: As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the better strategy? 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 Dec 12 21:44:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? 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 Dec 15 19:22:45 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 22:22:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: <4EBAA25A-8790-4673-AAFF-7E2AC74B5C9A@cox.net> With an extremely unusual exception, all professionals will tell you that the first time your husband assaults you must be the last time. Furthermore the law is clear and unequivocal: Any incidence of a domestic crime must be dealt with by arresting the guilty party, be it husband or wife. I can tell you that any call we get involving a domestic always results in an arrest. Dina D'Malchusa Dina This is the law and we are mandated to follow it. I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve your spouse. Mechila or no mechila, the consequences are serious and the law must be followed. Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 16 11:13:33 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot Message-ID: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of chutz l'aretz. Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? Ben From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 16 12:56:05 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 15:56:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? First thought, just to help the ball rolling. Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? So, there are people actually eating challah in the Rambam's world. Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both being deOraisa. (In particular, it can be taken retroactively; you can eat before hafrashah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Dec 17 08:28:25 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:28:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Asara b'Teves Message-ID: The message of this commemoration is that after the destruction, we must trace its sources and mark its stages; we must look backwards to events that are not earth-shattering and perceive how the seeds of the destruction on the Ninth of Av were planted on the Tenth of Teves. The more we study history, the more we learn that we should not concentrate only on the final act itself, but also on all the stages that led up to it. This also applies to the Holocaust which is probably the worst tragedy in Jewish history. Along these lines we also recite Kaddish on the 10th of Tevet for all those whose date of death is unknown, who perished in the Holocaust. Apparently, the tenth of Teves is "the Day of God" about which many prophets spoke ? the tenth day of the tenth month. (The 10th of Teves is the only fast day that can fall on a Friday). The number ten in kabala is related to the sefira of malkhut, and therefore, the very essence of the day is appropriate to the theme of God's kingship. Chazal teach that at midnight a north wind would blow, rousing King David from his sleep to serve his Creator. It is in the middle of the night, specifically in the depths of the darkest part of the night, that the sovereignty of Israel awakens, and the kingship of God is revealed in the world.May the Kingship of the Almighty finally rule all mankind thus fulfilling the vision of the prophets: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall men learn war anymore; for all men, both great and small shall know the Lord.? Amen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 17 09:09:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:09:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 16/12/18 3:56 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that > : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? > > First thought, just to help the ball rolling. > > Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. I assume Sefardim also, though I don't know this for certain. But the SA certainly says to do so, and only the Rema says the minhag is not to. > They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem > with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump > actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? AFAIK it's got nothing to do with chinuch; the reason it's given to ketanim rather than gedolim is because they have never experienced tum'ah that comes from their own bodies. It can also be given to an adult cohen who has been to the mikveh. The Rema says this is not our minhag because since it's not eaten in EY there is no need for it to be eaten in chu"l. Other acharonim suggest that it's because we have no cohanim meyuchasim, so we're not even certain this child is a cohen in the first place, or because we're worried that the child won't be careful with it and it'll get into people's food, or just that if it's not burned immediately it will somehow find its way to someone who shouldn't eat it. > Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both > being deOraisa. Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan. (Nowadays even chalah of EY is midrabanan, but it has an ikkar min hatorah, whereas in chu"l it's entirely midrabanan.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:25:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:25:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181217172541.GA5532@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:09:38PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both : >being deOraisa. : Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan... Sorry, chalah of crops made from chu"l that were brought into EY are indeed deOraisa, and yes those aforementioned qulos still apply. (Similarly, challah from Israeli grain that was needed in chu"l is only chayav miderabbanan.) 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:14:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181217171454.GA25337@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:33:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the : brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the : opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar : Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants : to act like that, we don't stop him." Going back to the SA (OC 677:3) the mechaber says that *yeish omerim* that if you light at home alone after others have lit there without you, you make the berakhos. Interestingly, the se'if opens "yeish omerim", it's the only opinion quoted. The Rama quote the Mordechai that this is because he is obligated to see the neiros, vekhein nohagim. Ateres Zeqeinim ad loc quotes the Maharash: veyeish cholqin. So, if you want to be machmir to light, (he calls it "rotzeh lahchamir") light without a berakhah. The Maharil says that once you light on your own, you showed you didn't want to be yotzei with the earlier lighting, so you weren't. And that's why it's not a berakhah levatalah. The picture I'm trying to show here is that the discussion about the berakhah appears to be because this is after someone else lit for the home. Not because you're alone. And, if I understand the Mordechai correctly, he appears to be saying that whether or not the purpose of the mitzvah is pirsumei nisah, the actual mitzvah includes just seeing the lights. Perhaps because even internalizing the neis I myself already know about intellectually qualifies as "pirsum". But that's not how R' Moshe discusses it. He simply says that pirsum isn't me'aqeiv. 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 09:05:16 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:05:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] lighting the menora Message-ID: As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. My impression is that most modern poskim certainly in EY disagree and that many/most light outdoors for the public -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 18 09:24:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:24:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Comedy -- is it good for the Jews? In-Reply-To: References: <49f57ed6-82ab-b6eb-2210-00930742efaa@sero.name> <20181211154507.GB6212@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181218172413.GB29597@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:02am EST, R Moshe Y. Gluck replied to me on Areivim in a conversation about a stand up comic at a venue that lost their hekhsher over it: : One can argue that comedy, in it of itself, is assur, independent of : subject matter because of Assur L'maalos Piv Schok B'Olam Hazeh (Berachos : 31a). This gemara makes an interesting contrast to the rather famous gemara (Taanis 22a) about Rabbi Beroqa Choza'ah and Elihahu haNavi in the marke of Bei Lefet. Elihahu points out two beduchei as among those there who would merit olam haba, eiuther because they chear up the depressed or bring peace to those arguing. Given the first "i nami" in Taanis, where's the chiluq to be drawn? Another problem I have understandign the gemara in Taanis. The market in question was full of Jews. (Another person Eliyahu pointed out was noted for not dressing like one, but turned out to be employed by the prison system and he protected the women in his jail.) And "kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq". So why are just these people being pointed out as being "bar alma de'asi"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:28:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:28:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. In-Reply-To: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182837.GA18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:29:12AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability : (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to : both monetary and spiritual liabilities... Does it work at all? You can be mochel nezeq when it's mamon, but corporeal? Wouldn't Shim'on be a rasha for lifting his hand to Re'uvein either way? Related: Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? 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 micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:34:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:34:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] culture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181219183447.GB18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:41:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music : and literature: :> As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even :> the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from :> the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness :> of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. : My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the : better strategy? It has to be slower, when you think you haven't yet assimilated culture and you're trying to hold the line, than when you consciously choose to have a strategy with regard to acculturation, and expect the line to move. One will only have unconscious motion, the other will have conscious change as well. So for the masses, it means less assimilation. Then we have to ask if cultural assumilation is a bad thing. Does Hashem not want us to sing our tefillos to the kosher elements of the sound of our era? Is there a Jewish aesthetic to begin with? Way deep wading in this issue. However, for the yechidim who realize it's going on and that everyone is fooling themselves.... I see a big OTD risk as cynicism is bound to creap in, as well as (including?) a loss of respect for any authority figures who are fooled or caught blindfolding others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:20:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:20:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? In-Reply-To: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182054.GA6255@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting : the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), : animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get : no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) This is the end of OC 1:1. (AhS Yomi for 4th. Yes, cycle 2 is starting in just 4+ months! The first Tur for the AhS to write on was CM, which is why you find the haqdamah there. So "beginning" was ambiguous. Or I'm just a nitpicker.) : Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is : it equivalent of free will? .... I took the se'if to mean that angels have no YhR and therefore lack free will. Animals have no *capacity for* knowledge, and therefore couldn't possibly have a YhT, and thus also no bechirah. Only people, caught in tention between YhR and (properly applied?) da'as have bechirah, and that's why only we get both reward and punishment. : The dogs being : rewarded for not barking? There is an interesting implication from the AhS that animals do get sekhar, and angels do get oneshim. Perhaps it makes sense even without presuming they have bechirah if we take a causal approach to sekhar va'onesh. The animal that does the right thing, even through no credit of its own, is still thereby a superior being than before. Especially if it is more likely to repeat behavior done once (or more likely to refrain if refrained once). And similarly in the reverse, for angels that fail. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Dec 19 22:03:14 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 01:03:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: >I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >your spouse. Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? From isaac at balb.in Wed Dec 19 22:57:07 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:57:07 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Re Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2CC046A4-B9E6-4853-A683-179A213256CC@balb.in> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu---theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively more authentic version of the next Baal HaMesora. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Dec 20 08:12:18 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:12:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You are asking a loaded question so I will have to answer it on a few layers. First of all, I?m not sure what YOU mean by a verbal assault. The legal definition of assault varies from state to state but generally: Simple assault is an attempt to do a serious bodily harm to another person, or actually committing an act to put another in fear of serious bodily injury. Simple assault is usually classified as a misdemeanor. So if by verbal assault, a husband or wife (without touching each other), puts the other in fear of being hurt, then it meets the criteria of a crime (misdemeanor) and in most states mandates an arrest. With that scenario, yes, I would say the same for a spouse who verbally assaults the other. What most lay people confuse assault with is a BATTERY which is any unlawful offensive physical contact with another person, with or without his or her consent. ... Unlike the crime of assault, battery requires that actual contact is made, while assault charges can be brought with only the threat of violence. Though it may seem extreme to say that you don?t deserve your spouse if you commit a simple assault or battery, our own sages have said that if your wife burns your food, you have every right to divorce her. I think it boils down to the specifics and whole picture of each case. I believe your question may have meant what if a spouse speaks disparagingly to his/her spouse. In other words, what if a husband demeans his wife and calls her stupid or ugly, etc. My feeling is that you are dealing with the tip of the iceberg and most likely you have a bad marriage and a dysfunctional relationship. > On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: > > >> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >> your spouse. > > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 20 12:31:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:31:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181220203131.GB27441@aishdas.org> On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: :> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who :> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve :> your spouse. : > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? Hezeq and onaas devarim are different issurim. But they both are forms of harm recognized by halakhah. (Maybe I mean all three are recognized: hezeq haguf and hezeq mamon are different things, with different dinim.) And if the ona'as devarim gets to the point of halvanas panim, it's compared to retzichah. BM 58b lumps OD and pinning a nickname on someone together with eishes ish as sins that cause gehennom to be permanent ("sheyordim ve'ein olim") and ein lo cheileq le'olam haba (59a). And of course, "noach lo le'adam shayapil es atzmo lekivshan ha'eish, be'al yalbin penei chaveiro." (Mar Zutra, BM 59a) Which is taking seriously, not exageration, in discussions of yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. So to ammend my first paragraph, verbal abuse is far MORE vilified by the din than hezeq. I would consider answering: lo kol shekein! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 20 21:43:37 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:43:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer Message-ID: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From a write-up on borer and peelers: "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] Me-1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex county, us, world...............) 2.Is a sieve a sophisticated fork??? 3.No doubt that minhag yisrael includes many who do it-it's just not clear to me how that developed (i.e a priori first principles seem to lead to prohibition) - perhaps a good example of mimetic tradition? 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:22:47 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:22:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: <> Indeed I am always bothered by those who claim that they are not influenced at all but outside culture. Even if not directly we are all influenced by outside forces. There is no such thing today as Jewish music since anything the leviim sang has been lost. Living in Israel sefardi music is much different than ashkenazi music simply because Arabic music is different than Hungarian music. Anyone who learns Rambam is influenced at some level by Greek philosophy. Read rishonim on the reasons for dina demalchuta and compare it to the old defenses of the rights of kings - just happen to be identical. Many rishonim were familar with secular philosophy and even the Ramah knew philosophy. In spite of appearances Chatam Sofer had a broad background and spoke German. All of this without referring to RAL who has a spirited defense of much (certainly not all) of modern literature and parts of modern culture. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:30:25 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:30:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports Message-ID: << Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? >> Certainly mechila works on some level. There are stories of RAL in his younger years playing basketball with the students. Once a student complained that it wasn;t fair because they could not block their rebbe. RAL answered that in playing ball not to treat him as a rebbe. Certainly we are talking about minor contact and not severe wounding Kibud Av ve- Em is a step beyond ordinary treatment of others especially causing a loss of blood. From what I have seen the standard psak is that a doctor should preferably not treat a parent for anything requiring incisions or blood. However, for anything serious that the child is better than others than certainly, he is the doctor of choice. I recall that RMF allows cosmetic surgery only foord "god reasons". This incliudes feeling embarrased by one's appearance and also improvements especially for women for shidduch persons. I assume he would not be happy with various facial "improvements" for senior citizens -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Thu Dec 20 17:33:08 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 12:33:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively better version of the next Baal HaMesora. From mcohen at touchlogic.com Fri Dec 21 06:48:04 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:48:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma Message-ID: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means increase. Therefore not 'blessed is the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever' (artscroll) but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his kingdom be increased forever. His source is olas tamid (which I don't have), and iyun tefilah (which I looked up and I cant find this mentioned) Is this the kavanah that you are all having when you say krias shma? mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:10:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:10:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <20181221151048.GA23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 09:48:04AM -0500, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: : R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means : increase. ... : but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his : kingdom be increased forever. I am vague enough on the translation of the English word "blessed" that translating "barukh" for "blessed" is trading one unknown for a bigger one. As for my own kavanah (when I stop to have one): May the public perception (or: reputation) of the significance (or: importance) of His rule-by-public-acclimation be increased eternally without stop. Explanation: Sheim is name, which would be how others perceive something. Hashem's sheim is thus how He seems to people, which could be reputation and/or perception. Kavod shares spelling with kaveid, heaviness. (We'll discuss livers some other time.) And thus we give honor to significant "weighty" matters. Like massive things, we don't trivially push them around. And so I think of kavod as honor more in terms of significant and important than glory. Ein melekh belo am -- unlike a mosheil, what makes a melekh a melekh is the acceptance of the governed. The Gra has a whole piece on Melekh vs Mosheil and "umosheil bagoyim", until the day when "vehayah Hashem leMelekh". "Malkhusekha malkhus kol olamim umemshaletekha bekhol dor vador." Notice in that last pasuq, malkhus is framed in terms of "kol olamim", and here it's "le'olam va'ed". Le'olam -- for as long as there's an olam. Va'ad -- note the shoresh of "ad", until the missing end. There is another kind of Eternity. Hashem Himself is lemaalah min hazman. Not eternal in the sense of existing for an infinite amount of time, but in the sense that the concept of time doesn't apply. However, His Sheim is a product of us relating to Him, and thus within time -- as long as there is an "am" for Hashem to be Melekh of. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Dec 21 07:35:02 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:35:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <892aea1f-7804-ca75-2a17-2b632b2d08f7@sero.name> On 21/12/18 9:48 am, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: > One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod > malchuso lolam vaaed > > How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. > > R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch > means increase. I don't think this is perush hamilim. It's an additional facet that can add to the value of kavana, but is not required. Another facet is that "baruch" can mean to extend, as in "hamavrich es hagefen", so a bracha represents bring the shefa from the higher worlds to this one. An important thought, but one who doesn't have it in mind, or is even entirely unaware of it, has still said shma properly. Also, sheim is not *just* how others see one; ones name is connected directly to ones essence, as we see from the fact that when someone has fainted we use their name to call them back. But it is mostly used for others, just as malchus is how one relates to others, i.e. dibbur, shechina, reflecting what is going on inside one to the outside world, and yet it remains one of the essential attributes of a personality, and thus it is also one of the sefiros which those attributes reflect. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:34:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:34:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer In-Reply-To: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181221153420.GB23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 05:43:37AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From a write-up on borer and peelers: : : > "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are : > "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] : : 1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex : county, us, world...............) I could understand why the peel normally being eaten might mitigate boreir, as there is no pesoles. But how does it change the status of the peeler? In any case, the AhS (OC 391:22, but the discussion starts at se'if 19 ) only talks about peeling lots of (harbeih) garlic or onions, where he accepts the fact that it is boreier, despite being confused about how it even caqn be borer. There is a clear gemara (Beitza 13b) that says that Ravs and Rav Chiyya's wives would peel barley for them on Shabbos. And the AhS wants to know why garlic or onion would be any different. He therefore concludes that the issur isn't peeling, but the separating of the peels once they're mixed into in the heap. He explains the BY's source Y-mi accordingly. I should point out that when I was a child, no one I knew identified peeling as a form of boreir. Seems it may have been beshitah, and not ignorance. The AhS also talks (se'if 9) about non-mixtures, items that are nir'im la'ayin, like clothes, keilim and books. I do not know what he means by keilim, picking out forks from a jumble in the drawer? I bring this up because this issue was also something I didn't hear of until YU. Seems to me boreir grew a lot when the MB became "poseiq acharon" for all y'all. (Minus Sepharadim, of course, who limit boreir to literal okhel, IIUC.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 10:14:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:14:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20181221181420.GA18815@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:33:08PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the : Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, : whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of : Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic : tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- : performing Masoretic acts and decisions... I am not sure we are correctly using the word "mimetic" when discussing the unconscious copying norms and aborbing the culture of such a small "community" as that of posqim. However, if I understand what you mean correctly, I wrote something similar on Torah Musincs, where I tried to nail down what RYBS and RHS mean by the term "Mesorah". Teasers, as they state my point without proving basis: The word "masorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. ... For regular pesak too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from texts. Kara veshanah velo shimeish talmid chacham, harei zeh am ha'aretz.... If he read scripture and studied law, but did not serve a talmid chacham, such a person is an am haaretz (an ignorant peasant). - Sotah 22a ... Similarly, a poseik needs to pick up that feel, and not only the formal rules. He needs the unstructured knowledge of halakhah. Consider this rather poetic description of how the Rav experienced his shiur, entering the dialog of Torah through the ages as he joins his students in the classroom. Notice how he winds up by discussing this experience as "masorah": ... ... In an article in Jewish Action, Rav Schachter provides his definition of the word. He opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. ... The Rav identifies masorah as the ineffable skill to think like a poseik. Masorah is a skill obtained from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in a culture of mimeticism. ... Without masorah, the poseik has no way of determining which solutions to new problems are in concert with the spirit of previous rulings. Halakhah is not frozen; it does not have inertia, but it does have momentum. Apprenticeship, training under a master, transmits the feel for where the halakhah has historically been taken. Following reasoning found in a minority ruling is appropriate only when one is motivated by the Torah's own principles. The person who speaks halakhah as a first language knows when an innovative change is within "poetic license", and when the result simply violates the Torah's "grammar." As R. Yochanan quotes in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah - the apprenticeship of Torah is greater than its study". :-)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 llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 21 11:29:00 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 19:29:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Is_it_forbidden_to_teach_Torah_to_one_w?= =?windows-1252?q?ho_has_not_said_birchas_ha=92Torah=3F?= Message-ID: I wonder how this applies to restaurants. How are they allowed to serve people who do not make brachas before eating? YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Is it forbidden to teach Torah to one who has not said birchas ha?Torah? A. In regards to birchos ha?nehenin (brachos recited on food), there is a concept that one is not permitted to give someone food if the recipient will not recite a bracha. Offering food to one who will not recite a bracha is a violation of ?lifnei iver lo sitain michshol? (enabling one to stumble) (See Shulchan Aruch OC 169:2). However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l (Minchas Shlomo 1:91) writes that this does not apply to teaching Torah to one who did not recite birchas ha?Torah. Birchas ha?Torah is a birchas ha?mitzvah. Though birchos ha?mitzvos are obligatory, we do not find that Chazal forbade the performance of a mitzvah if a bracha is not recited. He notes that not studying Torah (bitul Torah) is a more serious offense than omitting the bracha. If possible, one should instruct those who have come to learn Torah how to recite the bracha, but if this is not practical, one should teach them Torah in any event. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 17:26:16 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:26:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Angels and Requests Message-ID: . In the Friday night poem "Shalom Aleichem", we ask the mal'achim to give us a bracha. We've often mentioned here that some people avoid this poem because it is either similar to avoda zara, or perhaps might actually BE avoda zara. I call your attention to the morning's parsha, Bereshis 48:16, the pasuk "Hamal'ach hagoel osi." Yaakov Avinu refers to a particular mal'ach and asks that this mal'ach should give a bracha to Yosef's sons. At first glance, this seems to be very similar to Shalom Aleichem. How is this justifiable, in the view of those who consider Shalom Aleichem to be problematic? I came up with two possible answers, and I invite the chevra to critique them, and/or suggest other answers. 1) Perhaps the halachos of avoda zara were less restrictive in those pre-Sinai days, and making requests to a mal'ach was okay for Yaakov but not for us. I suppose this is possible, but the centrality of Monotheism to the avos, it would surprise me. 2) I note that in the immediately preceding pasuk, Yaakov addressed Hashem. If so, then maybe Yaakov was not asking the mal'ach directly for a bracha the way we do in Shalom Aleichem. Rather, he was speaking directly to Hashem, asking Hashem that the mal'ach should give the bracha. This would solve the problem of "Who was Yaakov praying to?", but not the problem of "Where do brachos come from?" If the mal'ach is capable of giving a bracha, that too smacks of avoda zara, doesn't it? All comments are welcome. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 03:08:38 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 06:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bircas Kohanim when when the Shaliach Tzibbur is a kohen Message-ID: . On Areivim, R' Sheldon Liberman asked: > I heard over Shabbos that in chutz l'aretz, during the chazzan's > repetition at shacharis, if the chazzan is a kohen, then during > bircas kohanim, there is an opinion that the tzibbur should > answer "Amein" rather than "Kein y'hi ratzon". > > Has anyone heard this? The critical words here are "there is an opinion". It seems reasonable that somewhere in a vast library of seforim, there might be a sefer that suggests such a thing. Whether anyone actually does this is another matter entirely. I don't remember ever hearing anyone actually do this. I'd even argue against it. It makes about as much sense as if one would answer "amen" during the third stanza of "Shalom Aleichem". In both cases we are asking for a bracha, but in neither case have we actually heard any bracha on which to answer "amen". (When we answer "kein yehi ratzon", it means "please give us that bracha" and not "I believe in that bracha which You gave".) Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 26 08:49:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:49:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shul Message-ID: Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points out. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 27 11:49:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:49:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Amoraic statements Message-ID: Anyone know of any writings on how to think about Amoraic statements that are not sourced but very basic (i.e., why weren't they recorded earlier)? Two quick examples: 1.) Shmuel - dina dmalchuta dina (the law of the land controls), 2.) Rav-Tisha achlu dagan vechad achal yerek-mitztarphin.(9 who ate grain and 1 who ate greens combine[for a zimmun of 10]} 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 Dec 27 11:50:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:50:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sukkah Yeshana Message-ID: <0ba366bf435347f8ac060c596a575ca0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The Mishna in Sukkah (9a) discusses Sukkah Yeshana which one would have thought meant an old sukkah (schach) yet the discussion in the gemara indicates that it is an issue of lishma (intent). Why didn't the Mishna use the language of lishma? The gemara then posits a pasuk as the source of Beit Shammai's position, then asks doesn't he need that pasuk for something else, and replies ein hachi name (yes) and so quotes another pasuk instead. What was the point of Ravina/Rav Ashi including the rejected pasuk as part of the record? 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 seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Dec 30 09:44:16 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:44:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, etc. Message-ID: > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on > Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me > Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. > Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points > out. That's not why they talk. They talk because they saw their parents or other adults talk. They learned that talking is perfectly acceptable. The fact that the Shul has not followed the Mishna Berura and appointed people to end the talking merely reinforces the talkers' understanding that talking is OK. It's like asking why people cheat on their taxes. They don't cheat because they're greedy. We're all greedy. But the tax-cheaters don't have a red line. I admit sometimes the davvening is too long for me, and I get restless. But I never talk. And bli neder I won't davven in a shul where there are talkers, even if it's the only shul in town. Ruins it for me. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 18:45:48 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 21:45:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine posted: > Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because > davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there > are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people > get restless. If there were people who can keep quiet during the weekday minyanim, and only talk on Shabbos, then I would consider it to be a reasonable explanation. But in my experience, the same people talk regardless. If someone talks during a weekday maariv, then shaving twenty minutes off of the Shabbos morning won't prevent his restlessness. The authors of the linked article suggested: > Not talking until the conclusion of Chazaras HaShatz, including > the time between when we finish our silent Amidah and we are > waiting for the chazzan, is doable, it is realistic, it is a > fair expectation of those attending and it is the minimum to be > respectful of our friends and neighbors. Sadly, IMO that's not doable, and not realistic. I'd like to think that I'd be satisfied if they'd be quiet merely from when we finish our silent Amidah until the chazan begins. THAT is a minimum for being respectful of our friends and neighbors. They don't even have to be silent for a noticeable improvement. Halevai they would hold it down to a whisper. (And it doesn't count as a whisper if they can be heard 20 feet away.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 03:22:36 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 06:22:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: I should have concluded my previous post with this: Despite my pessimistic tone, I praise those who are working towards a solution. I have seen many corrective attempts fail, but that doesn't mean there's no way to fix it. Talking in shul is a serious problem, and I apologize if my frustration made it sound otherwise. Akiva Miller From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Oct 3 08:32:16 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 11:32:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: <1db301d45b2e$43dda750$cb98f5f0$@com> Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz? (not sepharadim) I was surprised to see it done. Sources? Thanks, 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/ ======= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 2 22:30:47 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 01:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3e882718-3c29-80fa-6211-ff7172a97fba@sero.name> On 30/09/18 14:13, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. I think you meant the Ramban. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 23:18:08 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 09:18:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:23 AM Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. So > go figure out how /he/ understands the idea that 2 were not taught via > Moshe. > According to the Rambam, the first diber _is_ one of the 613, and this gemara is his proof text -- see Sefer Hamitzvot Mitzvot Ase #1. Assuming that "Rambam" is a typo for "Ramban", see his hassaga on the Sefer Hamitzvot. Ramban holds that the second diber includes two of the 613 (don't make idols; don't worship them). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Wed Oct 3 00:23:19 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:23:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:43:14 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine" > From Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra ... >> In 1921 the great bibliographer (and much more) Yitzchak Rivkind >> .... On Simchas Torah they would open the Aron Kodesh >> when saying Aleinu, both at night and during the day, and while singing >> the Niggun of Mussaf of Yom Kippur would bow on the floor exactly like >> we do on Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur. When he asked for the source of >> this Minhag he was told it comes from the Gra... Interesting. The Robshitse Rov had a similar practice, falling on his face during the hakofos. (It is reported that one year, after bowing during hakofos [the first time?], he commented that only he and his son Yaakov [of Melits] understand the secret. After Yom Tov, it became known that R' Yaakov too had participated in this rite.) (Another story tells of how the grandson of the Kosnitse Maggid, R' Elo'ozor, spoke lightly of this minhag [made fun?] to the Robshite Rov's son, R' Eliezer of Dzikhov, whereupon R' Eliezer protested vehemently, saying all his father's customs have a very high source. On his return, R' Elozor's wagon tipped and he was thrown out of his carriage, falling, as we do on Yom Kippur, on his face. He saw this as a retribution for having spoken lightly of the minhag.) From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Oct 3 09:16:33 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:16:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra Message-ID: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 01:17 PM 9/30/2018, R. Zalman Alpert wrote: >The kluiz of the GRaA in Vilna was essentially the only place in Vilna >and all of Lithuania that followed minhage HAgra to the kotzo shel yud >Chaim Grade a lost talmid of the Chazon Ish and a Vilna native mentions >this in his wonderful novels about shil life in Vilna > >Because the Jslm settlement in early 19th cen was started by disciples >of the GRAthe Rivlins,etc these minhogim becamr and remain the standard >for at least the yishuv hayoshen of Jslm and beyond that group > >And thats how we know these customs in realism rather than from seforim >The Litthuanian yrshivas did not follow these customs nor did kohol,and >certainly not the chassidim of Lithuania who after WwI played an impt >role in Jew rel life in greater lita including Vilna My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and are practiced by many there. Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the Torah? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 3 14:51:19 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 17:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For > example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the > Torah? Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim of the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 14:46:37 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:46:37 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >are practiced by many there. >Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >Torah? It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the original Minhag. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 3 15:32:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:32:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading : the Torah? While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does make a similar point. ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. 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 JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 3 15:42:28 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 22:42:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. > _______________________________________________ This is a description of the fact but not an explanation of why this was a halachically acceptable result (ie where is this exception to the minhag hamakom rule) Kt Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 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 Wed Oct 3 15:54:51 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <16705774-1a3c-c42c-0f78-317676dc6114@sero.name> On 03/10/18 17:46, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >> My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >> practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >> find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >> are practiced by many there. > >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >> Torah? > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. That is a different issue, and one that was once controversial and that one can still question. Here the issue is much simpler, because when Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 18:16:02 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:16:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> Message-ID: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. Because if there was, each returnee would have to adopt the Minhag Hamakom the moment he hit an inhabited city. In contrast, there were no religious Jews left in England after the expulsion, so the newcomers can (and should) follow their old minhagim. The same would presumably apply when Jews started coming back to Spain a few decades back, and unlike Moroccans in France a few decades before. But, as I wrote before, it seems that the Minhag is to follow whatever Minhagim you were used to, especially if you have enough landsmen to create a breakaway community. On October 3, 2018 2:51:19 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading >the >> Torah? > >Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim >of >the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they >now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those > >minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed >the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably >French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? > >-- >Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all >zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you >prosper >_______________________________________________ >Avodah mailing list >Avodah at lists.aishdas.org >http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 21:54:40 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 21:54:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 3, 2018 3:32:20 PM PDT, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. What does he hold about Sefardim moving to France or Germany (which had a continuity - Germany going back well, at least a thousand years and France, while it had a break, did have a religious Ashkenazi community before and after the war). On October 3, 2018 3:54:51 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >o Here the issue is much simpler, because when >Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local >minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in >England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed >them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, >there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to >adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 4 06:19:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:19:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. _______________________________________________ The gemara (Bava Metziah 83b) discusses what hours a worker gets paid for based on the Torah "standard." The gemara queries why not just find out what local practice is? The first answer is it's a case of a new city which was nkutai. Rashi defines nkutai as meaning its residents came from multiple other cities, with multiple other practices. Perhaps this is a model for minhag? New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care what we do? 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 Thu Oct 4 10:17:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:17:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181004171737.GA32625@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:19:57PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a : preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard : for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care : what we do? BM 83b is talking about norms for business, which is likely an entirely different use of the word "minhag" than in issur veheter. For example, when we say "minhag mevatel halakhah" in CM discussions, we are relying on the presumption that both parties would take compliance to local business norms for granted, and a deal can have any conditional both parties agree on. In this CM sense of minhag, there is no reason to assume that halakhah would have problems with other norms emerging, since they are based on the agreement of all parties. But that's a whole different topic than Ashk vs Seph differences in the other 3 Turim, which is where we started. That's minhag in the sense of: 1- Rgional pesaq when other regions hold differently (eg bet yosef meat); or 2- Extra-halachic accepted prohibitions or obligations (eg avoiding qitniyos). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 09:16:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:16:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: <20181003205226.GC17060@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181004161626.GF25881@aishdas.org> Moving this from Areivim. On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 4:28pm -0700, Rabbi Meir Rabi wrote on Areivim: : The Beis Hamikdash wasn't inclusive. More than that, (according to some : opinions) there were professions which weren't obligated to do Aliyah : LeRegel because they smelled bad and couldn't be Oleh Regel with everyone. The beraisa (Chullin 4a) says that dog fertilizer gatherers, tanners and copper smiths are "peturin min hare'iyah". The Rambam tells them get get cleaned up and go (Hil' Chagiga 2:2), the Mechaber (Kesef Mishnah ad loc) explaining that we hold like the Rabanan, not that beraisa. But even if we held like that beraisa that's whether they have a petur for not coming, not an issur to come. In fact, inclusivity might be the whole reason /why/ the Rabanan don't hold like the beraisa. But lo ra'isi eino ra'ayah, so to speak, so naniach someone else does take a harder line, what would that mean? Kehunah is not inclusive of all baalei mum. But attending... The BHMQ is inclusive on the basis of things not dependent on the person's own decisions. No one, not even a nakhri child of an eishes ish, is excluded by virtue of who he is. (In the nakhri's case, up to the soreg, but still, that's true of all nakhriim.) You're talking about someone excluded because of what they chose to do. (Again, given said "some opinions".) Admittedly, too many people lack options. But someone who really wants to be oleh regel who is still forced by circumstance to an unpleasant job would choose a different one. Or beg, if they value aliyah laregel more than the protection from sin offered by "yafeh salmud Torah im derekh eretz". My point is, it's a choice, and not the same kind of exclusion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call micha at aishdas.org life which is required to be exchanged for it, http://www.aishdas.org immediately or in the long run. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:46:34 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:46:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <1b84de96-ba9a-be08-b14f-3941c6ca49ec@sero.name> On 03/10/18 21:16, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the > Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. No, there was not. The First and Second Crusades utterly destroyed the communities that had survived the Roman and Arab occupations, and the communities that started resettling EY in the Ramban's day were all immigrants who brought their chu"l minhagim with them, including the minhagim of paskening like the Bavli, keeping two days of Rosh Hashana, and not benching lulav when the first day of Succos falls on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:51:23 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:51:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0f6cfe7e-6504-98a8-c784-c122f84a59ca@sero.name> On 03/10/18 18:32, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? > : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading > : the Torah? > > While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY > community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does > make a similar point. > > ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to > switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. > He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old > minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi > Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 4 12:10:49 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:10:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rabbi wrote: 'When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways.' Agreed. Yerushalayim didn't have continuity as we know via the Ramban finding less than a minyan there when he arrived, but Chevron AFAIK had continuity from Chazal to 1929. I think Teverya did too. The museum of the old yishuv in the Old City refers to the 'mustarvim' as one of the communities in 19th century Jlem, those who were culturally pretty Arab and claimed descent from the pre-crusades community. For more info this wikipaedia page: History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel is well footnoted. So if there's well documented continuous Jewish presence and even communities in EY throughout, how did the SA set minhagim in EY such that ROY held they were obligatory on new arrivals? What happened to pre-existing customs? Or is it that the disruption and wax and wane of communities over EY with continuous small scale aliya meant there was no such such thing as minhag hamakom? Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 14:48:15 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 17:48:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181004214815.GD14160@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:10:49PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not : countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume : such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? I think it has more to do with communication and transportation changes than a change in principle. The new metzi'us is that we're much more aware of what people five towns over are doing. On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 02:51:23PM -0400, Zev Sero replied to my post: : >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to : >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. : >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old : >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi : >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. : But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his : whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all : the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there : were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument : works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? Well, you might have a question about Edot haMizrach, but EY? Didn't you just write about how the Jewish settlement of EY in the 15th cent wasn't all that dense? But I don't think this is relevent, anyway. Let's say they were wrong to take their minhagim with them. Even if the change in minhag was wrong, the normal practice in EY did indeed change. Unlike the situation once that norm was lost and no new consistent minhag emerged (on all but a few issues). So, I could see ROY saying that right or wrong about its establishment, the SA's minhag still stands as the minhag hamaqom. OTOH, invoking the SA means that he is bringing a textual component to the establishment of minhag. IIRC, ROY frames it in terms of the fact that the SA was written in EY, not that the Mechaber got there due to one of the first large yishuv in centuries, nor the yishuv itself. So perhaps we need to know more about ROY's model of minhag before spending so much time on guesses like the one above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 20:13:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 23:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem Message-ID: On Areivim (subject line same as here), several people have bemoaned how difficult it is to use a wheelchair (and many other assistive devices) in the Old City in general, and the Kotel area in particular. In terms of absolute, quantifiable, objective fact, I can't imagine how anyone could dispute that. I am bringing the topic to Avodah in order to discuss what our feelings and attitudes should be towards this situation. Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I often remark that we are fortunate to live in a time when the technology has allowed us such efficient wheelchairs. Our economy has allowed us to make building codes that require ramps and such, which would have been laughably expensive just a few decades back. Ditto for "kneeling buses" and the like. But it seems to me that you don't need technology or wealth to realize that if the shul is built at a median altitude, it will be easier for *everyone*. And yet Chazal thought it is a better idea to make the shul look impressive. Surely I'm missing something here. Can someone please set me straight? Thanks Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 19:04:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 22:04:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim > on chol hamoed in chutz la?aretz? (not sepharadim) > I was surprised to see it done. > Sources? I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 21:10:16 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 00:10:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/18 15:10, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > > Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not > countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to > assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Perhaps the first post-Talmudic book on halacha was a booklet on the differences between minhag EY and minhag Bavel. So the concept of minhag EY goes back to at least the time of the geonim. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 05:01:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:01:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna?s instruction[1] and codified by the Shulchan Aruch,[2] world Jewry started reciting ?Gevuros Geshamim B?Tchiyas HaMeisim?, better known as the formulaic insert ?Mashiv HaRuach U?Morid HaGashem?, in the second bracha of Shemoneh Esrei. This addition, showcasing the Might of G-d by mentioning the fact that He is the only One who has the power and ability to make rain, is considered so imperative that one who forgets to insert it must repeat the whole Shemoneh Esrei.[3] As there are no vowels in the Gemara or Shulchan Aruch, an interesting question arises: what is the proper way to pronounce the Hebrew word for rain (???) in this sentence? Is it Ge shem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel; eh sound) or is it Ga shem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel; uh sound)? Although the word for rain is pronounced Ge shem when saying the word by itself, still, its proper pronunciation might be changed when part of a sentence. Contemporary halachic authorities used various rules of Hebrew Grammar (dikduk) to come up with the proper solution. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 5 05:28:54 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:28:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 8:01 AM >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 >> On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction... With all due respect for the many great g'dolim who weighed in on this issue and came up with explanations about what the proper pronunciation should be, they came late in the game, after grammarians had already started changing the pronunciation. The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 07:37:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 10:37:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:01:40PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 I have yet to see a discussion that starts at the beginning. Bemechilas kevod everyone who holds "gashem", and who am I to argue against the Gra, the Netziv, the CC, R' Aharon Kotler, R YS Elyashiv, or Rav Moshe? But this article gets closer, by mentioning Sepharadim and the Levushei Mordekhai. Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:28:54PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : they came late in the game, after grammarians had already : started changing the pronunciation. : The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the : rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, : Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be : no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. But this doesn't prove that our mesorah was necessarily that there was a significan pause after "umorid hagashem". Yes, the Teimanim say "Jafen" on wine, and yet still say "geshem" here with a segol. Their mesorah is that is is not a pause. But for Ashkenazim, those older manuscripts do not prove whether or not there is a pause, since the diqduq they used would have "geshem" either way. As for Nusach haAri, Lubavitch's Alter Rebbe liked R Wolf Heidenheim's (Ravah's) siddur and diqduq, so his Nusach Ari was one of the early adopters of these language innovations. Interestingly, this means that most Ashkneazim today are davening in a nusach that is primarily a haskalisher attempt to reconstruct an authentic nusach, that is based on some ahistorical assumptions of what "authentic" was, to boot. And R/Dr Mandel is the only person I know who unwound that shift from Mishaic to Biblical Hebrew across all of davening. Unless you're willing to take that drastic step ("sabe'einu mituvakh, vesamcheinu biyshu'asakh"), saying "geshem" when most of your Hebrew is Mishnaic could something different than it did in those manuscripts, depending if a pause was intended. And, depending on whether the phrase might even be an exception to the usual rules of diqduq. (See R Spitz's article.) We simply can't know. R' Spitz concludes: Postscript: This is just one of a number of places where the majority consensus of Poskim maintain that dikduk decides the proper reading of tefillos.[30] Although many Gedolim through the ages spoke about dikduk's importance,[31] unfortunately its study at present is much neglected. In the words of Rabbi Yisroel Reisman in his excellent book Pathways of the Prophets:[32] "The myth of the lack of importance of (at least) a minimal amount of knowledge of dikduk must be dispelled. This is an area where a small amount of time and effort go a long way. Let's do it!" But to some up this post, we also need to know *which* diqduq. To provide the footnotes for that last quote: [30] See at length Rabbi Yisroel Reisman's Pathways of the Prophets, "Rules of Dikduk" starting on pg. 312. [31] For example see the Rambam's Peirush HaMishnayos (Avos Ch. 2, 1), Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim 142, 1), Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah (Ch. 5, 3), Shu"t Chavos Yair (124), Shu"t Sheilas Ya'avetz (vol. 1, 10), and Bnei Yisaschar (Introduction to Igra D'Kallah and Mayon Ganim 13, 6), all cited in the aforementioned chapter. [32] Pathways of the Prophets (pg. 325). L'iluy Nishmas the Rosh HaYeshiva - Rav Chonoh Menachem Mendel ben R' Yechezkel Shraga, Rav Yaakov Yeshaya ben R' Boruch Yehuda, and l'zchus for Shira Yaffa bas Rochel Miriam and her children for a yeshua teikef u'miyad! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Fri Oct 5 07:14:32 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:14:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An interesting discussion on this is given here by Dr Shnayer Lehman https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm YUTorah Online Online study of the Jewish holidays, Parsha, Halakha and Talmud by Yeshiva University www.yutorah.org From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 5 04:54:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 07:54:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When Sefardi and Ashkenazim Meet Message-ID: <56.57.22391.E4157BB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Rabbi Eli Mansour discusses the convergence of Sefardi and Ashkenazi traditions in contemporary Israel. Please see the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgoo.gl%2FWT2Hjq&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C97625655127d4ae2115708d62aad6b61%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636743321668910329&sdata=qGd8srOfQuC0kDFzrWfAVXfNbcQiB%2BvvgPyGWe3HehQ%3D&reserved=0 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 04:45:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:45:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5310ADD1-3CFE-455E-A5FD-9847E3F075C7@sibson.com> > > I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. > > Akiva Miller > > > _______________________________________________ > But do they duchen at shacharit on yom tov? 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 Fri Oct 5 08:00:43 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:00:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> References: , <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 10:37 AM ... > Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal > form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs > "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, > or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei > Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). > The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because > they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And > Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. ... A slight correction to R Micha's post: as far as we can tell, Chazal Hebrew DID have pausal forms. But they were not based on trop, of course, nor even on on the end of a sentence. They are used consistently in a case of parellismus membrorum in L'shon Chazal, and I am pretty sure in some other situations as well, according to the evidence from the oldest mss. with vocalization, such as the famous Kaufmann ms. of the Mishnah. But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: ??? ???? ?????? ?????, ???? ?? ?? ??????? ...? ?????? ????? ???????? ??????, ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? [For those in digest text mode and therefore can't see the Hebrew, this quote begins "LaKeil Barukh, ne'imos..." -micha] To the best of my knowledge, all old nuskah'ot have "yittenu." Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 06:14:47 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 13:14:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3252f45264ff47778db42a4dcee99b7d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I---------------------------------- IMHO Thomas Kuhn?s thoughts on paradigm shift are applicable here. Western liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be (e.g. I might like to do the avodah but I?m not a cohain) So yes, it could really be (but I?m not qualified to say it is) 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 seinfeld at daasbooks.com Fri Oct 5 08:40:01 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:40:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: 7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY: 1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts scientific History, that?s not a kasheh on the Torah, it?s more like a sha?elah - ?Why did HKBH write this? What?s He teaching me here?? 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no significant debate about that. 3. We don?t know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek ? sounds a lot like the descriptions we have of the Big Bang. 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round. They really do look that way. So either HKBH made them looking old for some reason, or they really are old. A person can ignore the question and say, ?It?s enough for me just to believe,? but the Gemara (and plenty of Rishonim and Acharonim) says that we have an obligation to study Nature to the best of our ability. 6. There are plenty of things that the smartest scientists admit they don?t know. For instance, they think that right after the moment of creation (Big Bang), the entire universe inflated instantly, like someone blowing up a balloon. Just to make this clear. There are patterns in the universe that defy logical explanation. In order to explain these patterns, it has been proposed (and accepted by many but not all cosmologists) that from 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second until 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second after the Big Bang, the universe expanded at an exponential rate (in that short moment it got 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and then the expansion slowed down. They have good reasons for believing this theory. It helps explain some of the bizarre things that we see when we look through our telescopes, chiefly, the fact that the universe appears to be the same in all directions. Yet they have no idea what could have caused this inflation. Worse for them, the current rate of expansion has been proven to be accelerating, but again they have no idea what invisible energy source could be causing this. It would be far simpler to say, ?It looks the same in every direction because it was created at the current size; there was no Big Bang and no expansion and no inflation.? But wait, we see that it is indeed currently expanding. Doesn?t that prove the Big Bang? - Expansion doesn?t prove anything. It?s a fact that requires a theory to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously expand. - Maybe this bizarre things accelerating expansion that we see, along with hypothetical inflation, are just the artist?s signature on His artwork? For after all, the only thing that can cause acceleration is more energy. The best rational explanation for this invisible ?dark? energy is that Hashem continues to be mashpia on the world and wants us to know it, without being too obvious. But wait, we also know that the stars are zillions of miles away from us, and given the known speed of light, their starlight should have taken millions or even billions of years to reach us. Doesn?t that prove at least that the universe is mighty old? - No, it doesn?t: see #5 above. 7. Yet to constantly answer, ?Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, ?What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with ?Hashem does it? without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. So what?s the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, or was it just made to look that way? I don?t know, but I?m personally completely comfortable with either answer. Neither answer can (to my understanding) be proven nor disproven. I suspect they are both true. That, as my grandfather z??l would have said, is my 2-bits. Your critical feedback welcome. Good Shabbos Alexander Seinfeld jewishspirituality.net From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 08:25:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:25:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on Marriage Message-ID: The following are excerpts from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 1:28 28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. "????????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ????????????: 28 God blessed both of them, and He made both of them responsible for the fulfillment of mankind?s mission. ??????? refers to marriage, the union of the sexes for production of human fruit ? children. Just as the choice energies and saps of the tree become ?free? in its fruit as an independent germ (see above, v. 11), so the noblest traits of godliness and humaneness of the father and mother unite to produce an independent human germ. ?????? refers to the family. r'vah = to multiply. Begetting children is not sufficient in order for the human species to multiply. Even in the case of many species of animals, increase of the breed is dependent on care of the young; and in the case of the human species, such care is absolutely essential ? even if viewed only from a physical standpoint. A human child has no chance of survival at all, if his parents do not provide him with care from the moment of his birth and do not continually promote his bodily well-being and development. Not the birth, but the care is the true cause of human increase. But r'vah includes more than this. The parents are obligated to reproduce themselves through their children: They must recur in the image of their children; and the children are to resemble their parents ? not only physically, but spiritually and morally. The parents are to plant and nurture in their children the best of their spiritual and moral powers. In short, their duty is to form and educate their children spiritually and morally. Only then will they recur in the image of their children and fulfill the mitzvah of ?????? . ?????????? refers to property (see Commentary, v. 26). Man is commanded to master the earth and subdue it. His task is to acquire the products of the earth and to transform them, so that they become fit for his purposes. Acquisition of property is prerequisite for the tasks of home and society. Property serves as an instrument with which home and society achieve their aims. Thus, the acquisition of property becomes a moral duty. The mitzvah of ??????, however, is written here last, which implies a limitation: There is no moral value to property, unless it is devoted to home and society. It is a person?s duty to acquire material assets, in order to build a home and to further the society. He should not build a home and support the society in order increase his assets and his wealth. The mitzvah of ???????????? is given at once to both sexes; they are to collaborate in harmony so as to fulfill this mission of man. Nevertheless, before establishing his home, man must first acquire material assets, and this duty ? subduing the earth, so as to further man?s aims ? is primarily incumbent only upon the male. For this reason the duty of marriage and of establishing a home is assigned directly only to the man, and only to him is it given as an unconditional duty. To the woman it is given as a conditional duty; it applies to her, only when she joins her husband. (See Yevamos 65b.) These commands place the Divine imprint on every aspect of familyand communal life. The Torah does not recognize the compartmentalization of life into God-oriented or ?religious,? on the one hand, and profane, untouched by things Divine, on the other. God claims all of life for His service and for the fulfillment of man?s mission as adom. This applies, first and foremost, to family and communal life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 11:59:27 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:59:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <20181005185927.GB26105@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 02:46:37PM -0700, RMR wrote: : It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they : vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, : they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. : So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter : Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the : Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the : original Minhag. I think it's more that minhag hamaqom is about the community, not the geography. If so many new people move in that they overhwelm the old community, they also overwhelm the old minhag. However, when Edot haMizrach got to the US in the late 20th century, many of them moved into existing communities and neither drowned out the old minhag nor did they adopt it. I think they should have done the latter, since minhag avos is only a "thing" when there is no minhag hamaqom. (Except in places like Deal, NJ, which is predominantly Syrian) And for many minhagim, the existing community -- from Yekkes to Vizhnitzers -- did have a single practice. This gets me to an issue left unresolved in a previous discussion of minhag hamaqom: Does minhag hamaqom apply piecewise, or only when there are so many practices that are consistent that there is a general feeling of unity of pesaq. For example, we talk about there being a "minhag hamaqom" in EY about things like saying Shir shel Yom after Shacharis even when there is a Mussaf, or Hakafos after Hallel. But the list of things in which the vast majority of the observant communities of Israel agree upon is quite small. Heterogeneity is the norm. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 12:31:12 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:31:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99B66C72-E111-47AA-ABA5-8E2A753AE7A4@opengemara.org> On October 5, 2018 8:40:01 AM PDT, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: >7 things every Jew should know about Ma'aseh Bereishit, even if it was >not taught in BY: >1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras >Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts >scientific History, that's not a kasheh on the Torah, it's more like a >sha'elah -- "Why did HKBH write this? What's He teaching me here?" ... >4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the >descriptions we have of the Big Bang. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work -- according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). >7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit >facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, >"What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem >does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we >would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving >us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how >to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things >work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Oct 6 11:38:57 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 21:38:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:13 PM Mandel, Seth via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have > at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that > "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, > and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, > in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei gever" in birchot hashahar? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 15:42:10 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C9B4494-797A-437D-B042-3D7AAD5FEFBD@opengemara.org> 1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? 2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). 3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 7 05:56:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 08:56:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181007125626.GC4739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 06:22:12PM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they : also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla : for geshem. I think that's the usual. After all, in Tefillas Geshem we don't just continue the list "mashiv haruach umorid hageshem, mekhalkeil chaim bechesed..." The pause before "Livrakhah velo liqlalah" is less of a question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From isaac at balb.in Sun Oct 7 00:22:12 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 18:22:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I say Geshem (as per R' Soloveitchik et al) I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla for geshem. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sun Oct 7 12:30:33 2018 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:30:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] BDE Moras Shulamith Bechhofer Message-ID: Information from RYBG on facebook: Kevurah for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h,will be at Har HaMenuchos. My brother, Horav Yochanan Meir shlita sitting shiva for 2 days from Monday night after the kevura until Wednesday afternoon in Ramat Shlomo, number 37 Shtefenesht Street by the Schaefer family. Shiva for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h will be at my mother's apartment 146 Beach 9th Street, apartment 4D, Far Rockaway, New York. Beginning Monday morning, Shacharis at 7:30 am, Mincha and Maariv at 6:05 pm. Please try to come be menachem avel before 10:00 pm. I will be returning to Monsey for Mincha Gedola on Friday at 1:15 pm, Maariv Motzoei Shabbos an hour after shekiah, and Shacharis on Sunday morning at 7:30 am, at our house, 3 Zabriskie Terrace. Besuros Tovos. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Sun Oct 7 13:03:01 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 20:03:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message Message-ID: I thought Alexander Seinfeld?s post on this subject was very interesting. I would, however, make one small change. Instead of writing ?7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY,? I would say: 7 things I and some other Orthodox Jews believe about ....? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 01:34:52 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:34:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant past. For example, in the recent controversy over Judge Kavanaugh the following appeared in a world street journal article Christine Blasey Ford was believable and sincere when she told her story of being assaulted by a young Brett Kavanaugh. So was Judge Kavanaugh when he categorically denied her claims?and none of her purported eyewitnesses have any memory of the gathering she describes. They can?t both be telling the truth, but it is possible neither is deliberately lying. The article then goes on to describe how one's memory is affected by (unconscious) attempts to heal emotional wounds. This leads to repression of embarrassing memories or memories becomes less clear over time Furthermore, the adolescent brain (9 to 25) is not fully developed. Middle adolescence (14 to 17) is a time when teens have little connection to the past or future and think only of the present. (In Israel at least 14-17 year olds are very conscious of their future and especially army service at 18) ----------------------------- I don't personally agree with all the details of the article but the total impression is that two people in their 50s testifying about an event in their teen years should be taken with a big grain of salt. Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so would probably pass "drishot"; As an aside I am aware of dayanim questioning witnesses. Is their anyting in halacha about the defendant giving his version and being questioned by the dayanim? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Oct 7 19:16:55 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2018 22:16:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi thanks for your comments. >1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? Not necessarily. Meaning, at times it does, but not always in the way that secular people use the term History. So we should not compare the two. I?d rather say, ?It contains historical information? >2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as >the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no >plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and >there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or >you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the >world was created old). We don?t have to make it work. The point is that most people frankly have no clue what cosmology says about origins (other that it?s complicated and somewhat mystical), and they often dismiss Torah because it appears to them so unsophisticated. Peeking at the Rambam gives one a clue that we have a Mesorah of a extremely sophisticated, complicated and mystical Bereishis. >3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So >hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a >source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted >from Gan Eden)? No I don?t. But I believe I saw in Rav Hirsch that Adam was first created outside Gan Eden and only put in there for the test. From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 8 05:24:45 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:24:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46de6a96-5987-0a36-1097-b2c09f3d0ebd@sero.name> On 08/10/18 04:34, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note > that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so > would probably pass "drishot"; She certainly wouldn't. The most glaring problem with her claim was precisely that she could not fulfil the most basic drishot: "when and where did this allegedly happen"? Without being able to specify these it becomes "eidut she'i ata yachol lehazima" -- it's impossible to claim that the accused was elsewhere that day, let alone the witness. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 06:26:27 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:26:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700, Rabbi wrote: The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes > are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that > nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan > Eden)? *Yes, Chazal and the Rishonim all understood that the six day creation process was not a natural one.* ''All of creation was created fully formed''. At *ma?aseh b?reishis* the ox was created not as a calf but as an adult [Rashi in *Rosh Hashanah* 26a s.v. *shor sheh-hu par*]; and Adam was likewise created as an adult standing fully erect, the Talmud reports, within the same 24-hour period. The idea that Creation was anything less than a totally miraculous process, not conducted through natural processes at all, ''accelerated? or otherwise, is rejected by the *Maharal* (*Be?er HaGolah*, p. 83, *Be?er Four*): Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory?not by means of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. The *Rambam* explains in *Moreh Nevuchim *that it is illegitimate to base conclusions about the origin of the world by examining how the world looks now and assuming that the processes that would now produce such results were responsible, because the nature of things at their origin is different. EVERYTHING produced comes into existence from non-existence; even when the substance of ?a thing has been in existence, and has only changed its form, the thing itself, which has gone ?through the process of genesis and development, and has arrived at its final state, has now ?different properties from those which it possessed at the commencement of the transition from ?potentiality to reality, or before that time. Take, for example, the human ovum as contained in the ?female's blood when still included in its vessels: Its nature is different from what it was in the ?moment of conception, when it was met by the semen of the male and began to develop. The ?properties of the semen in that moment were different from the properties of the living being ?after its birth when fully developed. It is therefore quite impossible to infer, from the nature ?anything possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the ?condition of the thing had been at the time this process commenced. Nor does the condition of ?a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and ?attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually ?existing, you will fall into great confusion: You win reject evident truths and admit false ?opinions.? Let us assume, in our above instance, that a man born without defect had after his birth been ?nursed by his mother only a few months; the mother then died, and the father alone brought him ?up in a lonely island, till he grew up, became wise, and acquired knowledge. Suppose this man ?has never seen a woman or any female being: he asks some person how man has come into ?existence, and how he has developed, and receives the following answer: ''Man begins his ?existence in the womb of an individual of his own class, namely, in the womb of a female, which ?has a certain form. While in the womb he is very small; yet he has life, moves, receives ?nourishment, and gradually grows, till he arrives at a certain stage of development. He then ?leaves the womb and continues to grow till he is in the condition in which you see him.'' The ?orphan will naturally ask: ''Did this person, when he lived, moved, and grew in the womb, eat ?and drink, and breathe with his mouth and his nostrils? Did he excrete any substance?'' The ?answer will be, ''No.'' Undoubtedly he will then attempt to refute the statements of that person, ?and to prove their impossibility, by referring to the properties of a fully developed person, in the ?following manner: ? When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and remained alive, able to move?? ? If any one of us would swallow a living bird, the bird would die immediately when it ?reached the stomach, much more so when it came to the lower part of the belly; if we ?should not take food or drink with our mouth, in a few days we should undoubtedly be ?dead! How then can a human being remain alive for months without taking food?? ? If any person would take food and would not be able to excrete it, great pains and death ?would follow in a short time--and yet I am to believe that man has lived for months ?without that function?!? ? Suppose by accident a hole were formed in the belly of a person, it would prove fatal, ?and yet we are to believe that the navel of the fetus has been open?!? ? Why should the fetus not open the eyes, spread forth the bands and stretch out the legs, if, ?as you think, the limbs are all whole and perfect?!? This mode of reasoning would lead to the conclusion that man cannot come into existence and ?develop in the manner described.? We, the community following in the footsteps of Moses and Abraham, believe that the world came into being IN such-and-such a form, and BECAME such-and-such FROM such-and-such (*haya kach mi-kach *), and such WAS CREATED AFTER such. Aristotle comes to uproot our words, bringing proofs against us based upon nature in its stabilized, perfected and active state. As for us, we declare against him that this is legitimate evidence [for determining processes that must have occurred] after nature?s having settled down in its fully developed stage; but in no way does this correspond to something?s characteristics at its being brought into existence, and produced out of absolute non-existence (MN 2:17). Shabbos marks the cessation of a process that was ongoing beforehand. If G-d's method of development of the world was through the same natural laws and processes in effect now, what ceased on the first Shabbos? None of the things mentioned above [the creation of Eve from Adam, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge, the history of the serpent and the events connected therewith] is impossible, because THE LAWS OF NATURE WERE THEN [UNTIL THE END OF THE SIX DAYS] NOT PERMANENTLY FIXED (Ibid. 2:30). The Ralbag uniquely understands specific statements by Chazal to be saying that Hashem created virtually everything simultaneously and instantaneously on the first day, all in their fully developed form (with the exception of the growth of vegetation of the fifth day) and that therefore the ?days? of Creation are ?categories.? This makes the creation process even less natural. It is noteworthy that the approach of the Ralbag is to build the understanding through the teachings of *Chazal*, and not through rejecting them on the basis that they differ with the science of the day. Zvi Lampel > > > > > [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/08/18, 9:21:07 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Oct 8 07:38:02 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 10:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Noach An Interesting Insight Message-ID: Last week God created the world. This week (some 1,656 years later), God destroys the world. Interestingly, the Baal Hatanya (Shneur Zalman of Liadi) writes that the flood has never ended and continues until this very day. We are all subject to the floods in life. We are flooded with all sorts of problems, issues, conflicts, etc. ? some more, some less. The world is still chaotic but when we do our part to minimize our personal floods, we help to minimize the floods of the world. The flood of money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy. Theodore White (American political journalist and historian) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 11:37:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:34:52AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. : Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by : many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant : past. Chaqirah is the ability to answer specific questions about the when and where of the event: 1- Which shemitah cycle 2- Which year in the cycle 3- Which month 4- Day of month 5- Day of week 6- Hour of day 7- Where And the SA discusses what we do now when we don't use 1&2 as the primary means of identifying the year, if the person is off by a day in the month, but has the correct day-of-week so that it's an obvious calendar mistake not error, etc... There is also the regular notion of cross examination, derishah. Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, asked of each eid separately. And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. So let's talk more about dinei mamonos, where neither hasra'ah nor eid echad neeman be'isurim apply. Still, we confabulate memories. Especially emotionally laden ones like something a heated argument is churning over. But can two eidim confabulate identically when they can't hear eachothers' cross-examination? But I would like to really focus on is: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. If so, why would we hold terei kemei'ah? After all, if dozens of people say the same thing, why would we believe two holdouts equally? For that matter, what would eidus be more trustworthy than even "smoking gun" level evidence? I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. But I fear that more than one paragraph on this topic would annoy people who didn't go for the idea in prior iterations. So, unless there is interest expressed, I will stop here. 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 larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Oct 8 14:39:41 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 17:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben Shapiro's take on abortion. YL Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when he speaks and is being interviewed. On Sunday, at the conclusion of the latest edition of The Ben Shapiro Election Special on the Fox News Network, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro used the last segment of the show to mount a powerful assault on abortion that was unlike any seen on a network news show before. Shapiro showed pictures from ultrasounds and illustrations of babies at various stages in utero to support his case, aware that when women see ultrasounds of the babies they are carrying, they are much less likely to consider having an abortion. Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. The later the abortion takes place, the more brutal the procedure, but no matter the brutality of the procedure, it is obvious that abortion is not some mere optional surgery to be performed for convenience. And it?s even more obvious that those who want to protect the lives of the unborn aren?t trying to control women?s bodies. Those who cherish abortion are trying to control and dismember the bodies of the unborn. Think about that next time you see a radical feminist in a Handmaid's Tale outfit suggesting that you?d better respect her right to carve apart an unborn baby in the womb or you?re some sort of fascist. No more euphemisms. See https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F36835%2Fwatch-shapiro-gives-fiery-unprecedented-assault-daily-wire&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=%2Bqenj6TOK0BiMopCLwHGel5WMFGPn5BJJ7Onf2R6yuM%3D&reserved=0 and especially the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Ftime_continue%3D27%26v%3DpoB8aIXI0Yo&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=kLq3f6Bo%2F9X3rP4HXORP3uhB5Wo6hC1ifHM%2BVBGt9j4%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 19:50:38 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:50:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181009025038.GA29143@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 05:39:41PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: :> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of :> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. Well, Rav Moshe holds as much, but most posqim do not. Shapiro is conflating the fact that Yahadus considers abortion a serious avlah with Pro-Life rhetoric that the avlah happens to be retzichah. Halachipidia has the following list (my translitations): What is the Prohibition? 1. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein - abortion is considered murder. However, this murder does not come with a death penalty. There are some cases of murder when the murderer does not get the death penalty. One of these cases is someone who murders one who is terminally ill. [4] 2. Rabbi Issar Unterman - abortion is considered abuzraihu deretzichah akin to murder.[5] 3. It is a violation of the positive commandment of peru urvu Part of the commandment is to allow every potential soul to come into being, and if one does abortion, they cannot do this. [6] 4. Spilling the seed/Onanism. The fetus is more similar to the basic seed than to a human, so destroying the fetus would be like destroying the seed.[7] 5. Aborting the fetus is injuring the mother (Chavalah). Exodus 21 says that if two men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and there is no death, but the fetus is miscarried, then they have to pay a monetary payment. So the fetus is more a part of the mother than a separate life. [8] 6. It is a Rabbinical prohibition. There is no clear prohibition in the Torah, so our only real sources are the rabbinical sources.[9] 7. According to the Zohar, one who kills a fetus is guilty of destroying God's handiwork. [10] it is unclear if this constitutes a different view of the technical prohibition, or if this is just a reasoning explaining the severity of abortion. A punishment unlike that for murder is detailed. Notes: [4] Iggros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat, Part 2, Chapter 69 [5] I.Y. Unterman, Noam VI (1963), 1-11 as cited in David Feldman, Birth Control In Jewish Law [6] Yevamos 63b [7] Talmud Bavli: Niddah 13a; Chavos Yair, Siman 31 [8] Exodus 21:22 [9] Sanhedrin 72; Tzitz Eliezer, Jerusalem, 1963, volume VII, number 48, p. 190. [10] Hok L'Yisrael, Shemot for Monday, Zohar, Shemot 3b Note how most shitos do say the fetus is not a person. #5 in particular is based on the idea that the fetus is an organ of the mother. (Which is also consistent with pen paqua.) No.s 3, 4 and 7 are about stopping the process of later producing a person. Likely #2 (abuzraihu deretzichah) as well, although it could be some other near-retzichah connection. And as for #6, it depends which deOraisa the deRabbanan is supporting. But even so, not retzichah, no human life yet. As the Bach explains the Rambam's position... You can abort a fetus to save the life of the mother a moment before it would have crowned, because it is kerotzeiach -- LIKE a rotzeiach. But it's not actually a rotzeiach, which is why in the same situation but a moment later, once the baby did crown, one could not commit infanticide to save the mother. A fetus before crowning is not subject to the same issur as after. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 9 11:04:42 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:04:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 Message-ID: In June 1990 Light Magazine published an article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer dealing with "his life in perspective; what is Torah Im Derech Eretz? ; his attitude toward modern Hebrew; and his mida of emess and bitachon. The article is at Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 9 15:26:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> References: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181009222604.GA27505@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 02:37:57PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, : asked of each eid separately. : : And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim : had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they : had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. .... REMT, kedarko beqodesh, gently corrected me in private. The eidim testifying need to have witnessed hasra'ah, and didn't have to have given it themselves. Which means that the tail of my post applies to sin/crim as well, not only dinei mamunus (as long as it's not eid echad ne'eman be'isusim). I think what I said about confabulation vs indepent derishah vechaqira of each eid separately, and (more importantly) my argument for not assuming that the neemanus accorded eidus isn't because we necessarily consider it the least fallible both still stand. Chodesh Tov! 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Thu Oct 11 01:20:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:20:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom Message-ID: << But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? >> The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a sefardi community and ROY's claim is that the Ashkenazim should have followed the existing sefardi customs. Obviously the talmidei hagra and the chassidim didn't agree. How far one goes back is part of a responsa by RMF that one who davens "chassidic" can change to Ashkenaz but not the other way since the original minhag was Asjkenaz and changed by the early chassidim. So according to RMF the fact someonepnes great...grandather 10 generations ago davened in nusach Ashkenaz has halachic meaning As to minhag EY and minhag Yerushalayim most date back about 100 years ago and a few to the days of takmidei hagra and the early chassidim. Almost none to earlier than that. The minhag of having a single drummer at a wedding in Jerusalem has mostly been replaced by a single organ player that can simulate a whole orchestra. Others claim that it holds only in the old city or that it was established by the old yishuv some 100 years ago and they are not part of that community One widespread minhag EY from the talmidei hagra and hasidim is not to wear tefillin on chol hamoed. Even in this case I have heard of some olim who put on tefillin after they return from shul. One really ancient minhag in Yerushalayim refers to not leaving a corpse overnight and so having funerals in the middle of the night. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 03:01:59 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:01:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fish With Legs?! In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: In Parshas Noach, we read about how Hashem brought the Great Flood and destroyed all living creatures, save for those inside Noach?s Ark and the fish in the oceans, who were spared as well. It would be fascinating to find out on which side of the Teiva a ?fish with legs? would have been. Would it have been considered a fish or an animal? Far from being a theoretical question, this actually happened when... To find out the full story, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Fish with Legs?!" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 02:58:05 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:58:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach Message-ID: The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both immorality and dishonesty?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 09:49:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011164903.GC19398@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 09:58:05AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach :> It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality :> than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. : : I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both : immorality and dishonesty?" The Meshekh Chomah notes... Pausing here for a shameless plug: I am now giving a quick (15-20 min) talk on Facebook Wed nights 9:30pm EDT. This comment is from that. So, the MC notes... That the dor hamabul sinned both - sexually - ki hishchis kol basar; and - financially - chamas. And he writes about the opening pasuq, based on a Rashi on the Gemara (AZ 6a): tamim -- anav ushefal ruach tzadiq - [bemaasav -gemara] - belo chamas RMShK writes that Noach "bedorosav" -- his 2 doros -- had very different challenges. Living in the pre-flood dor, being a tzadiq bemaasav and not influenced by the general dishonesty and sexual license around him, was the greater challenge. (How often does someone cut ethical corners because "that's how business is done now?") However being tamim in his midos, his anavah, was easy. The culture didn't value his tzidqus. However, in the post-flood dor, everything existed becaus of him. And the people around him had learned from the experience of tending to the animals for a year. Little challenge from peer pressure, but a much bigger challenge keeping his ego in check. This is a point the MC makes on "Malki-Tzedeq melekh Shaleim" -- the year in the midbar was a lesson in sheleimus, and that's his part of the foundation of Y-m. Avrahama added "behar Hashem Yeira'ah" to make Yerushalayim. (And thus the "-ayim", pair, in the name.) See MC Bereishis 22:14. Back to the point, it would seem that chazal attribute both difficulties to Noach's pre-flood life. It too was an "age of both immorality and dishonesty". 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 llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 08:58:19 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:58:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood ? make the ark [to consist] of enclosures for animals ? and cover it inside and out with pitch. In any event, a tavah is shaped like a box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ has no relationship to the one Noach built. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 11 07:06:55 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:06:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/10/18 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole >> Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other >> countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing >> communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and >> not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? > > The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established > community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new > minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a > sefardi?community But this isn't the case. After the crusades destroyed the original EY community with its minhagim, a new community was established by olim, who brought their mihagim with them from chu"l, and by the time the grushei Sefarad arrived there was already an established community. And what about the rest of the Mediterranean, where there were thousand-year-old communities? Leshitaso shouldn't the Sefardim who settled in each of those countries have adopted the local mihagim? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 11 06:10:16 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:10:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices Message-ID: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were an ongoing situation? 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 Thu Oct 11 07:29:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:29:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching Torah to Women Message-ID: Although throughout the ages there were Jewish women who were learned and revered1 the concept of formal education for women is barely a century old.2 Before this time, they would learn whatever was necessary from their parents.3 Girls generally did not go out of the home, and were often illiterate.4 The modern school system teaches many subjects to the girls, including Chumash, Halachah, Navi and Mishnah. Some even teach Gemara.5 Girls learn Chumash in depth with Ramban, and study more halachah than boys in yeshivah.6 The Bais Yaakov movement was spearheaded by Sarah Schenirer with just twenty-five girls in 1917,7 as a reaction to many factors8 which had changed the status quo.9 Since then, hundreds of girls? schools have been created. For more on this topic Click here to download "Teaching Torah to Women" For information about the history of the Bais Yaakov movement see https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note the curriculum of the Bais Yaakov Seminary in Krakow starting on page 77. In particular, Five Books of Moses: This included the study of the Five Books of Moses in the original and in its entirety with the commentary of Rashi and Rabbi Samuel Raphael Hirsch. and German: Instruction in the correct oral and written use of the language. The goal of this course was to provide the teachers with the ability to read by themselves the important religious literature of Hirsch and others which were written in the German language, as well as selected classical works such as the poetry of Schiller, Goethe, Nathan the Wise by Lessing, Zweig, and Beer-Hoffman. Times have indeed changed, have they not! YL study times. of the Five -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 10:04:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:04:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: <20181011170422.GD19398@aishdas.org> I got to the Arukh haShulchan's discussion of Chazal changing the entire definition of qinyan. MideOraisa, paying would be the qinyan. But Chazal were afraid that sellers wouldn't properly safeguard the item between payment and handing it over to the buyer. After all, any loss or damage is the buyers, ownership was already transfered. So, chazal made various qinyanim that demonstrate the buyer taking the item. The Torah gives the halakhah. Chazal realize that given the low state of the people around them, the halakhah would have cons that outweigh the pros. So, they change it. Reminds me of pruzbul or heter isqa, cases where in order to help someone who needs a loan get one, we allow suboptimal loan arrangements. In each case, a different validation for doing so: - Qinyan in general allows custom and agreement by both parties override the default law. - Similarly heter isqa was always technically allowed; our rabbanim just standardized a means of utilizing this alternative financial arrangement. - Pruzbul is violating shemittah derabbanan. So, while the gemara requires the motive of helpoing the poor get loans to even violate the ke'ein deOraisa, tHillel didn't rewrite Torah. But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and limit the damage. So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:01:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:01:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011190137.GG27474@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 03:58:19PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 :> In any event, a tavah is shaped like a :> box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward :> the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut :> through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. : Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ : has no relationship to the one Noach built. True; it's just the reconstruction of some Xians, given the text and the assumption that it was build not to capsize. RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis for Noach et al not to have capsized. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Oct 11 13:34:12 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:34:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Again read RSRH's commentary and you will see how he arrives at his conclusion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:14:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011191454.GA19331@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:13:44PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else : being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. : I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a : location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and : elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities : of young folks. RJR suggests that the advantage to the tzibbur would indeed trump the disadvantage for the individual. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 1:14pm UCT, he wrote: : ... Western : liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish : thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role : and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be... The comment RAM was replying to (I think) was my discussion of the advantage to the majority of the community of being pushed to think about those who need more help. IOW, not accessible shuls for the sake of those who need accessibility, but for the sake of those who need practive remembering as they pursue qedushah they they must consider others. (Especially leshitas RSShkop, where qedushah is /defined/ as commitment "leheitiv im hazulas". Not exclusively so.) I think it's simply that the hill wasn't thought of as a major inconvenience. And perhaps an obstacle likely to keep someone from coming wouldn't be a proper place for your elevated shul. Or, possibly that yes, this halakhah was only speaking "when all else is equal". Tir'u baTov! -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 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 13:10:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:10:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 01:10:16PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan : once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), : which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were : an ongoing situation? I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood of feeling anything. 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 Oct 11 16:42:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 19:42:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 09:38:57PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei : gever" in birchot hashahar? I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing But look at the Kaf haChaim OC 46 s"q 18. So I know they did in 19th cent Baghdad. However, ROY is recorses in Qol Torah vol V pg 20 as promoting gaver and aved. But in the cases we started with -- gefen and geshem. Also, Rav Pa'alim vol II, OC #25. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 12 04:36:37 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 07:36:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. > >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, >including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is >where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the >fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when >you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below >with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis >for Noach et al not to have capsized. First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because HaShem kept it afloat. Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different before the flood than after it. In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the flood were the same as they are today? If they were different before the flood, then your physics analysis does not hold water! >:-} ( have no basis for asserting that the laws of physics were different before the flood, but it is possible in light of the different climatic conditions.) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 12 05:26:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:26:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7285ED0D-3270-486A-9AD2-8DBA569E7AF4@sibson.com> [Micha:] > I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. > Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give > priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning > to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. > But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all > that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can > have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. > Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an > abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood > of feeling The question of relative priorities is always complex. I don't think this question has an algorithmic response Other than if you say all other things are equal, Which of course they never are. Kt Joel Rich From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 12 05:33:15 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:33:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> , <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Transliterations mine, but I tried to be more consistent with RSM's already present transliterations. -micha] From: Micha Berger Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:42 PM > I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing Since my name was mentioned, I think R. Micha was inviting me to add my ha'penny's worth. The Ashkenaz mss. all have gover. As due Yemenite mss. I do not remember what most S'faradi mss. have. One thing that people are only partially aware of, including many rabbonim who decided to comment on grammatical matters without the necessary study, is that L'shon Chazal is a different language than Biblical Hebrew, but that Chazal grew up knowing T'NaKh by heart, and so sprinkled their language with Biblical quotations, just as English writers leaven their language with quotations from Shakespeare or the Bible. Those quotations are in the archaic dialect of English that was spoken in the 16th-17th Century when Shakespeare lived and the King James translation was done. and do not represent the language spoken by a 21st Century writer. Similarly the language of T'filla as composed by Chazal uses their spoken Hebrew, which we call L'shon Chazal, but it is as full of quotations from the T'NaKh as a raisin bun is of raisins. Which makes it often difficult to distinguish what is L'shon Chazal from what is a quotation. I am writing a treatise about this, which God willing I will publish one of these days, which will contain proofs and various strategems to distinguish what is what. But if the language is found in a posuk, you can be sure it is a quotation. And the phrase ????? ??? [mitz'adei gaver] appears twice, once in T'hillim 37 and once in Mishlei 20, once at the beginng of a phrase and once at the end. It seem fair to me to assume that they used the form at the end of a phrase to put in the b'rokho, and so I would argue that the b'rokho is incorporating the language of ?????? ?????????-?????, ??????? ???-??????? ????????? [MeiYY mitz'adei-gover, ve'adam mah yovin darko.] and so it would be "gover," as the mss. I saw have it. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com Fri Oct 12 07:20:01 2018 From: loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com (Looking ForInspiration) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: Hello! This is my first post to aishdas.org, so forgive me and direct me if needed. Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both? Thank you in advance. Mordechai From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 12 08:20:24 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181012152024.GE12524@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 07:36:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: : >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. : >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, : > .... It would be another neis : >for Noach et al not to have capsized. : : First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the : animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen : in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed : have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because : HaShem kept it afloat. Which I noted. However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compell him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about apparence except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. : Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the : flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that : there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a : much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different : before the flood than after it. : In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the : flood were the same as they are today? Saying the world had a different climate doesn't mean the laws of nature changed. It could mean the earth changed. There is no reason to believe science itself changed since; and in fact some reason to believe it hadn't. After all, "mikol melakhto asher bara E-lokim la'asos" was before the first Shabbos. The notion that the universe changed in a new fundamental way since isn't 100% in concert with that. Although I realize "nishtaneh hateva" has numerous explanations, I don't know if any require believing the laws themselves changed. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 12 09:57:31 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:57:31 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Welcome on board! I didn't look up that sugya itself, but it could be that it was a Mishna Rishona Mishna Achrona thing. Like the reason that the Halacha in Machlokes VeAchar Kach Stam is different than in a Stam VeAchar Kach Machlokes. Also, regarding who actually wrote the Mishna - it's a Machlokes Rashi (who said (in Eiruvin, in the Samechs on the sugya of More Halacha Bifnei Rabbo) that the Mishna wasn't written in the Gemara's time) and the Rambam (who said that Rebbi wrote the Mishna). I heard that it boils down to the two Girsas of Rabbi Sherira Gaon's famous letter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 19:31:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 22:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people > on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in > reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in > the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, > halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) I think your cases are great examples of how Hashem deliberately left room for us to "improve" the Torah somewhat, thereby partnering with Him, exactly as you've explained. > And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. > Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is > not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into > account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and > limit the damage. > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted > keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be > when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than > the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged > YhR? Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her (unless he follows the prescribed procedure). That's what is meant by "lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR." The only solution is the one prescribed by the Torah itself; there is nothing for Chazal to add. Alternatively: D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. Chazal can forbid shofar on the years when RH is on Shabbos, but they can't ban it entirely on Yom Tov because of musical instruments being muktzeh. So, given that the Torah DOES allow one to take the Yefas Toar (after following the prescribed procedure), how might you word your proposed d'rabanan? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 12 14:16:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 21:16:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which Actions Have Value Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:16 You shall make a light for the ark and finish it within one cubit of the top, and set the entrance to the ark in its side; you shall make it with lower, second and third stories. God chose one man who was to save himself, his family and the animal world; he would be able to save them and himself ? only if he would do everything just as God had commanded him.?Gadol ha-mitzuveh ve-oseh me-me she-aino metzuveh ve-oseh (Kiddushin 31a) is a fundamental principle in Judaism. Contrary to prevailing opinion, a person?s actions have value only if they constitute the performance of God?s Will. What a person does on the basis of his own judgment, and the like, is of secondary, uncertain importance. During the 120 years that passed between God?s announcement to Noach and the actual onset of the flood, Noach could have done so many things: he could have built a hundred arks, and so forth. Scripture?s sole intent, however, is to say that Noach did exactly as God had commanded him; the rest he left to God. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 14 09:02:01 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 16:02:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] In sight Into Korbanos Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 8:20 20 Then Noach built an altar to God and took of every pure animal and of every pure bird, and offered ascent offerings upon the altar. la Shem; our offerings are directed to the aspect of God?s rule that desires not destruction, but life. '? is the source of all life and of all future existence, and He is ready at all times to grant new life, new vigor, and a new future. Symbolically, one offers his own life in order to win new life from God; one offers oneself up to God in order to be consecrated by God and to be elevated to a holy life on earth. One does not bring an offering to a vengeful, angry, bloodthirsty god. Rather, one who brings an offering devotes to God?s Will every pulsebeat, every nervous impulse, all muscular strength. To make an offering means to win from God eternal life. One does not offer up an animal; one offers up himself through the animal. When a person offers an animal before God and leans his hand upon it; when he slaughters it, collects its blood, dashes its blood upon the altar, and surrenders its head, legs, breast, and carcass to the flames ? in doing so he offers to God his own blood, his own mind, his own muscular strength, and surrenders himself completely to the fire of God?s Will, as set down for Israel in the Torah. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 14 20:08:41 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 23:08:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lech L'cha "Go For It" Message-ID: <406EA56D-CA2C-4FE0-B5F1-5C237B5152BE@cox.net> 12:1 Vayomer HaShem el Avram: "Lech L'cha," etc. The gematria of Lech L'cha is 100. So Avram was being told that life is a compromise: 50/50. And if he lives with give and take (50/50), he ends up with 100%. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 00:53:35 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:53:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: < Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. >> Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. Killing a fetus is not murder and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 01:12:31 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:12:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: << I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. >> First anything I brought from the Kavanaugh case was simply it was that stoty that made me think of the issue. The details of that story are immaterial. The basic question was that recent studies demonstrate false memories and especially from years ago and when the wirnesses may have been teenagers when they are not yer completely developed. On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered neveilah. The Taz doesn't like such a scenarion but many others disagree with him. They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:45:24 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89a90ad8-4240-fb55-2d1d-fba96a91819b@sero.name> On 15/10/18 04:12, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to > death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Mon Oct 15 05:49:36 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <0A43202F-B23C-41DE-A4E7-8002ED599973@tenzerlunin.com> ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses. * * * They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport).? ISTM that there should be a significant difference between executing someone when you have definitive information (I won?t use the word evidence) that he is innocent and eating a piece of meat that, although it in fact came from a non-kosher animal, is treated halachically as kosher. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 07:16:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:16:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015141643.GA20844@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:12:31AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death : even though the facts might not be true. : More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of : modern techniques versus two witnesses I didn't think I was implying that. If there is evidence -- regardless of DNA's own issues -- but not eidim, the facts are not established to the point of chiyuv misah. If there are eidim to convict, but the evidence points otherwise, the dayanim can't close derishah vechaqirah until they resolve the conflict to their own satisfaction. Given the whole bit about "achas leshev'ah / leshiv'im shanah", perhaps their own satisfaction should be to a "beyond reasonable doubt" kind of standard. (Maybe the person had a mum exactly where the knife entered would probably be considered by most of us "beyond unreasonable doubt".) : I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In : particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem : was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it : can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of : the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered : neveilah... The case in the SA that I remember : They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif : and not the metzius. That is a misphrasing. I said that pesaq relies on how we perceive the world -- and in fact this perception is the meaning of the word "metzi'us". (Which, I will note again, comes from "matza", which doesn't imply theoretical objective existence.) The nearest I come to the way you put it would be to say that matters like probability go into how we think about an unobserved unknown. Evidence is a matter of changing the odds, not of establishing definitive metzi'us. ------------------ And my pet theory is an extension of R' Aqiva Eiger's teshuvah (#136) explaining the difference between kol deparish, where rov matters, and qavu'ah. RAE makes is a chiluq between rules of birur when the reality is unknown (kol deparish) and ones where the reality was established but the halakhah is unkown. Treating this as a very broad kelal, eidus changes a kol deparish type question into a qavu'ah. Which is why rov no longer epplies, and terei kemei'ah. Evidence without observation keeps it a kol deparish question, although it does shift the odds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:40:52 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:40:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15/10/18 03:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life.?>> > Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. > Killing a fetus is not murder According to some. > and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. And as Ronald Reagan pointed out, if you're not sure whether something is murder, then committing it is at least reckless endangerment. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 08:50:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:50:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 06:40:52AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is : : With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. Except that the Bach explains that's is NOT what the Rambam holds. Which is why Rotzaiach 1:9 distinguishes between aborting to save the mother before crowning, and not committing infanticide a fraction of a moment later after the baby crowns. If abortion were murder, there would be no shift in priorities between the mother's and baby's lives before and after birth. Or: A "KErodeif" (as the velad isn't doing anything itself to risk the mother) who isn't a full person may be killed, but once born, ein dochin nefesh mipenei nefesh. Rashi (Sanhedrin 72b "yatza rosho") says that the unborn fetus isn't subject to "ein dochin NmPN" because it isn't a nefesh yet. The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 09:01:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:01:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> References: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015160131.GB26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:50:59AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the : contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam : cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? The Arukh laNeir (Sanhedrin 72b) writes that the chiluq is that in the second case we cannot isolate whether the child (once crowned) is the mother's rodeif, or the other way around. The IM (CM 2:69) writes similarly. But neither deal with the Bach's question of how that means "ein dochin" is the principle in particular invoked to explain why we cannot kill the baby after crowning, but not the fetus a moment before. Also, how is it true that we always know before crowning that it's the fetus in the mother's way, but if the head is partly out, we don't? Balebatishe question.... Let's say it's the umbilical cord vs the mother's blood loss -- does that dynamic change with crowning? But in any case, my point was that the Bach means that we cannot say as a certainty that there is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam about whether a velad is a person. Just that some acharonim take him to say so. And once you look at acharonim, variants on the theme that is definitely Rashi's abound. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 06:48:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 09:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: *Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400* *From: Looking ForInspiration >* *To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org * *Subject: * *Hello!* *This is my first post to aishdas.org , so forgive me and direct me **if needed.* *Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that **when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, **it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this **mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author?* *I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, **Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone **can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible **as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it **would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, **the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba **Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of **Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write **the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both?* *Thank you in advance.* *Mordechai* This should be helpful: >From Rambam's Letter to R. Pinchas HaDayyan (In R. Sheilat's edition, Teshuva 140): ...every decision that he [Rebbi Yehuda HaNassi] presented without attaching an author's name originated [not with him, ?but] with other sages. And those other sages as well were not the originators of those decisions, ?but [merely stated how they understood what they] obtained from the mouths of others, and the ?others from still others, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. .. [T]hey ...explicitly stated in so many places, ?Rebbi ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue A, and presented them anonymously; but he ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue B, and presented them anonymously.".This ?openly states that whatever Rebbi endorsed as final halacha, and considered the proper ?practice to follow, he stated without associating anyone?s name with it. And in so many places ?the Gemora says, ?This anonymously-stated halachah is an individual?s opinion [and not the ?majority?s]?--Rabbeynu did not mentioned the names of any of them [--neither that of the ?individual whom the halacha followed, nor that of the majority]. ? ?[Only] when it came to matters that Rebbi did not consider settled, but still debatable, and ?about which he did not lean one way or the other, did he state both opinions in the names of ?their proponents (?R. So-and-so says this, and R. So-and-so says that?) mentioning the names ?of those sages, or of recently living ones, from whom he heard those opinions--but [still] not of ?their mentors or mentors?-mentors' names. For at the time, many people still followed one ?opinion, and many still followed the opposing one. Suffice it to say that he [himself] told us ?explicitly why, in some of the mishnas, he attached names:? And why do we mention the words of Shammai and Hillel only to negate them [by ?adding that the majority of sages disagreed with both and decided differently]??to ?teach the following generations....? ? And why do we mention the dissenting words of ?individuals along with those of the majority...???So that if a Beis Din will agree with the ?individual?s opinion and rely upon it....[R' Yehuda (ben El'ai) added:] And why do we ?mention the words of the individual together with those of the majority only to negate ?them??So that if a person reports receiving a teaching other than that which was ?accepted by the majority....?? ...it was only necessary to mention opposing opinions during those times ?that some practiced one way, and others practiced a different way, when some obtained the ?law according to one sage?s opinion, and some according to another sage?s opinion. End of quote from Teshuva. Regarding stam mishnayos that contradict, each mishna had its own author and, following Rambam, Rebbi placed them in the order he did. One explanation is that he changed his mind, and his pesak is identified by the rules of stam v'acher kach machlokess (machlokess meaning a mishna with an opposing view, not necessarily a mishna contaning two views), and vice versa. However, the majority of Tannaim in Rebbi's day did sometimes differ with him. And in cases where the Beis Din Gadol did not put the issue to a formal vote, later authorities, even Amoraim, did not necessarily follow Rebbi's decision. Regarding the last point, check out Rambam's payrush, followed also by the Rav MiBartenura, on the mishnayos at the beginning of Eidiyos, and see how it differs from that of the Raavad and Tosefos Shantz Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/15/18, 9:02:19 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Sat Oct 13 20:23:41 2018 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 23:23:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Moving this aspect of the discussion over from Areivim. Subject line is mine. -micha] On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM Micha Berger via Areivim wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 01:26:50PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: >: I am surp[rised that you did not suggest that men begin wearing >: tephillen the entire day as was apparently the custom in ancient >: times... > For people who had desk jobs. > Laborers didn't, for pragmatic reasons. And in an agrarian society, that > was most men most of the day, except in the winter. My impression was that the heter to not wear tefillin (issur to wear tefillin) only applied to particular cases, such as one who was carrying a burden (of a particular size or content, i.e., excrement) on their head, but that a normal farmer/craftsman/laborer would generally wear tefillin the entire day. A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did not wear tefillin, but it is critical of this practice, and although the gemara appears to give a justification of such (while still maintaining its objection to the reality), it is not along the white collar/blue collar axis. Josh From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 11:18:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015181859.GE5656@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 11:23:41PM -0400, Joshua Meisner via Avodah wrote: : A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did : not wear tefillin... The context is, any mitzvah, like milah, that people were moseir nefesh for when there was a government deceree is still muchzeqes beyadam. Tefillin was given an example where there never was such a history, and therefore our commitment remains less. It says "merupeh beyadam", not that people weren't wearing them at all, which is what you say here. Nor, more on-target for our discussion, that people were wearing them just for davening instead of all day. Possible referants: Tzeduqim wore their tefillin on the bridge of their noses (bein einekha). So many Jews were nikhshal. Or maybe there were sects who believed like the Qaraim or R that there are no physical objects involved at all to keep the ideas in sight and at hand. But it just struck me -- most likely, that they weren't careful to keep a guf naqi. After all the gemara reads: ... kegon tefillin, adayin hi berufah beyadam. DEamar R' Yanai: tzerichim guf naqi... What's that dalet doing there in "de'amar" if R' Yanai wasn't discussing said ripui? RGS writes : Here's a question for you: Why don't men wear tefillin all day long? The mitzvah is not just during morning services; it is throughout the day (cf. Tur, Orach Chaim 37). So why don't we wear them all day? The answer to this question is historical... There is textual evidence that already in Talmudic times there were many people who did not wear tefillin.... His argument here is the same as yours. ... The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 13a) specifically condemns those who never wear tefillin. This laxity by many on wearing tefillin continued into the Middle Ages. Tosafos (Shabbos 49a sv. ke-Elisha) write that one should not be surprised that at that time people were lax in tefillin, since they were in the times of the Talmud also. This is attested to in many other places, and in the times of the Geonim there are even implications that almost no one in the land of Israel wore tefillin. The Beis Yosef (Even Ha-Ezer 65) quotes the Kol Bo who suggests that in some communities ashes are not placed on a groom's forehead because the community members do not wear tefillin. There was even a responsum by R. Sherira Gaon, copied in many medieval works on halakhah, answering a question about whether it is yuhara (haughty) for a yeshiva student to wear tefillin when no one else does. It seems that in order to defend this practice, some rishonim utilized the idea that one who wears tefillin needs a "guf naki - clean body". The Shibbolei Ha-Leket (Buber ed., p. 382) quotes one view that "guf naki" means that a person is clean of sins.... Sefer Ha-Chinukh (no. 421) states that "guf naki" does not refer to someone who has no sins or impurity, implying that someone else had suggested that it did. The author explicitly condemns those who are strict on the holiness of this mitzvah and thereby deprive the masses of the mitzvah. Rather, "guf naki" refers to the ability to refrain from passing gas and thinking improper thoughts while wearing the tefillin. R. Moshe of Coucy (Semag, mitzvos aseh no. 3) tells of how he would travel around thirteenth-century Europe, preaching to people that they should wear tefillin during the morning prayers. Even if they cannot control themselves all day, people can certainly maintain a guf naki for the prayer services (that is the view of Tosafos [Pesachim 113b sv. ve-ein]; Rosh [Hilkhos Tefillin, no. 28 and Beis Yosef [Orach Chaim 37]; footnote 8 in the Schlesinger edition of Semag assumes the Semag agrees). Evidently, this practice of wearing tefillin only during morning prayer services took hold and the prior practice of widespread abandonment of the mitzvah slowly turned into minimal performance of it during the morning prayers. However, someone who cannot control himself and cannot maintain a guf naki may not wear tefillin. Despite the biblical obligation, someone in a definite situation such as that should not wear tefillin at all (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 38:1). For this reason, the Arukh Ha-Shulchan (Orach Chaim 38:6) rules that those who are not obligated in the mitzvah of tefillin -- such as women -- should never place themselves in even a doubtful position of not maintaining a guf naki. ... 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 Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il Tue Oct 16 00:45:18 2018 From: Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il (Ezra Chwat) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:45:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> References: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <85b0325c428741fcb0a9d98b30ef7206@Ex1.Nli.loc> [Micha] wrote: > Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the > water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the > fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity > is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Great insight, it's pshat in [Beresheet VII: Vateilekh hateivah al penei hamayim] meaning, all of it above surface, as in Gen I 2. Although there are a plenty (majority) sources in [lehon miqra] and [lehon chaza"l] where the meaning clearly infers partial immersion below the water surface. [Doq vetishkach] search and see. In any case this also sheds literary light on the two images presented for [lechem hapanim] (Menahot 94b): [sefinah roqedet] vs [teivah perutzah]. Why these images instead of description? Perhaps theres a message here about [teivat Mosheh] or [teivat Noach] Here's Rashi's drawing (source ) Dr. Ezra Chwat |Manuscript Bibliographer Department of Manuscripts The National Library of Israel, Jerusalem Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, P.O. Box 39105, Jerusalem 9139002 ezra.chwat at nli.org.il | www.nli.org.il From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Tue Oct 16 05:10:21 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:10:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Zev Sero commented: ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway.? What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 16 05:25:28 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:25:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: On 16/10/18 08:10, Joseph Kaplan wrote: > Zev Sero commented On Micha's remarks: >>> it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though >>> the facts might not be true. >> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, >> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. > What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the > value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel > Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Well, we *know* that it is indeed what He wants. That is surely beyond all question. All we can discuss is *why* He wants it, and what lessons we can draw from this counterintuitive fact. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:16:00 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:16:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> > RMB: > > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, > or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes > posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? > Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? It is in general true that the Torah prefers to regulate strong emotions (like greed and lust) rather than to extirpate them. See for example Hagigah 9b ?yaeh aniyusa liyehudaei ??, and yet the Torah doesn?t prohibit wealth (though see Parshas Shoftim 17:16-17), though historically several communities have enacted sumptuary laws. And see H. Deos 1:4-5 about the difference between a tzaddik and a hasid. The Rambam implies (at the end of 1:5) that he prefers tzidkus to hasidus but see H. Deos 6:1 that this applies only in a virtuous society. It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical level, however, I don?t see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. But there?s a more important point. What?s weird about war is that it?s not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say ?hasatan mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama? that?s partly because the soldiers don?t have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over his lifetime. So it makes a lot of sense that k?nagged YhR is specifically mentioned in the context of milhama. David Riceman From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:35:09 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42DB0493-2688-4FB1-B731-24A6D9C76BC7@optimum.net> [Corrected as per a follow-up email. -micha] RMLFI: > I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, > Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone > can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible > as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it > would be much appreciated. If you really mean that read through YL Epstein's "Hakdamah L'Nusach HaMishnah". Albeck wrote a (shorter) "Hakdamah L'Mishnah" and, IIRC, [Epstein also] wrote a "Hakdamah L'Sifrut HaTanaim". There's a mahlokes rishonim whether the mishna is a sefer peak or an encyclopedia of sources. This is related to the machlokes amoraim about whether halacha k'stam mishna. But it is possible for mishnayot with contradictory anonymous conclusions to have been edited by the same person. David Riceman From t613k at aol.com Wed Oct 17 20:57:38 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 23:57:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16685525a33-1ec3-bc74@webjas-vac183.srv.aolmail.net> In a message dated 10/15/2018 ? From: Micha Berger >> However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compel him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about appearance except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. << >>>>> ? ? ? The bottom may have been flat but not the top.? See Ber 6:16 "A window [tzohar] shall you make for the Ark, and to a cubit finish it from above...." (ArtScroll translation) ? I understand this to mean that the sides of the ark, at least the upper level, were slanted so that rain would run off (the reason most roofs of houses are slanted rather than flat).? At the top it only one square cubit wide, where the window (if the tzohar was a window, or possibly an LED light) was set in place. ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 18 03:08:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 06:08:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181018100847.GF26742@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:29:42AM -0400, Toby Katz wrote: : He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on : this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does : not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, : let alone the same as murder... This "let alone" undermines his whole thesis. Few akharonim take the Rambam to mean that abortion is murder, and of those who do, not all hold like their understanding of the Rambam. : We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these : issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians : recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that : Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. Or even to start with the assumption they are similar. It is best to just look up our views, and then see pragmatically which party to work with. Rather than identify with either camp and risk assimilating their values. 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 t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 17 21:29:42 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 00:29:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> ? From: "Prof. Levine" > IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an > abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben > Shapiro's take on abortion. >> Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is >> Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when >> he speaks and is being interviewed. ... >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... Ben Shapiro is a brilliant commentator and makes a powerful case against abortion. He also makes a Kiddush Hashem by publicly identifying as an Orthodox Jew and always wearing a yarmulka. However, I am troubled by this statement of his: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, let alone the same as murder. If a young woman is raped c'v the very best and most prudent thing she should do is take the "morning after pill" which prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum. To many Christians the morning after pill is exactly the same as abortion or infanticide, but the Torah does not view it that way. When a certain couple with whom I am intimately acquainted were undergoing IVF treatment in order to have children (which they ultimately did, B'H), they asked their most serious shailos of a very prominent posek in Baltimore. One shaila was what to do with excess embryos that were created in the lab. An embryo is just a fertilized ovum that has developed into a tiny little ball of cells, could be just eight or sixteen cells at first. When you hear that embryos are created in a lab and sometimes frozen to be thawed and implanted at a later date, please do not imagine that little babies are in the freezer. (Only in Lakewood are young humans put in the freezer.) Since multiple pregnancies are hazardous for the mother and often do not have a good outcome for the babies, as a rule no more than three embryos are implanted in the uterus at one time. In IVF powerful hormones are given which often result in the release of multiple eggs at ovulation, which in turn result in multiple embryos at fertilization. But if you are not going to implant more than three, what do you do with the extras? The posek told the couple that they could do what they wanted -- freeze the extras for a later attempt, or discard them. Catholics would consider the discarding of these little balls to be the same thing as murder, and possibly they would consider putting them in a freezer to be child abuse. We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. I suspect that Ben Shapiro is not aware of a very important distinction. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 05:40:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:40:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" Message-ID: >From https://goo.gl/7m1UWj Halacha L'kovod Shabbos - "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" One is permitted to spray one's hair (e.g. sprinkle or hand-pat water on frizzy hair) on Shabbos as long as it is not very wet, because the Melocho of Melabain (cleaning or scouring) does not apply to the human body. (If the hair gets very wet it may not be squeezed out since hair is subject to the prohibition of S'chita - squeezing). However, the use of hairspray which will stiffen the hair and form a structure may involve the Melocho of Boneh (building). If one sprays the hair first and then styles and shapes it; this would be prohibited on Shabbos because it is similar to Boneh. However, some poskim permit the use of hairspray if one is careful to first style and shape the hair, and then only afterwards add the hairspray. When done in this manner the loose hair is shaped at the time of styling, and does not resemble Boneh because the hair is loose. The subsequent spraying merely acts to retain a pre-existing shape. Once the hair has been sprayed it can no longer be shaped, styled, or touched. {We mentioned previously that the use of hairspray on Shabbos does not involve the Melocho of Zoreh.} Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah 302, Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa 14:50:131, Kitzur Hilchos Shabbos re:Gozez:5:16, Biur Halacha 303:27, Hilchos Shabbos R' Shimon Eider, Minchas Yitzchok 6:26, Sefer 39 Melochos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 19 05:31:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:31:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hirhurei tshuva Message-ID: <7e7b234b4f3d4d51bc22ea4cdc8114d5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The Artscroll Yom Kippur machzor has the following comment (I could not find the GRA's statement in Aderet Eliyahu). "David replies with just two words: "I have sinned to HASHEM." Nathan answers, "[If so] God has removed your sin and you will not die. "The Vilna Gaon notes that according to the Masoretic text there is a space after David's brief confession, even though it is in the middle of a sentence. This implies that David wanted to say more - he felt that he should go into more detail about his sin and the sincerity of his remorse - but was so overcome by remorse that he could not speak. He didn't have to. Nathan broke in to tell him that he had been forgiven - because his confession, brief and incomplete though he thought it to be - was utterly sincere." Me-Do you think this thought coheres with the following insight from R'YBS: "In response to this Divine verdict, R'Yehudah HaNasi cried, marveling at how some individuals merit the World to Come only after a lifetime of effort, while others acquire such reward after only brief effort. The Rav emphasized that the executioner not only earned a share in the World to Come, but achieved the same level as did R'Chananya in this regard. "Why did R'Yehudah HaNasi have such an emotional reaction to the afterlife destiny of the executioner? The answer is that although prior to this incident R'Yehudah HaNasi had certainly understood the redemptive power of teshuvah, he had not previously appreciated the redemptive power of hirhur Tshuva, "awakening" of teshuvah. If teshuvah is indeed a multistep process, involving sin recognition, remorse, and resolve, how can an individual possibly be considered righteous after only a moment's thought? Only through hirhur Tshuva, which is spontaneous, instinctive, and sudden. In one second, an individual can live the jarring experience of awakening from spiritual slumber." 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 Fri Oct 19 07:03:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:03:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Most Profound and Far-Reaching Vision of the Future Ever Permitted a Mortal to Behold or to Utter Message-ID: In his commentary on Bereishis 9:25-27 25 He said: Cursed be Canaan; he shall be a servant of servants to his brothers. 26 And he said: Blessed be God, the God of Shem; may Canaan become their servant. 27 God will open [people?s] emotions to Yefes, but He will dwell in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be a servant to them. RSRH provides deep insights into a number of important topics. He writes 25?27 We have here what may be the most profound and far-reaching vision of the future that God ever permitted a mortal to behold or to utter. The entire history of mankind ? past, present, and future ? is contained in these three verses. and then later on The spirit of Israel does not produce ecstatics who lose their grip on reality and go mad. Judaism yearns for God?s closeness, but requires of man clarity of thought, a composed and sober mind. Ecstatics who ?merge with the divine? lack freedom of choice; they imagine that they themselves do nothing, but that God acts through them. This is not the way to serve God. Our task is to make use of the intellect and the freedom God has given us, in the earthly sphere which He has assigned to us; to serve God faithfully, conscientiously, and with a clear mind. Only thus will we attain the highest perfection a person can reach; only thus will our actions be sanctified, and will we be worthy of God?s closeness. IMO there is so much of import in his commentary on these verses that I have taken the trouble to post it at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/profound_far_reaching_vision.pdf If you take the time to read this, you may well find insight into what we see going on in the world today as well as what has happened in the past and will happen in the future. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 21 07:14:12 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 10:14:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayera "We have to teach empathy as we do literacy." (Bill Drayton) Message-ID: <0D74D2E3-332B-4E5B-9E58-56B4273FC281@cox.net> 1) The following is a beautiful reflection of Jewish sensitivity. The original source of the story is not known. See Bamberger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 1939), p. 209, note 17/ "Once, Abraham's love of strangers clashed with his zeal for God. He invited a wayfarer to his home and, finding the wayfarer praying to his idol, chased him away. God reprimanded Abraham severely: 'I have borne with him these many years although he rebelled against Me, and you cannot bear with him one night?!' Abraham had realized his sin and did not rest until he had brought the stranger back.? (Benjamin Franklin composed his "Parable against Persecution" on this very theme). 2) The Sidrah opens by saying that God appeared to Abraham [Gen. 18:1], but when Abraham applies the vision to his own world he suddenly sees three men standing before him [Gen. 18:2]. Abraham is the religious man par excellence for he sees God in the human situation. Franz Rosenzweig Based on the puotation in On Jewish Learning, ed. Nahum Glatzer (New York: Schocken, 1955), p. 124 3) 18:2 "And he lifted up his eyes and he saw, and, behold, three people....." Who were these three people? Michael, Gabriel, and Rafael. Michael came to inform Sarah that she would bear a child; Rafael, to heal Abraham; and Gabriel, to overturn Sodom. (Bava Metzia 86b) 4) The sin of Sodom consisted not only in what the people did but in what they failed to do. Thus, no one raised a voice in protest when the crowd molested Lot's guests. Failure to protest is to participate in the sins of a community. (Gen. R. 50:9) This is reminiscent many years ago of Kitty Genovese, a woman in Queens, N.Y., who was screaming for help at the top of her lungs in a major apartment complex, and not one person lifted a finger or even phoned the police. This woman was killed due to the negligence of every person aware of her screams. Are we raising our voice in protest when we witness people being hurt? "The dew of compassion is a tear." Lord Byron (1788-1824) One of the greatest British poets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 21 16:38:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 19:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:18:17AM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : I don't understand why it would need such long : deliberation or a long teshuvah to demonstrate what every school : child knows, that a mumar remains a Jew. You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein's "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity". (Reprinted in Leaves of Faith. ch 3 pp 57-84) http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage (When I hit that URL, the article was available on Google Books in its entirety.) It isn't as open-and-shut that "Yisrael, af al pi shechat'ah, Yisra'el hu" is as universal or as much as a given as most of us were taught in school. We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the qiddushin are chal. But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking Hoacheia 17a. Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim even though their conversation had been accepted for generations before then. RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. Including, RAL writes, Brother Daniel or any other meshumad applying for citizenship under the Law of Return. 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 rabbi at opengemara.org Mon Oct 22 02:45:07 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:45:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> References: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 21, 2018 4:38:17 PM PDT, Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein... > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage ... > We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to > practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the > qiddushin are chal. > But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a > non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, > Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking > Hoacheia 17a. > Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim ... I didn't learn that sugya in a while, but I was under the impression that it's a machlokes Rishonim how to learn the Aseres Hashevatim (I think it's the Meiri there). Some learn that they were a horaas shaah. Others learn like you wrote, that one who is a min is considered completely not a Jew. The thing is that the Halacha doesn't follow those Rishonim, as we're still Choshesh for the Kiddushin of a Min (who does give up their Jewish identity). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Oct 23 23:02:52 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:02:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters Message-ID: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim B:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to harvest because? they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. The Radbaz explains that since the workers aren't experts, they will either give too much pe'ah or too little.? Meaning, the issue is technical, not that they aren't chayav to give and therefore they can't do it. What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or twice with them. Ben From eliturkel at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 07:51:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:51:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: << RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. >> RAL is the most persuasive essentially after several generations. It is hard to believe that someone who converted to Xtianity in the middle ages would have descendants who are Jewish through the mothers when all connection to the Jewish world is lost. I once read that there are 80 million descendants today from the Jews in Spain that left Judaism. While we only count those through the maternal side this would still give a lot of "halachic" Jews for people who might be strong anti-semites today. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 25 06:33:46 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:33:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: Message-ID: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we say lo palginon (we don't split)? 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 Oct 26 11:06:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:06:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026180609.GA18376@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:40:01AM -0400, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no : significant debate about that. Quibble: +/- 168 years during Galus Bavel, and perhaps other issues. Also, the Seder Olam, R' Yossi bar Chalafta (acc. to Yavamos 82b & Niddah 46b), is only one tanna among many. For that matter, he is "only" the primary author, as it quotes people who lived later than RYbH. Of course there are machloqesin about many of his positions. (Our calendar is Sefer Olam chronology with a different year 0. Seder Olam numbers the year of Adam's creation as 0, and we use year 1 for the week before Adam, so that our numbers are SO + 2. But the same age.) But in a much smaller scale than you intended to, there are numerous debates. I have a pet theory that these factors are the reason why shetaros, and in particular gittin, explain the year is only as "beminyan she'anu monim kan ba'ir Ploni-ville..." But in any case, since lemaaseh no din relies on the year, pesaq doesn't apply, and machloqesin neither have to be nor even can be resolved. : 3. We don't know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam : HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a : day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. The Ramban is clear -- a yom was 24 hours on a hypothetical clock, the way we measure time now. R' Dessler explains the Ramban as equally saying that a yom was 1,000 years. Which wouldn't be long enough to help, but it gets weirder -- not just any 1,000 years, but a millennium of the 6,000 of world history. According to REED, the Ramban correctly holds that time is non-linear. (Michtav meiEliyahu vol II pp 150-154, Yemei Bereishis veYemai Olam, I paraphrase it paragraph by paragraph at ) R' Dessler writes that the arrow of time and the whole concept of a time-line is specific to how human beings perceive reality, and even that only as people have done so /after/ the cheit. Which gives him the room to say that the scientific age of the universe is not so much wrong as choosing a less than optimal way of viewing a problem that doesn't admit any one answer. The age of the universe is 6 millenia or so plus 6 days as seen from the perspective the Torah advises us to adopt. But that doesn't make some other answer less correct, or less useful for some other purpose. : 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the : descriptions we have of the Big Bang. : 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny : that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round.... Well, the Ramban on bara mentions hyle, which is the Greek for chomer in chomer vertzurah (which they called hylomorphism). So Hashem first made substance without form. Or maybe, less hard to imagine, the current substance, but in forms that no longer exist. Now, Quantum Mechanics is nothing at all like hylomorphism, but... According to Big Bang theory, in the first fractions of a second after yeish mei'ayin, things were so hot that individual particals had no identity. What now appears to be four kinds of particles, for kinds of fields, mediating forces was just one mush, not so mention the particles we think of as matted. As things cooled, the symmetry split again and again until the types of particles and forces we know today differentiated. Does sound like chomer beli tzurah. : - Expansion doesn't prove anything. It's a fact that requires a theory : to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made : the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously : expand. How do we explain "Shakai"? That He said "dai" and the expansion ended, no? : 7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit : facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, : "What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem : does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, : we would be much poorer... But there is no way to disprove "the universe is young and Hashem had His Reasons for doing it that way", reasons we can't identify. We might want answers that feel less facile, but that doesn't make it false. Might just be human hubris, to need a universe we can understand. That is different than what you're talking about, which is more similar to separating a scientific study of cause with a Torah study of purpose. But it does raise the question of whether "a bit facile" is a meaningful RELIGIOUS problem. You want to know the science, fine. But life's values doesn't rest on it. Nor should you assume science can't his a wall. : So what's the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, : or was it just made to look that way? REED says both. Because, in his typical Kantian perspective, he has science address the world as humans perceive it, believing the world as it exists "out there" is actually unknowable. And so, the world before eitz hadaas and observation by human consciousness of our sort is amenable to different descriptions. Each capturing a different shadow of the basic unknowable. On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. That natural is just a term we use to describe the patterns by which Hashem usually acts. It is all "by Himself". >From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> + When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. :-)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 From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:41:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:41:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters In-Reply-To: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> References: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181026184149.GC20611@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:02:52AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim [2]:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to : harvest because they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. ... : What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here : and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or : twice with them. I assume you're llimiting your question to pei'ah. Because leqet requires getting out of a habit when you're in the middle of gathering. And for the same reason, why not worry about shikhechah? I would think that even with instructions, it's leqet and shikechah that's hard to get used to and get right. :-)BBii! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:36:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:36:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026183619.GB20611@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:20:01AM -0400, Looking ForInspiration via Avodah wrote: : Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that : when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, : it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this : mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? It didn't. The mishnah took a 3 generation process: R' Aqiva, R Meir and Rebbe. Stam mishnah is usually like R Meir, although the gemara at times proves a different maqor, not even the final redactor. (Stam Sifra keRabbi Yehudah, even though the Sifra is not by Rebbe, but by his student, Rav.) You have statements like on RH 19b, where you're told the mishnah is not in accord with R" Yehudah haNasi. So the notion that the opinion of the mishnah is necessarily the opnion of the redactor is not a given. Nor is the stam mishnah always R' Meir. Therefor conflicting opinions isn't proof of multiple redactors. (Although,as I wrote, redaction was one school, not one person.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:05:56 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:05:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20181028150556.GB10183@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:10:21PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : Zev Sero commented: :> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, :> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. : What, if anything, does this teach us -- about Halacha or morality or : the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Perhaps it tells us that more die when the appeals process is endless? And thus, once the case is closed, it's closed. And we trust G-d to insure that any miscarriage of justice in the case is just in the broader context. Just thinking out loud to keep the topic going... It needs more discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 28 05:04:29 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:04:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:19:23 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:19:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf : The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of them a couple of decades ago. Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an artificial evolution of halakh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 10:09:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 13:09:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: At 11:19 AM 10/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: Please see >http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. > >And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >them a couple of decades ago. > >Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an >artificial evolution of halakh. I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that RYBS said this. In any event see http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf From there The findings in this article seem to confirm the judgment of some scholars that the rabbinic sources cited by R. Epstein should not be taken as accurate and that they require independent confirmation from the original sources.61 Certainly the inconsistencies found in MB cast serious doubt as to its value as a completely accurate historical account. We will never know what lies behind the puzzling inaccuracies in R. Epstein's oeuvre, nor is it for us to speculate. R. Menachem Kasher, after setting severe strictures about the reliability of R. Epstein's citations, nevertheless expresses a charitable understanding of the circumstances that may have brought this about. Noting R. Epstein's statement in MB that he lived a "life of suffering" (hayyei tsa)ar), R. Kasher writes that R. Epstein was a "great man" (adam gadol) whose )) is "a monumental work" (avoda anakit), and he attributes the many inaccuracies in the work to R. Epstein's difficult and inordinately busy life which did not permit him to check his sources as carefully as he should have. One old lesson emerges reinforced from all this-a lesson for researchers in any field, especially the field of Torah scholarship. Primary material must be carefully examined, and if only secondary sources are available, their veracity must be meticulously ascertained. Rayna Batya seems to have been an extraordinary woman, but the inaccuracies in R Epstein's telling of her story cloud our ability to know her and her absorbing story. We close this article, which is written in sadness rather than glee, by noting one final irony. When Mesorah Publications published a translation of R. Epstein's MB, tided My Uncle the Netziv, it deleted certain key words.64 The passage in which we learned of Rayna Batya's scholar- ship was one of the changed passages. The original passage, for example, mentioned the venous books she used and included, among others, Mishnayot and books of aggada. In the English translation, these books were deleted from the list, causing much indignation in the scholarly world at this attempt to revise history. How ironic it is that this effort to "sanitize" R. Epstein's reputation should have inadvertency hit upon the truth: that the story of Rayna Batya lie many other elements in MB and Torah Temima are in fact in need of serious revision. _________________________________ In light of all this can we really be sure that the Netziv read newspapers on Shabbos? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:25:15 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 12:09 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the > accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that > RYBS said this. > > In any event see > http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition article would Certainly qualify. HM From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 14:35:04 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 17:35:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 05:25 PM 10/28/2018, Harry Maryles wrote: >FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical >of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to >R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition >article would Certainly qualify. IIRC Rabbi Meir Fund is the one who told me that RYBS said that there are many inaccuracies in the writings of the Torah Temima. Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be well documented. YL From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:49:03 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:49:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <5E34DB8F-9432-4A3B-BD90-808E37069230@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be > `well documented. I glanced at it. But I did not read it. All I was doing was saying what my rebbi told me personally HM From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 19:06:13 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 22:06:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage > ... > RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends > up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who > reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who > goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed > not be Jews. One must be wary of the phrase "would indeed not be Jews". As RAL reiterates there, over and over, "Jew" can mean different things in different contexts. For example, Please see what he wrote there on pages 66-67, distinguishing between "shem Yisrael" and "kedushat Yisrael": > If we ask, in purely descriptive terms, whether anyone born of > Jewish parents is a Jew, the answer must be yes. As an epithet, > the term "Jew" remains applicable to any individual who was > ever endowed with Jewish status - even to a mechumad. Hence, he > is obligated to pursue a Torah life, and should he decide to > return, he would perhaps require no new conversion.[38] > However, if we ask whether a meshumad has anything of a Jewish > personality and character, and whether, therefore, he continues > to be endowed with the personal status of a Jew, the answer is > a ringing no. He remains a Jew without Jewishness. What he > retains is simply the descriptive epithet: shem Yisrael. Of > kedushat Yisrael, however - of the sacredness of the Jewish > personality, that which essentially constitutes being a Jew - he > is bereft. > [38] The first point, that the obligation remains, is certain. > The second, that reentry would not necessitate gerut, is open > to question. One might argue that even for one who is endowed > with shem Yisrael, the recovery of kedushat Yisrael requires > gerut. It may also be contended that gerut would not be required, > but only because the return to the fold would retroactively > cancel the earlier renunciation. My point is that - according to RAL - even the very most extreme meshumad, who severs his connection to the Jewish people so completely that he has totally lost his kedushat Yisrael, still has shem Yisrael, and IS STILL OBLIGATED IN MITZVOS. This is a critical distinction. To refer to such a person as a non-Jew would easily mislead people to think that he is now relieved of his Jewish obligations. It would be most tragic if the meshumad himself was led to such a conclusion, for it would divest him of the last shred of motivation to return. He would think of himself as an ordinary outsider, for whom gerut is totally optional. (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say about the next generation. Suppose we are talking of a woman meshumedet, who still has shem Yisrael, but abandoned her kedushat Yisrael. Do her children have shem Yisrael or not? It has always been my presumption that her children (and the children of her daughters, etc etc ad infinitum) would be obligated in mitzvos, but this article makes me wonder about that. To phrase it in more technical terms: For a newborn to have shem Yisrael, does it suffice that his mother has shem Yisrael, or must she also have kedushat Yisrael?) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:03:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181029190301.GE13649@aishdas.org> So, here are the three shitos RALichtenstein discusses about how to resolve the apparently conflicting gemaros. 1- The Rashba (Yavemos 22a) takes the case of the marriage of a backslid geir (Yevamos 67b) as primary. And the gemara about Kusim does not mean that Chazal reject their attempt at conversion. Rather kol demeqadeish al daas chakhamim meqadeish gives Chazal the power to deny the validity of their attempts to marry (other) Jews. Variant on this theme: 1b- The Ittur (quf, Qiddishin 78a) says that R' Yehudai Gaon says that Chakhamim DO allow their marriage to a Jew, and that the statement is about stam yeinam, shechitah, and other laws that are limited to maaminim. Th SA (YD 159:3) similarly says that we may not pay a Kusi ribis, but we may charge him. 2- HaGahos Mordekhai (Yevamos 107) holds that the person is literally not a Jew -- but. Because we cannot know the extent of someone's apostacy, we aren't mindreaders, for something as major as eishes ish, we recognize lechumerah his marriage to a Jewish woman. 3- R' Chaim Solovei[t]chik notes that the Rambam WRT seider nashim (Ishus 4:15, Issurei Bi'ah 13:17) as following Yevamos, like #1. And yet WRT taharah, Peirush haMIshnayos (Nidda 7:4) says a Kusi's body is not metamei tum'as ohalim, because nakhriim don't. R' Chaim says that Yevamos refers to a geir who returned to his old practices, in RAL's terms "an apostacy of action". But the Kusim and the 10 Shevatim not only changed behavior, but also ceased identifying as Jews. The opinion I mentioned earlier as R' Aharon's was his following his wife's ancestor. The quote RAM provides from Leaves of Faith pp 66-67 I saw more as a subject - object distinction. In his own eyes, he has the din of a Jew. But in the eyes of how others are supposed to relate to him, he does not. And it's the latter -- how are we to classify others -- that was under discussion. To quote RAM on another point: : (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on : the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say : about the next generation... RAL writes a little later: > It might be be argued that it only applies to a mass secession, whereby > not only an individual but his whole social context becomes uprooted. Or > one might contend that only the children, born in complete ignorance of > their origins, are affected, whereas the apostate, paradoxically, might > remain a Jew. 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 emteitz at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 09:17:40 2018 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:17:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: RMicha Berger wrote: >>And yet, the Netziv spen[t] Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >>One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >>the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >>them a couple of decades ago. To which RDYitzchok Levine responded: >I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the >accurateness of his writings. Even granting RDYL's source, there is quite a difference between accuracy in the quoting of sources and accuracy in conveying an eyewitness account. The former would attribute carelessness and imprecision to R. Boruch Epstein; the latter would accuse him of being an intentional liar. Even granting the inaccuracy of his writing, it has no bearing whatever on the accuracy of what he attests to having seen. However, even if the N'tziv did read the newspapers, it is may have no relevance to the current discussion. As RMB cited, it was the haskala press. The Netziv may have been reading it for the purpose of "v'da ma shetashiv," which I believe would render his reading permissible on Shabbos. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:54:42 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:54:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: In-Reply-To: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181029195442.GF13649@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 01:33:46PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for : accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not : guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but : have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we : say lo palginon (we don't split)? QLbdRM applies to chaivei misos shogegin. Because it's shoegeig, BD doesn't kill him, but because he violated a law that carries dinei nefashos, he is off the hook for paying a plaintiff as well. Although in the case of shogegin, the Maharshal says he is chayav to pay midinei Shamayim, even if the court can't force him to pay, and the Qetzos questions this. REWasserman (Qoveitz Shiurim 93) says there are two issues -- which crime to try and which punishment to give. Because in the case of shogegin, there is only the first -- we try for the worse aveirah, but HQBH still holds him accountable for the onesh of the lesser one, since that's the only onesh he is up for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 18:40:39 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 12:40:39 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Toivelling a flower vase more used for food Message-ID: Is the classification of Kelie SeUdah determined by the manufacturer or the user? The Gemara (AZ 75b) rejects the proposition that scissors acquired from a G require Tevillah, only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. The reason we may have thought scissors do require Tevillah - since once Kashered, all food taste is gone, it's like a new device. In fact that's how the Gemara knows that new utensils do require Tevilla. Now, if new devices require Tevillah then it's got nothing to do with the food of the G. In that case scissors should also require. The Gemara rejects that because only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. Meaning it's got something to do with food, at least in the potential. The Ritva however, is troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food of a G. He explains that nevertheless, since they will be used eventually for food they have some connection to food, therefore even new utensils of a G require Tevillah, and he adds, because they're going to a sacred (kosher or Jewish?) use. But why was he troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food? Could this mean that if the G never intend to use it for food, but as a flower vase for example, but the Y chooses to use it for food, that it does not require Tevillah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 30 09:04:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:04:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Freshly Brewed Coffee- on Shabbos? Message-ID: >From the article at http://cor.ca/view-891-freshly-brewed-coffeeon-shabboshtml.html It is well known that there are various grades of roast of coffee beans, from light roast to dark roast. When does a coffee bean become fully roasted to the extent that halacha would allow for it to be cooked on Shabbos? Poskim have expressed doubt as to whether roasted coffee beans have the status of a food that is baked or roasted.8 Due to this doubt, we are not prepared to provide the heter to use microground coffee on Shabbos, even in a kli shlishi.9 ee the above URL for much more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Oct 29 14:12:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 21:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: Pasuk 24:4 in Bereishis says 4 But you shall go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son, for Yitzchak. RSRH comments: Eliezer is to be guided by two considerations: First, l'vni; she should be worthy of being the wife of my son; she should justify my hope that she will become my daughter even as he is my son. This is the general requirement regarding her character. But two people can each be of the most excellent character and still be incompatible. Hence, l'Yitzchak; Eliezer should make sure that the woman is compatible with Yitzchak's individual character. Avraham rejected the daughters of Canaan, preferring an Aramean woman for his son. Let us bear in mind, though, that the Arameans, too, were idolaters. Thus, the reason for Avraham's decision was not the idolatry of the Canaanites, but their moral degeneracy. Idolatry is basically an intellectual error, and that can be corrected. Moral degeneracy, however, takes hold of the whole individual, heart and soul. Hence, even a man such as Avraham could not hope to find among the Canaanites a modest, morally pure woman as a wife for his son, a woman who would bring with her a nobility of spirit and the purity of morality, as a pearl for his home. [Email #2. -micha] Someone who is a rabbi with broad based knowledge sent me the following in response to my earlier message with this subject line. It is amazing how RSRH always can find something so very thoughtful and true. The Rambam alludes at the same matter: that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo, and so he will lose his Chelemer in the Olam HaBo, while it is very possibly that he might do t'shuvo for hillul Shabbos, even if only on his deathbed. RSRH was indeed the kind of very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations. YL From t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 31 00:16:31 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 03:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> From: "Prof. Levine" >: Please see >: http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. My father asked me not to read novels on Shabbos. He didn't say anything to me about reading non-fiction. I was a teenager at the time. I said he asked me, not he told me. I understood that novels were not Shabbosdig. Secular novels, that is. There were almost no Jewish novels back then. It is possible that he phrased it as a request rather than halachic statement because he did not want to impose on me some stricture that might turn me off. Possibly we are now discussing chinuch advice for parents of teenage daughters rather than hilchos Shabbos. From: Micha Berger > And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. > One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from > the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of > them a couple of decades ago. > Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an > artificial evolution of halakha. Not Friday night and not maskilishe papers. I have a copy of the letter that was sent out by the Lakewood Cheder School, recalling the book <> which it had sent out as a fundraiser. The letter does not say what is wrong with the book. All it says is, <> There seems to be a little dig there at the Torah Temima, R' Baruch Epstein, who was the Netziv's nephew and also a ben bayis in the Netziv's home and of course a talmid of the Netziv in the Volozhin yeshiva. But apparently because he thought his uncle was human, a very great man but still human, he somehow didn't <> know his uncle. After the death of his first wife, the Netziv married the sister of the Torah Temima (yes, married his niece), thereupon becoming not only the uncle but also the brother-in-law of the TT. Who nevertheless never really knew his uncle/brother-in-law, according to Lakewood. My father (R' Nachman Bulman) wrote a haskama for the book My Uncle the Netziv, which is a translation (by Moshe Dombey) of parts of the TT's memoirs, called in Hebrew <> The book came out in 1988. To quote part of my father's letter, which is the first page of the book: > The experience of Torah life derives first and foremost from Torah > learning. But the impact of Torah learning is immeasurably richer when > the lives of living Sifrei Torah, of Torah Sages, become educative models > for our people. Further, such lives are vital links in the chain of Jewish > historical knowledge. Mekor Baruch is a matchless compendium of biography, > memoirs, and lore....A glowing portrayal of Volozhin and its last central > figure, the venerable Netziv, is a major part of the work.... I ran into a friend of mine in Brooklyn shortly after Lakewood recalled the book, and he asked me, <> At that point I had no idea who the Netziv was and had never heard of the book or of the Lakewood recall, but I knew my father. <> was my instant reply. I called my father up and asked him for the lowdown. He said that some people in Lakewood were upset because the TT said his uncle read newspapers, but it was because Lakewood was unfamiliar with the papers mentioned in the book. My father actually laughed out loud as he told me this. <> (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was amused by this, too. <>) I will quote a couple of paragraphs from My Uncle the Netziv, to give the flavor of the book and of the humanity, the depth and breadth of the Netziv's personality. He used to say that he considered the newspapers like greetings from the entire world and therefore waited expectantly for their arrival. [They were weeklies that arrived on Friday.] He would not look at the paper Friday night as that time was set aside for reviewing [his Torah learning]. He would save his perusal of the paper for Shabbos morning [after kiddush]. It upset him greatly when one newspaper slandered another....My uncle's wrath was particularly provoked by his favorite papers--the Magid and Levanon--who could not seem to talk about each other with any sense of dignity and derech eretz....The owner of the Levanon, Yechiel Brill, had unilaterally decided that his paper would be the sole voice of the rabbinical community and Torah outlook on all the issues of the day....to his great chagrin, he found out that many rabbonim and members of the Torah community were also avid readers of his arch rival paper, the Magid... The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe newspapers! I recently heard, by the way, that My Uncle the Netziv is once again being sold openly in Lakewood seforim stores (apparently it has been reprinted) and no one remembers that old controversy anymore. They will sell you the book without putting it in a plain brown wrapper, and I wouldn't be surprised if some people read the book on Shabbos. -Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From micha at aishdas.org Thu Nov 1 10:11:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:11:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181101171103.GI32359@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:16:31AM -0400, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the : book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to : learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was : amused by this, too. <>) Also, Zionism. The Netziv supported Chovevei Tziyon. I enjoy pointing out to people that although Zionism was a hotly contested issue in 19th cent Eastern Europe, it was not a communal division line. And so the Netziv's yeshiva had no problem having R' Chaim Brisker as its segan RY. (We really don't see Zionism opening up as a community-defining matter until sometime during or shortly after WWI. The Agudah's first attempt to have a Kenesiah Gedolah was interrupted by that war. Many rabbanim were stranded on the way to it. Including RAYKook, who spent WWI in Switzerland and then England. On their second and successful attempt, in 1923, being a Zionist made you ineligable for membership in the Agudah, and RAYK wasn't invited.) : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic ways.) Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Nov 1 04:37:27 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:37:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: ?that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo,? This is, indeed an intelligent and worthwhile statement. Yet it also is, as I see it, basic common sense that does not require a ?very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations.? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Nov 2 06:29:57 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:29:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Between Eating Meat and Milk Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I know that there are various customs as to how long one must wait between meat and milk. Is waiting between meat and milk a Rabbinic obligation or is it a custom? A. The Gemara (Chullin 105a) states in the name of Rav Chisda that one who eats meat is forbidden to eat cheese afterwards, but one who eats cheese may eat meat. Mar Ukva qualifies that when he would eat meat, he would not eat cheese until the next meal. There is disagreement among Rishonim as to how to understand the ruling of Mar Ukva. * Rambam held that Mar Ukva was teaching us that one must wait approximately 6 hours, the length of time between meals. Shulchan Aruch follows the opinion of Rambam although he states precisely 6 hours. * Tosfos understood that Mar Ukva meant that once one eats meat, it is forbidden to eat cheese until the meal is concluded by reciting Birkas Hamazon. In addition, the mouth must be cleaned. The Rama follows the opinion of Tosfos, but writes that there is a minhag to wait one hour and that the custom of those who are careful is to wait 6 hours. Interestingly, the common German custom is to wait 3 hours. So while all agree that there is a definite Rabbinic obligation to wait between eating meat and milk, there are different opinions as to how long one must wait. For Sefardim who follow the ruling of Shulchan Aruch, waiting 6 hours is an absolute obligation. For Ashkenazim, who follow the ruling of the Rama, the obligation ends once one cleans out one?s mouth and recites a bracha acharona. Waiting one hour, three hours, or six hours are different customs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Nov 4 06:33:48 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 14:33:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Asking a Non-Jew to Perform Melacha Part 1 Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Amira%20l'Akum%20101.pdf The author is Rabbi Shmuel Stein, originally from Brooklyn, is a talmid of Mesivta and Yeshiva Torah Temimah, Yeshivas Yagdil Torah in Eretz Yisroel and Bais Medrash Govoha. Rabbi Stein teaches the popular Wednesday evening In Hilchos Shabbos Shiur and writes a review sheet which is disseminated each week before Shabbos. He organizes the Kollel?s youth programs including Masmidei Erev and Miami Masmidim program. Rabbi Stein is the new resource director at Yeshiva Elementary school and teaches at Mechina of South Florida. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Nov 4 21:03:58 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 07:03:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: [Micha wrote:] > On 11/1/2018 7:11 PM, [RnTK] via Avodah wrote: >: The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the >: Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe >: newspapers!> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos Haskalishe newspaper. > About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist > papers. I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content is like. If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content In addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based content. I don't think of these papers as being Torah publications, rather they are party newspapers that include some Torah". I would ask a different question though: What constitutes a Torah publication? Does it have to deal with parshat shavua, Gemara, mussar, exclusively? Would reading about an opinion piece, written by a rabbi, on world affairs constitute Torah? Rav Kook regularly wrote news columns. What about a mixture of Torah and news? How much of each? Is the content of each article reviewed to make sure that it doesn't violate the laws of lashon ha-rah? From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 09:22:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 17:22:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 25:27 27 When the lads grew up, Esav was a man who understood hunting, a man of the field, and Ya?akov was a totally dedicated man, living in tents. Our Sages never hesitate to point out to us the errors and shortcomings, both great and small, of our forefathers, and precisely thus they make Torah great and glorious, heightening its instructiveness for us (see Commentary above, 12:10). On our verse, too, an observation made by our Sages indicates that the sharp contrast between the two grandsons of Avraham was caused not only by their natural tendencies, but also by mistakes in their upbringing (Bereshis Rabbah 63:10). As long as they were little, no one paid attention to the differences in their hidden natures (see v. 24); they were given the same upbringing and the same education. Their parents overlooked the cardinal principle of education: 'chanoch lanar al pi darco, ?Bring up each child in accordance with his own way? (Mishlei 22:6). Each child should be guided in accordance with the path intended especially for him, the path that suits the qualities and tendencies latent in the depths of his personality, and thus he should be educated, both as a man and as a Jew. The great Jewish task is basically one, but the ways of its fulfillment are manifold and diverse, as human character traits and paths of life are manifold and diverse. Precisely for this reason, each child must be brought up al pi darco; educate him to the one great goal, according to his own unique way, in keeping with his potential. To attempt to educate a Ya?akov and an Esav together in the same classroom, in the same routines and in the same manner, to raise both of them for a life of study and contemplation, will inevitably mean to ruin one of the two. A Ya?akov will draw from the well of wisdom with ever-increasing interest and desire, whereas an Esav will hardly be able to wait for the day when he can throw away the old books and, together with them, a great life-mission, of which he was taught in a one-sided manner, totally unappealing to his nature. For much more on this topic see Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 12:49:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 15:49:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah Message-ID: <20181105204918.GA15965@aishdas.org> The AhS discusses length a few times, but I just passed CM 218:1. It ends: And know that according to the measure in our country of Russia, every 4 amos in the gemara is 3 arshin of ours, which is 7 regel ["fut"] which is one sazhen. And every tefach is 2 vieshoks. Well, there is the translations from wikipedia's page on "Obsolete Russian Units of Measurement" >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete_Russian_units_of_measurement>. 1 fut = 30.48 cm (= 1' British Empirial) = 3/7 arshin 1 arshin = 71.12cm = 2-1/3' 1 sachen = 3 arshin = 2.1336m = 7' So, 4 amos = 3 arshin 1 ammah = 3/4 arshin = 3/4 * 2-1/3 ft = 1.75' = 21" 1 vershok = 1/16 of an arshin = 4.445cm = 1-3/4" Meaning a tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 ammah) Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). Given the round numbers the AhS is working with -- 3/4 of a local unit of measure -- RMF and the AhS could differ only by rounding tolerance. 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 llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 13:16:27 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 21:16:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? Message-ID: RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf For more on this see https://www.ajol.info/index.php/samj/article/viewFile/157422/147034 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 13:35:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 16:35:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181105213511.GA31108@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:16:27PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See : http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf There was a 1979 paper by [Dr?] Philip Lanzkowsky in the American Academy of Pediatrics Journal on the topic. The AAP Journal even cites RSRH! Abstract: Polycythmia as a result of twin-to-twin transfusion in monozygotic twins has only been recognized as a clinical entity in the last few decades. The first recorded case of polycythemia in the newborn due to twin-to-twin transfusion, however, was reported in the Bible: "And when her (Rebekah) days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first came forth ruddy, all over like a hairy mantle; and they called his name Esau...". Genesis XXV, 24-26. A ruddy newborn twin is a clear description of polycythemia in the newborn presumably due to twin-to-twin transfusion. According to Hirsch,[1] despite the contrastrating differences between Esau and Jacob, they were identical twins with complete exterior similarity. Twin-to-twin transfusion occurs in 15% of identical twins. One may further speculate that because of the marked intellectual and emotional differences between Esau and his brother Jacob, that Esau's intellectual restrictions might very well have been evidence of brain damage due to cerebral sludging as a result of polycythemia or kernicterus due to uncorrected hyperbilirubinemia pursuant to polycythemia. "... nothing is new under the sun.... It has already been in the ages before us."[2] The article itself is behind a paywall, though. The problem is that Rabbeinu Chananel quotes R Yosi that Yaaqov was conceived first. And R' Yosi is an amora. As my kids and I each learned in our respective parashah classes in elementary school, Yaaqov was allegedly really the bechor, because the pebble that comes out of the vessel last was the one put into the vessel first. It's the one nearest the exit, after all. I say allegedly, because bekhorah doesn't really go to the second twin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Nov 5 13:36:32 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 16:36:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] RYS and His Son Going to College (was Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: <38.4E.22391.2E7B0EB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:17 PM 11/5/2018, R Micha wrote: >HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, >they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch >Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in >math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it >happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. >And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic >ways.) He did not agree with nor approve of his son's decision to get a college education. >> From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 1 pages 313 - 314. >>R. Israel, however, was deeply distressed that his son had >>abandoned the study of Torah, since the son had excelled so well in >>it in his youth. The father derived no comfort at all from the >>son's remarkable achievements in the world of science, and cut off >>his support during all the son's student years. R. Israel exerted >>every effort to restore his son to Torah study. When Hamaggid >>reported in 1865, that "Mr. Lipkin was on his way to Koenigsberg to >>engage in advanced research, "the editor added that this was the >>son of R. Israel of Salant, and that he was "a pride to his saintly >>father, the Gaon, as well, may he live, who did not prevent the son >>from attending lectures at university, and so to integrate Torah >>and science, for the greater glory of the sons of our people." A >>few weeks later the same periodical (No. 11) carried a letter over >>the signature of R. Israel with these remarks: "Since Truth is the >>lamp at the feet of the righteousness that goes about on earth, I >>find it my duty publicly to proclaim that no glory accrues to me, >>as the slip of your pen would seem to indicate, in respect of my >>son. On the contrary, to me this is a 'bitterness of the spirit'. >>My heart grieves at the path which my son has wanted to set for >>himself. Whoever loves his soul and has the power to persuade him, >>to turn his desire not to run counter to my will and wishes, will >>do a great favor to one as depressed in spirit as I am today". >>Nor was there any contradiction between R. Israel's personal >>attitude and his simultaneous efforts to spread Judaism in academic >>circles. There was nothing in his views to prevent him from trying >>to infiltrate Torah inside the walls of the university and to >>influence students. Furthermore, he employed every means at his >>disposal to guard his son against straying from Judaism. He >>journeyed specially to St. Petersburg to extract a three-fold >>promise: that his son would observe Shabbat, refrain from eating >>trefah food, and not shave. [27] He would say that were he able to >>disguise himself as a woman, he would go to work in the restaurant >>patronized by his son, so as to supervise the kashrut. He also >>requested R. Isaac Blazer, then rabbi in St. Petersburg, by mail, >>to keep an eye on the son. [28] In this way, it is said, the son >>remained a loyal Jew. >>[27.] As related by Rabbi A. D. Berkovsky. Presumably this was the >>journey to St. Petersburg undertaken that year, 1872, as mentioned >>above, in connection with his political activities. R. Naftali >>Amsterdam is reputed to have related that, when R. Israel was in >>St. Petersburg, several of the university professors remarked to >>the son that they would want to see what made his father so great. >>The son suggested that they ask his father the most difficult >>question in geometry they could propound. They submitted a problem >>which had engaged their minds at that time. R. Israel studied it >>for a few minutes, and solved it to the astonishment of all the >>specialists in the field (told by R. Abraham Braude). >>[28.] R. Israel's last letter to R. Isaac Blazer concerning his >>son's conduct elicited the reply that the son had not tasted >>gentile baked bread for the past three months R. Israel understood >>this to imply that his son had been dead for three months, since no >>other bread was available in the capital. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t613k at aol.com Mon Nov 5 19:18:40 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:18:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> From: Micha Berger : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! [--old TK] HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. ? ?>>>> ? You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? When we speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a secular intellectual and academic movement and of? people who were not religious and who were often virulently anti-religious.? Wissenschaft des Judentums types. There definitely were secular, anti-religious journals being published in Europe in the 19th century, some in Hebrew, others in European languages.? These were not the journals that the Netziv was reading and discussing with his talmidim on Shabbos morning after kiddush. ? You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. ? The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were definitely Orthodox.? However, the use of words like modern, worldly, charedi, Orthodox and Zionist is anachronistic.? Those terms weren't used in the 19th century as they are today.? Nineteenth century Europe was not 21st century America.? Yechiel Brill, the editor and publisher of the Levanon, was a <> only in the loosest sense of having worldly interests and being a little bit on the modern side of the frum spectrum, but he was anti-Haskalah and anti-Reform.?? ? I don't know why you want to paint the Netziv as an avid consumer of secular newspapers.? That is just not accurate. ? Now, Ben Waxman wrote: ? >> I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content >>is like. >>If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah >>publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their >>content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all >>write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content. In >>addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based >>articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. >>So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, >>he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based >>content. Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view.? The letters to the editor could be long, weighty essays themselves.? You can't really compare them to Hamodia or Yated.? They were more like an Orthodox version of today's _Commentary_ magazine, but with more flame-throwing. ? The main thing they had in common with today's charedi newspapers is that they did not carry pictures of women.? But then again, they did not carry pictures of men, either. No pictures of anything!? Just pages and pages of words.? ?:) ? Ah, I remind myself of that song from <>?? ? Words Words Words I'm so sick of words I get words all day through First from him, now from you Is that all you blighters can do ? All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the far side of the moon. ? ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 23:28:59 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 09:28:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles Message-ID: This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgluck at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 6 05:10:10 2018 From: mgluck at mail.gmail.com (Moshe Y. Gluck) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 08:10:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sent: November 6, 2018 5:37 AM Cc: marty.bluke at gmail.com This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and obligatory on both parents? KT MYG Sent via the BlackBerry Hub for Android From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:35:51 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:35:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday, November 6, 2018, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not > mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and > obligatory on both parents? > > I didn?t understand this point either as this is not an inyan of chinuch but pikuach nefesh which would apply to the mother also. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:07:42 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:07:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Toby Katz via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive > today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with > access to old library archives. > > > All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the > far side of the moon. > This is not quite true: together with lots of other Hebrew journals, they are all available online at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/JPress/English/Pages/default.aspx I doubt if that site gets as many hits as the New York Times, so basically you are right, but at least anyone who cares can judge for themselves what these newspapers were like -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Nov 6 10:59:09 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 20:59:09 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <5b8a21c0-a020-2f8a-c85c-af2e6568db4e@zahav.net.il> If no one has seen them, how do you know what was in them? You did a research paper? Ben On 11/6/2018 5:18 AM, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one > alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic > researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies > and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's > intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the > issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 6 12:04:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:04:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181106200428.GC28629@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 10:18:40PM -0500, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : From: Micha Berger :> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... :> Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of :> whose paper.) : You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way. When we : speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a : secular intellectual and academic movement and of people who were not : religious and who were often virulently anti-religious. Wissenschaft des : Judentums type... This is revisionist. When Beruriah David's PhD paper talks about the Maharatz Chajes as a Masekil, she was indeed talking about Wissenschaft types, but certainly not unobservant, never mind "virulantly anti-religious". In any case, the modern parallel to what we're talkiong about is if one of today's "yeshivish" rashei yeshivah, who happens to also be a Zionist, read a newspaper -- not a Torah magazine like JO -- put out by a LWMO "Academic Orthodox" type institution. : You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were : pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to : Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. I think you misunderstand the history. This is Chovevei Tzion, the people who brought you Achad haAm. These were Orthodox Jews who aligned with Secular Zionism. The people who founded Petach Tiqva in 1882. Bilu was also well on its way by the Netzi's hayday. But that has little to do with haMad. : The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, : moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were : definitely Orthodox. Nope. This is also revisionist. At least "moderate chareidi" is. : Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one : alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers : with access to old library archives.... Or Google. http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=tab&tab=browse&pub=MGD&_ga=2.44647777.412515131.1541534577-590544565.1541534577#panel=browse 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Nov 7 07:15:12 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:15:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0e8301d476ac$adf40550$09dc0ff0$@com> > Meaning a AhS tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 > ammah) > Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an > ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). You meant to say: RMF (IM OC 1:136) tefach is 3.54" (9cm) and ammah 21-1/4" (53.98cm). [Yes, I typoed -- 3 and 4 are adjacent keys. Which is how the error didn't reach my times-6 result for the ammah. -micha] From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 7 07:16:46 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:16:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1a5d3f60-a1f2-d250-1c3d-fc81959fdb40@sero.name> On 6/11/18 8:10 am, Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm > not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek > and obligatory on both parents? My guess is that these decisions are usually left to the mother, and the anti-vaxx nonsense has spread mostly among women, so he's now telling the men that it's their duty to insist on vaccinating the children even if their wives are opposed. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 7 11:25:01 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:25:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn Message-ID: I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" be to daven first, then learn? 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 Tue Nov 13 10:06:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181113180654.GA7634@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 07:25:01PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven : (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning : starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" : be to daven first, then learn? Perhaps it's because of Berakhos 31a: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven neither from din, nor from devar halakhah, ela mitokh halakhah pesukah. And what is halakhah besukah like? Abayei said, like what Rabbi Zeira said. ... and then quoting a settled halakhah that Rabbi Zeira said once. ("benos Yisrael hichmiru al atzman...") Rava said, like that which Rav Hoshia said.. But I think you get the idea. So, maybe people assume 1,600+ year-old discussions in the gemara qualify. I don't think that's shitas Rashi, though. Rashi ('halakhah pesuqah") says the gemara is worried about topics that a person would continue thinking about during davening. (The Be'er Heitev holds like Rashi.) But in any case, looking a little more meta: The gemara's assumption is that one is supposed to learn before davening, and the gemara then discusses what it is one should be learning. Later on in the sugya: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven from within sorrow, nor laziness, nor silliness, nor chatter, nor qalus rosh, nor devarim beteilim ela mitokh simchah shel mitzvah. Perhaps the learning is indeed seen as a prep for davening. (In addition to talmud Torah.) See OC 93. In the SA, that second TR is in se'if 2, and the first, in se'if 3. Se'if 4 amos, "Ha'oseiq betzorkhei tzibur ke'oseiq baTorah", because there is similar simchah shel mitzvah. 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 zvilampel at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 13 17:07:16 2018 From: zvilampel at mail.gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:07:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:13 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality > : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means > : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are > : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem > : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature* Just to be clear, that was a quote of the Maharal. > While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your usage. > the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent. Rambam teaches that during maaseh breishis, Hashem put the normal properties and behaviors into the natures of the things He created and formed. He also instilled in them the potential for certain aberrational behaviors, to be actualized upon certain conditions, such as the staff turning into a serpent. But such changes open can only last temporarily. But then there is the constant reaction of natural events to mankind's good and evil deeds, which is a neis nistar. This, Rambam explains, is nevertheless the greatest miracle of all: > "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with > loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a > continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of > metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". > (Rambam's Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end]) This view as well is shared by the Ramban. And this is his point in the passages in which he is mistakenly understood to be saying that "there is no 'it' to nature." As an example, in Toras Hashem Temimah, he cites the Rambam approvingly and says, "Most people think that the Alm-ighty does not constantly enact miracles, that the world proceeds in its way, and many of the chachamim think so, too, but the Rav (Rambam) curses them....All our affairs are entirely miracles, there is no nature and way that the world proceeds, for behold the promises of the Torah are all absolute miracles ...The fact of "And I shall give your rains in their time [if you keep the mitzvos]," Hashem will open for you his good treasure-house, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its time an d to bless...is the same as the plague of the firstborn, the dever and arov, and the drowning of the Egyptians in the sea...the only difference is that between the hidden and the open...." So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago shel olom, no "it" to nature. > From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? >Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? >See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam. The Ralbag demonstrates he was well acquainted with the Rambam's writings on the subject, and he himself states that none of his fellow rishonim before him "realized" that this was what Chazal were saying. The two issues raised in this post, the issue of time with the issue of miracles and ha-olom beMinhago noheig, actually tie together. Rambam in the above mentioned payrush on Avos famously maintains that it was on erev Shabbos that Hashem instilled potential aberrational behavior in the nature of the 10 things listed. However, the potentials for aberrational behaviors were instilled in the natures of all other creations ON THE DAY THE TORAH INDICATES. E.g. one example he gives is that the nature of water to split was instilled on day 2. So he is understanding the days as units of time, in which there were days 1-7 and a 6th day bein ha-shemoshos. If one were to attempt imposing the concept of "step of logic" on the use of the word "day" in this passage, the passage would not make sense. Moreh Nevuchim 2:30 does not differ. In MN 2:30, Rambam emphasizes that time itself is something Hashem created. It is a result of the turning of the sphere, which itself is something that was created. Thus, creation did not happen after a certain amount of time, because time could not exist before creation. This is the meaning of his saying that creation, the initial creation ex nihilo, happened "outside of time." (See Abarbanel ?(p. 8, left-hand column, middle), Crescas and Ephodi. Shemtov does attribute the "levels" peshat to Rambam.) But then he poses a question: If the sphere and heavenly bodies were first created the fourth day, how were the first three days measured? He is obviously assuming, in his question, that the creation days of the Torah are units of time. The question is how could there be a first, second and third day, if the thing that produces time, the revolving sphere, did not exist until day four. The question includes the assumption that each day of maaseh breishis witnessed a new creation ex nihilo of the rakia, the vegetation, the creatures, etc., so the heavenly bodies that determine units of time did not exist until the 4th day. He answers that day does not mean a unit of time, but a step of logic. No, wait, he doesn't. He answers that Chazal teach that despite the impression one may get from the pesukim, there was not a new creation ex nihilo each of the 6 days. There was one creation ex nihilo of everything, and then a "revealing"/separation/extraction of each component. What occurred on day 4 with the heavenly bodies responsible for time was not their creation. Their creation and behavior of determining time began at the instant of creation ex nihilo. He cites the Chazal comparing the process over the six creation days to that of various types of seeds. Even though they were all planted one day, each one sprouts later, on a different day. Repeat: later, on different days. The question of how there was time and days 1, 2, and 3 before day 4 is answered with the principle that the heavenly bodies responsible for time existed from the moment of creation. Nothing in the Rambam's words (either here or in his treatment in the first chelek of word meanings) about days meaning levels. "The particle "ess" in the phrase "ess ha-shamayim ve-ess ha-aretz ("the heavens and the earth") signifies "together with." Our Sages have explained the word in the same sense in many instances. Accordingly, they assume that God created, with the heavens, everything that the heavens contain, and with the earth, everything the earth includes. They further say that the simultaneous Creation of the heavens and the earth is implied in the words, "I call unto them, they stand up together" (Tehillim 48). Consequently, all things were created together, but revealed (nisgalu) / were separated from each other (nivdelu) one by one (rishon rishon). Our Sages illustrated this by the following simile: We sow various seeds at the same time; some spring forth after one day, some after two, and some after three days, although all have been sown at the same time. This outlook, which is undoubtedly the correct one, solves the problem of... how the first day, the second day and the third day were determined.... This is explicit in the words of our Sages in Bereshis Rabba. They said, regarding the light the Torah says was created on the first day. They said it as follows: These [lights of the luminaries mentioned in the Creation of the fourth day] are the very same lights that were created on the first day, but were not hung in their places until the fourth day. Behold, they explicitly stated this idea." All this would be an awful way to express the simple idea that by "day" the Torah means not a unit of time but a logical step. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 14 09:01:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:01:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Did you intentionally reply off-list? Or should I copy your email and this one onto Avodah? On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, : Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your : usage. A lot resided in the word "hypostasis", and a reason why I couldn't find a more apt word among normal English ones. :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. But it's minhago shel olam. Not an "it". The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH. It is this direct causality that people mistake for his saying there is no teva. According to the Rambam, nature is the product of the Seikhel haPo'al, which is acted upon by mal'akhim, which, if you chase the chain of causality up to the start, is a product of hashgachah kelalis and Divine Da'as. But there is an "it" there. Teva is a metaphysical object, not a pattern. See Moreh 2:11-12 (ch. 10 may be a useful prelude.) (Nevu'ah is also mediated through the Seikhel haPo'al [2:35], but that's a different subject.) A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a person, and thus to that extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH delegates his fate. I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to nature". But you apparently took me to mean there is no nature. Rather than no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on. That's what I was talking about, and most of your reply doesn't actually address the chiluq I'm making. : So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. No, but he does mean there is no such "thing" as nature. It's not a hypostatis. : His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago : shel olom, no "it" to nature. : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. See also the Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. The Abarbanel specifically endorces the Ralbag's "yesod" in understanding the Rambam. https://www.sefaria.org/Abarbanel_on_Torah%2C_Genesis.1.1.10 This is how the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian like R' Yitzchaq Arama. RYBS too, Mainodies between Philosophy & Halakhah, pg 187. In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of time. His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before the sun. And it's not a problem we modern people would face, anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 14 21:37:51 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:37:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli Message-ID: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html Me-Yet R' Ellman would not ( at least when I asked him) say that any of these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food for thought 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 Nov 14 21:35:38 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:35:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions Message-ID: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? Do we see this same propensity in prior authorities who were not writing codes in this manner? Other reason why different authorities might deal with this issue differently? 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 Nov 15 10:52:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:52:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> References: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20181115185222.GA28484@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 10:31:20PM -0400, R Akiva Miller replied to my post: :> So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted :> keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be :> when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than :> the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged :> YhR? : Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal : encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to : the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate : the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the : fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But that's the converse of my question. I didn't ask why Chazal found the taqanos they did. Or in the case of ribbis, engineered a solution using a pre-existing loophole. I asked why the RBSO didn't. If Chazal knew that people couldn't keep up the moral standard, obviously the Author of the deOraisos did too. And therefore, why didn't He allow ribbis for the same "lo diberah Torah ela keneged YhR" reasons as eishes yefas to'ar. Once we have G-d making compramizes for EYT, why did He leave ribbis to Chazal? Why did Hashem make it that money is qoneh? He knew better than chazal that it would create situations where a seller is still holding something he no longer owns, and sometimes that will mean carelessness in how the item is guarded. Why did Chazal need to invoke hefqer BD hefqer and totally rewrite how sale works? (That said, I am almost satisfied with RDR's answer, below.) : But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. : The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her : (unless he follows the prescribed procedure)... Today's militaries assume otherwise. Avoiding ribis is less of a problem when "money" is primarily a metal or contract to swap, only a half-step beyond barter. One is "only" losing opportunity cost. But once we got prime rates etc... so that there is a difference between present and future value of money can be done in some settings, avoiding ribbis became something not enough lenders could afford, and the poor suffered. Eishes yefas to'ar is similarly situational. Whether it is "unwinnable" at best depends on the kind of war one is fighting. Maybe when fighting barbarian tribes. But not as a general rule. : Alternatively: : D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. But they can allow things explicitly denied by the Torah? If you can engineer heter isqa into something that covers most of the situations where ribbis is needed, they could have engineered and issur. But I also recently encountered while learning Arukh haShulchan something that may be a counter-example. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that there are no shevu'os when the dispute is over qarqa. So, while modeh bemiqtzas (e.g.) about money or metaltelin requires a shevu'ah deOraisa, if it is about real estate there is no shevu'ah deOraisa. However, Chazal still require the nitba to make a shevu'as heises in order to retain his chazaqah on the land. And on Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:16:00AM -0400, R David Riceman replied to the same post: : It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it : is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical : level, however, I don't see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah : prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. I am sure the same was said before heter isqa. Chazal were a bunch of rabbis capable of finding 49 ways to be metaher a sheretz. Our inability to figure out how they would have created a law like eishes yefas to'ar doesn't prove it impossible. For that matter, the gemara apparently concludes that pruzbul was only enacted because shemittah today is derabbanan. Although I think it's left open whether pruzbul would not work when shemittah is deOraisa. Or whether hefqer BD would meant it would work, but they question the hava amina that Hillel would circumvent a deOraisa like that. What kind of "you don't" the gemara is talking about would impact your answer. That said, I like RDR's "more important point". Repeated here, since it's been nearly a month -- an eternity as list-time goes: : But there's a more important point. What's weird about war is that : it's not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between : civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those : different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say "hasatan : mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama" that's partly because the soldiers don't : have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. : But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to : rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person : to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over : his lifetime. : So it makes a lot of sense that k'nagged YhR is specifically mentioned : in the context of milhama. The reason why I said above I am only "almost satistfied" is that it borders on explaining too much. We aren't looking only for a chiluq between EYT and my sample dinim derabbanan. But also between deOraisa and derabbanan. You are left saying there is a whole set of dinim on a tightrope -- they are lifelong challenges and therefore controllable enough for HQBH not to want to compromize for human nature, and yet history evolved the situation to the point where they pose impossible challenges that chazal needed to accomodate. Well, not necessarily "impossible". At least: by Chazal's day these grew into challenges that are so rarely met, the usual outcome is more costly than the din -- such as the poor not being able to get a loan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 14:57:30 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:57:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli In-Reply-To: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119225730.GA28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:37:51AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: : https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html : : Yet R' Ellman would not (at least when I asked him) say that any of : these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food : for thought I like RARakeffetR's mashal (and recall, he is a RIETS RY with a PhD in Jewish History): You can ask a historican how the electric refrigerator was invented, and you will hear about the social forces involved, the wiring of the American home for power, etc... None of which tells you how the refrigerator actually works. (He might even give you the history of the application of thermodynamics and the Carnot cycle without ever explaining that particular bit of science.) Similarly: Knowing that a particular area of halakhah was mined in response to a given situation doesn't change the fact that the halachic principles had to be there and had to be applied. And the knowledge does little to teach you the principles themselves. 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 15:06:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 18:06:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions In-Reply-To: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119230604.GB28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:35:38AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan : aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority : opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach : rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? ... I think the SA tried to reach conclusions. For that matter, he tried to follow majority of his short list of major posqim. I think for him it was just a way of dealing with not being sufficiently convinced; and not having his triumverate answering the question for him. For the MB... Not sure I want to reopen that whole "the MB was written to help posqim, and its 'rulings' are lehalakhah velo lemaaseh" -- not always even followed by the CC himself. (Who was author of most of the book, and editor in chief of the rest.) : Other reason why different authorities might deal : with this issue differently? The AhS has enough confidence in toras imekha that he would use it to say that lemaaseh we pasqened like a minority, or like (what seems to me to be a) dachuq peshat. There are exceptions, where he holds that common practice is just too dachuq, but they're rare. So, for the AhS, being stumped means that not only is there no clear textual winner, there is no clear minhag (accepted practice) either. So holding out in fear of a mi'ut isn't likely. Holding like a mi'ut because the tzibbur already does, much more comomn. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 20 09:08:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181120170828.GA27185@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, ... :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. Actually, it's real, but I think you misunderstood what I meant. (As I said in the previous email.) Relevant is this excerpt from a recent shiur from Gush's Vitual Beis Medrash. Rav Bednarsh gives 2 chiluqim that are orthogonal to the one I mentioned (whether there is an "it" behind teva, or if nature is "merely" a pattern of Divine Action): 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. About fn #4... I spoke to RDBerger about his paper. I can ask a parallel question on RAB's article to introduce the same answer, so I will do so here. RAB writes (below): > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The > Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only > the principle of hashgacha pratit. > Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these > two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more > nuanced. > In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise > of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God > and not to doctors for healing.... ... > For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) > that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on > a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, > to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or > punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in > the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence > and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness... > In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that > his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh > Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and > tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully > on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the > Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order... Okay, so it's much more nuanced, but then what does he mean in the two places we started with? What I pointed out, that the Ramban is denying teva as an it -- that even teva is through the same direct Influence as neis -- adds the same nuance without ignoring those two more famous comments of the Ramban. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Yeshivat Har Etzion PHILOSOPHY > Topics in Hashkafa > Shiur #06: Divine Providence and the Natural Order 1 Rav Assaf Bednarsh Adapted by Leora Bednarsh Should one attempt to provide for one's needs in this world by working through the natural order, or should one do so by keeping mitzvot and trusting in God to provide? Are the events of this world caused by direct Divine Providence or by the natural scientific order? This question has tremendous practical significance and is the subject of much debate in the contemporary Jewish community. This topic is often portrayed as "hishtadlut (effort) vs. bitachon (trust)." ... The Position of the Rambam No Jewish philosopher can entirely deny the doctrine of hashgacha pratit. There are many examples in Tanakh that very clearly indicate that God miraculously takes care of the righteous in this world in accordance with His Divine plan.[1] However, almost all the cases in Tanakh deal with exceptionally righteous and spiritual individuals. That may be because most of Tanakh deals with these great individuals; these are the people we need to learn about in order to learn to be good Jews. The Rambam, however, maintains that this is not coincidence. It is not simply that these happen to be the main characters in Tanakh. According to the Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim III:18), hashgacha pratit is not something that God automatically utilizes in running the world. God relates to us when we relate to Him. When we open the channel, God's bounty flows through that channel. If we don't bother to create those lines of communication, then He does not communicate with us either. Those who have achieved philosophical sophistication, who have studied what the Rambam understands to be the Jewish mystical philosophical tradition and focus their thoughts on God, enjoy the benefits of Divine Providence. According to the Rambam, not all people enjoy equal Divine Providence. Those who are pious and good and religious enjoy more Divine Providence because of their understanding of God, which fuels their piety and goodness. Those who are prophets enjoy a higher level because of their deep understanding of God. Those who are on a very rarified level of philosophical spiritual achievement can be assured that God looks out for them in this world. The wicked and the religiously ignorant, however, have no such promise of Divine Providence. Even regular people who may be reasonably religious and try to think about God quite often still have not achieved that level of understanding at which they can assume that they are beneficiaries of constant direct Divine Providence. For the Rambam, then, most people do not enjoy the benefit of direct Divine Providence all the time. Accordingly, it makes perfect sense that we are expected to work through the natural order. The natural order is the default. When we change the rules by achieving philosophical knowledge of God, our lives begin to be run by the principles of Divine Providence. But much of the time the world is run by the natural order and God does not involve Himself. Thus, we should be expected to provide for ourselves and to achieve whatever goals we feel the need to achieve by means of the natural order. The natural order is the one thing that is guaranteed. God created the world and created the scientific order as the way in which the world will run until God decides to get involved because someone let Him in to his life.[2] And even then, God is only involved partially, to the extent that someone partially perfects themselves and meditates upon God. Of course, this does not mean that God has no part in our lives when we do not enjoy Providence. There is still hashgacha klalit, general Providence. God still arranges the world generally in such a way that our needs are provided for. We say blessings, thanking God, for example, for creating fruits of the tree, but not because He created this particular fruit for me to eat today, rather because He created a wonderful world that provides for much of our needs. It is our job to appreciate that. But when I stub my toe or win the lottery, is that God's direct intervention? According to the Rambam, most of the time it is not. Rather, it is the natural order. The Position of the Ramban It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only the principle of hashgacha pratit. Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more nuanced. In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God and not to doctors for healing. He states that when the masses of the Jews are perfect, their lives will not be run by the natural order, but rather directly by God; He will be their doctor. According to Ramban, that is what the righteous did in the days of Tanakh, during the era of prophecy. Anyone with access to prophecy does not need a doctor, and in case of illness should turn instead to a prophet, who will tell him which of his actions needs to be improved; he will then repent and repair those actions so that God will heal his disease. "What business do doctors have in the house of someone who fulfills the will of God?" asks the Ramban. Although the Rabbis interpreted the verse "ve-rapo yerapeh" (Shemot 21:19) as evidence that the doctor has permission to heal, the Ramban restricts the significance of this inference. If someone asks for help, the doctor should heal the patient - but Chazal never said that the patient should seek medical care, only that the doctor should provide it. The patient should ideally put all his trust in God and not in the natural order. However, if the patient has already put his trust in the natural order, the doctor has no choice but to heal him, because that is the only option left. When someone puts his faith in the natural order, his live is unfortunately run by the natural order. But when someone puts his faith in God, his life is controlled by direct Divine Providence. Similarities Between the Ramban and the Rambam The Ramban here seems to take an anti-Maimonidean stance, focusing on Divine Providence. However, on closer analysis, he does not deny the existence of the natural order. He acknowledges the existence of teva. Of course, he believes that it is far preferable to live by faith in God and not by teva, but once our spiritual level fell and we became accustomed to using medicine and working within the scientific order, God "abandoned us to the happenstance of teva." If we read the Ramban very carefully, we notice that the examples he uses of those who should not seek medical help but rather turn directly to God are limited to a time when the masses of Jews are righteous, during the time of prophecy. The Ramban is referring to people on a very high spiritual level. They enjoyed the benefit of constant Divine Providence and therefore had no business working through the natural order. The implication is that the situation is quite different for regular people in regular times. Even righteous Jew nowadays, when, unfortunately, the masses of Jews are far from perfect and when prophecy has not been restored to us, are not on the same high spiritual level. Therefore, they cannot have a reasonable expectation of constant Divine Providence in their lives, and perhaps they should visit doctors. Although everything that happens in the world is subject to Divine Providence, God has decided to abandon us - regular people in the contemporary era - to the workings of the natural order. We no longer merit constant Divine Providence. This is, in fact, explicitly the opinion of the Ramban in several places. For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness. But Yaakov himself was not sure that he was righteous enough to enjoy Divine Providence, which is why he prepared using natural means to make peace, or if need be, war, with Esav. He made various preparations using the natural order because in his humility, he was not certain that he was on the level to expect Divine Providence. If Yaakov Avinu questioned whether he deserved Divine Providence, the clear implication is that we can certainly not rely on it! In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order. We are instructed to conscript an army and go out and fight in the event of war, not just to sit and pray and wait for God to fight for us. We cannot always expect to be on such a high spiritual level that we enjoy constant Divine Providence. Rather, we must work under the assumption that we may not always be experiencing Divine Providence, and we must therefore work under the natural order. The Ramban tells us that if God wants us to win a war, we will win without an army, and if, God forbid, He wants us to lose a war, no matter how strong our military is, we will lose. But sometimes, when we are neither completely righteous nor completely wicked, God does not want any particular result, because He is not exercising Divine Providence at that point. That is why it is so important that we work through the natural order. The Ramban in this commentary seems to be in line with mainstream religious Zionist ideology. We work through the natural order because not everything always is decreed by God.[4] Differences Between the Ramban and the Rambam As much as the Ramban claims to agree with the Rambam, there is still a significant difference between their philosophies. The Ramban in a number of places, including his commentary to Iyov, tells us that Divine Providence can be either positive or negative. If someone is truly righteous, then God watches and guards him all the time. If someone is evil, God will intervene in the world to punish him. Those in the middle, neither wicked nor righteous, are left to the natural order. The Rambam, on the other hand, holds that Divine Providence can only be positive, not negative. It is purely a function of one's connection to God. Therefore, the more connected one is to God, the more Divine Providence; the more disconnected one is, the less Divine Providence. Punishment only occurs in this world because when God removes His Providence, one is exposed to the many perils of the dangerous world that we inhabit. While the Ramban has a volitional model of Divine Providence, in which God decides to exercise Providence when a person deserves reward or punishment, the Rambam has a more mechanistic model, under which Divine Providence is an automatic result of spiritual achievement. What the Rambam and the Ramban have in common, however, is their belief that while Divine Providence is an ideal to strive for, it is not the default, automatic way in which the world works. God sometimes involves Himself through the principle of hashgacha pratit, but often does not. The natural order is the authentic way in which God created the world to run when He doesn't decide to get involved and change things. For the Ramban and the Rambam, then, the answer to the question of faith (bitachon) versus effort (hishtadlut) is clear. We are expected to take care of providing our needs in this world the best we can using the natural order. None of us are arrogant enough to assume that we are so holy and righteous that we have constant Divine Providence. Of course, we strive to be more holy, spiritual, and righteous. We strive to enjoy more Divine Providence. And, at least according to the Ramban, perhaps our ultimate goal is to reach the highest spiritual levels and abandon the natural order. Nonetheless, in regular life, the Rambam and the Ramban would have us work in the natural order because we can never be certain that anything that happens to us in our lives is the result of God's direct intervention. Our success or lack thereof may be purely a function of the natural order. Therefore, we must take care of ourselves. God is not always taking care of us, as we may not be sufficiently righteous. _______________________ [1] For example, the Exodus and figures such as the Patriarchs, Daniel, and Chananya, Mishael and Azarya. [2] Even in this case, Rambam nowhere states that one who enjoys Divine Providence should not work within the natural order. In the next two shiurim, we will present various explanations of why even one who enjoys Divine Providence might be required to work within the natural order. [3] The Ramban understands God's "knowledge" of Avraham as constant Divine Providence [4] Many attempts have been made to resolve the apparent contradiction between the Ramban's statement in his commentary to Shemot 13 and his sermon Torat Hashem Temima and his formulations in his commentaries to Bereishit 18 and 32 and Iyov 36. It seems likely that the Ramban intended to claim not that everything that happens is a miracle, but that miraculous Providence ultimately controls everything. Since even nature was created by God, Providential intervention can override the laws of nature, but the laws of nature do not restrict Divine Providence. When Providence chooses not to intervene, however, nature still follows its course. For further reading, see the original texts, as well as David Berger, "Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmanides," in Isadore Twersky (ed.), Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuosity (Harvard University Press, 1983), available at https://www.biblicalnaturalhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/MiraclesNahmanides.pdf. From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 06:41:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:41:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yaakov and Esav Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32:8. 8 Ya?akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. In Ya?akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya?akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya?akov?s attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 08:24:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:24:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? Message-ID: One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the ?Medina shel Chessed? is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic issues of this very American holiday... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 22 04:30:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? Message-ID: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is it equivalent of free will? What does it mean to have free will without consequence? How then do we understand the medrash in Breishit that the trees were punished for not following HKB"H's direction? The dogs being rewarded for not barking? 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 zvilampel at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 09:30:07 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:01 PM Micha Berger wrote: > > RMB: > :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. > > ZL: Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no > less > : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of > : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that > : minhag permanent. > > ... > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. Where does Ramban say this? As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent at maaseh breishis. See, for example, on Shmos 6:6. ''The posuk says 'Vay-hiH khein'' because that is the teva that was instilled in them forever...and they will remain with the first teva that was instilled in them at the time of their formation (Vayamdual haTeva haRishon asher hussam bahem bEis yetsirasam). And on Vayikra 26:11, in the passage about refuah, he uses the phrase, VaHashem Heeneecham lemikrei haTivee-im, Hashem leaves them to the natural mikrreim. How is this insisting that, contra Rambam, ''those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH''? Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. RMB: [According to RambaM:] A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a > person, and thus to that > extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva > (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH > delegates his fate. > ZL: You are making a distinction that you attribute to RambaM, between teva and minhago shel olam. Teva is something that a daas-lacking person is left to. Through it, Hashem delegates his fate. Minhag shel olam is something else. I don't follow. Where is such a distinction made? And I thought you maintained that contra RambaN, RambaM does /not/ hold that HQBH delegates the fate of lesser people. Only ''the RambaN talks about nature being a pattern in events... /directly/ caused by HQBH. Is there also a distinction between ''directly causing'' and ''delegating''? Do you mean RambaM holds Hashem HAD delegated their fate (by setting up the mechanisms at Creation)? RMB: > I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to > nature". ... no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on... there is no such > "thing" as nature. It's not a > hypostatis. ZL: Where do you see what you are trying to explain in Ramban? Regarding the shiur by Rav Bednarshom, and the point that 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. The last sentence should be about RambaN, right? And here's something to ponder: As I wrote previously, the Rambam writes that the greatest miracle of all, is nature's responding to man's behavior, favoring good behavior and punishing bad behavior. Granted, favoring good behavior is miraculous. But l-fi Rambam's shittah, what is miraculous about leaving the practitioner of bad behavior to the wiles of nature? Also, regarding: > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. Obviously, this is just the hava amina. The Ramban did not write that ''everything that happens'' is a miracle. His wording is that the whole [teaching of the] Torah [about reard and punishment] is a miracle. Meaning, as the maskana is, that the Torah's system of award and punishment is miraculous. Secondly, the Ramban does not say that everything is a miracle,without causation, except reward and punishment. The causation between behavior and reward and punishment is an explanation of, not in contrast to, his statement that the whole teaching of the Torah is that there are miracules. > > > :ZL: His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a > : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the > forces > : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, > : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no > minhago > : shel olom, no "it" to nature. > > : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand > : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is > : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified > model, > : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. > > : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, > > : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, > note > : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? > > : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and > : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being > in > : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya > : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? > > :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. > > : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given > : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say > : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. > But > : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... > > It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. It is not his peshat in the Rambam. He does not mention Rambam, much less attribute to him, the ''levels'' peshat, neither in his Torah commentary nor in his Milchamos Hashem. If you can find such a passage, please locate it for me. On the contrary, here is how he addresses the question of how there could be days before the fourth day when the sun materialized. He gives two possibilities. And he gives the ''levels'' approach as an /alternative/ explanation to the answer that the sphere, by which time and days are produced, was in operation from the moment of creation.They are two /different/ ways of answering how there could be days one through three before the existence of the stars, although both answers are predicated on the Chazal-based view that everything in the universe and earth was instantly and simultaneously created in its complete form (besides vegetation and Adam and Chava). And if the virtually identical verbiage to that of the Rambam is an indication that Ralbag was intending to give peshat in the Rambam, note that he is explicitly using that verbiage in the answer granting that ''days'' are units of time, in /contrast/ to the notion of ''days'' meaning ''levels''. And also remember, as I have noted before, that Ralbag explicitly says (Torah commentary, on VaYchulu) V-im nim-tsi-u rechokim meod mei-hakavana asher matzanu kahn, kmo shetireh mimah shebier bazeh haRav HaMoreh besifro hanichbad Moreh HaNevuchim, ViHachcham R. Avraham Ibn Ezra.... that his new approach is /very far/ from that of the Rambam. And he repeats this in Sefer Milchemes Hashem, Presentation VI, ?Part II, Chapter 8, Conclusion. Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. This is how > the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian > like R' Yitzchaq Arama. > But you see, you have to resort to secondary sources to support the claims about what Rambam and Ralbag held, whereas we have the first-hand sources in front of us. The fact is that the Ralbag does not attribute the ''levels''approach to the Rambam, and in fact considers the ''levels'' approach as an alternative to what the Rambam wrote.. Abarbanel is known to repeat ideas of his contemporary, R. Y. Arama. He is also known to have a very eclectic style. You are of course correct that in his 9th shayla he attributes the ''levels'' approach to the Rambam. But look how he does it, and explain to me how it makes sense: > The 9th shayla concerns what is mentioned in the Moreh Nevuchim. Rambam > notes that time ?cannot exist without the movement of the celestial > spheres, the sun and moon. However, this raises ?the question as to how > there could be time before the fourth day on which the celestial spheres > and sun were ?created. The Rambam answered this question by asserting that > in fact the spheres and the sun were ?created on the first day. Thus time > existed for the first 3 days in the same manner as it existed on the > ?subsequent days. He explained that in fact everything ? both the Heavens > and the Earth ? were created ?on the first day. Stop here. Do you not see the Abarbanel explaining Rambam as holding that the days of Breishis were units of time, and not ''levels''? Let's continue: The Rambam cited Chazal that the word ?es? indicated that the creation on > the first day ?included everything associated with the Heavens as well as > everything associated with the Earth. He also ?cited the gemora (Chulin > 60a) that everything that was created was created in its final form. He > also cited ?another statement of Chazal that the Heavens and Earth were > created simultaneously. Thus the Rambam ?believed that the work of Creation > happened all on one day and was not divided amongst six days. He ?claimed > that in a single moment of creation everything came into existence. And of course, the Rambam continues (and Ralbag includes it) that whereas all was created ex nihilo from the first instant of creation, following that was a process of separating the components of the universe, forming things, as he says elsewhere in the Moreh, kach mikach. How then does the Abarbanel say in the next breath: > He explained that the reason ?for the Torah stating that there were six > days of Creation was to indicate the different levels of created ?beings > according to their natural hierarchy. Thus the Rambam does not understand > the word day to be a ?temporal day and he doesn?t read Bereishis to be > describing the chronological sequence of creation?. Kasha reisha al sefa! And note that in shayla 5 as well Abarbanel had written: That which the Torah mentioned of the creation of the stars on the fourth day, made HaRav haMoreh answer, as it seems from his words, in that chapter 30 of Part Three, that on the first day the sphere was created with the stars and light. But their actions had affect on the fourth day upon the vegetation.Such is apparent from the words of the Rav...Perhaps RambaN too meant this, since he mentions this approach in the name of yeish meforshim. And if one is to treat this as Abarbanel changing his mind, well then consider another about-face over 80 pages later (p. 85 in our editions) Behold you see that the opinion of the Rav was ...that all that is mentioned regarding the activity of the six days, ?from the creation of the heavens and the earth, and all of the phenomena, and the creation of Adam and ?his wife, up until ?vayechulu? have no allegory whatsoever, for everything was ?literal to him [the Rambam]. Therefore you will see that in this very chapter, no. 30 in the second section, ?in all which the Rav has explicated regarding the activity of the six days, he did not make an allegory or a ?hint at all. Rather, he did the exact opposite, for he made a concerted effort to support the doctrine of ?creation ex nihilo and accepted all of the verses literally?? Obviously, Abarbanel was not consistent as to whether the Rambam understood the creation days to be ''levels'' rather than units of time. So he should not be cited with such certainty that he held so. ?I would also caution against uncritically accepting A?s description of B?s opinion if A goes on to ?lambaste it, as the Abarbanel did with his original reading of the Moreh Nevuchim. ?(The question presents itself, then, how did the Abarbanel?s contemporary, the Akeidas Yitzcahk, ?and the commentary of the ShemTov?who is not regarded as a rishon?as opposed to the ?commentary by Crescas), and the Abarbanel himself in his second take, get from (a) the Rambam?s ?classical rendition of a six-day meta-natural development of potential created on day one, to (b) ?seeing the Rambam as promulgating that ?the six days are a metaphor for six levels in the hierarchy ?of natural objects: light/darkness, water, minerals, flora, fauna, man??? My theory is that the earlier commentators of the Moreh, such as Narboni, greatly influenced by ?the Aristotelian academia of the time, anxiously imposed their radical views on the Rambam. (We ?see that in the Rambam?s own time, he complained of people radicalizing his views?including those ?who as accused him of (or ?complimented? him for) denying techiass ha-meisim). They hijacked the ?Moreh so efficiently that it became popular to think the Rambam thought like Narboni. This ?became the starting point from which later commentaries saw the Moreh (similar to, l?havdil, Rashi?s ?commentary being one?s first impression of what the Chumash says, and one?s natural thinking that ?what Rashi says is necessarily what the Chumash undoubtedly means.)? > In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, > following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, > there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which > processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the > Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of > time. > Not my issue. > > His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before > the sun. > *In the words of Ralbag the **problem is with zeman before the sun. His answer is that the sphere, even without the sun, produces zeman. * The problem that bothered the early ones, with what were day one, day two and day three measured? Behold, the light-bearers were not in existence until day four! [The answer is that even though the light-bearers did not appear until day four], the heavenly sphere was in existence on day one, and each revolution of it formed approximately one day. Abarbanel puts it that the problem is zeman before the sphere, sun and stars. The answer is that they all existed and formed zeman from the first act of creation. ???"? (?????, ??? ?) (?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? (?, ?-?) ...??????, ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? (??? ? ??? ?), ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???, ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?????; ???? ???? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?):... ??????? ??????: ?? ??? ???? ?????, ?????: ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????, ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? (?????? ??, ??). ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????: ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??????????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? (?, ?) ?* ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ???.* ???? ?????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??????,??? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ????, ????? ???? ???? ??? *.??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? .* *??* ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???, ????? ?? ????? ?????? *???? ??????*, ?? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ??? ????? *???? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????*; ??? ????? *??? ????? ???????,* ?? [??"? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????, ?"?] *?**??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????, ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? *? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??. ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???????, ??? ????? ?????. *???? ????? ????? *??? ???? ?????, ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?????. ??? ?? ????????? ??????? ??? ??????: ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?), ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?????. ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? (??? ? ????? ???? ????), ?????: ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??. ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????, ?? ???? ?????? ??, ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???????, ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? > > But the bottom line,to which we both agree, is that traditional Judaism holds that Creation, regardless of our issue about zeman, was not a natural process. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162531 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 23 02:58:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. : : : Where does Ramban say this? ... This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, it directly from G-d. : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag : permanent at maaseh breishis... Which is not in contradicction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain ways. To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel hapo'el, but still thimk you can reach what the rishonim are talking about? :-)BBii! -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 zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 15:37:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 18:37:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those > events > : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. > : > : > : Where does Ramban say this? ... > > This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > from G-d. Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or uses intermediaries. > > : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times > that > : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag > : permanent at maaseh breishis... > > Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern > of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that > behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain > ways. I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures. Yes, Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but they would be in agreement that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM, and just as much not a ??thing?? ?to RambaM as to RambaN. The disagreement would be whether Hashem at Creation set up intermediary steps ?in creating the world?s components and their behaviors. According to both of them, at the end of the Creation period Hashem established what the normal behaviors (patterns) would thereon be, and up to then the nature of the world was not stabilized. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but both agree that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. RambaM cites Chazal that ?Hashem at Creation also imbued in the things of the world the potential for aberrant behaviors ??(miracles) to be triggered when Hashem so decrees. I do not see RambaN disagreeing, but even if he does, I do not see framing it in terms of a dispute over whether nature is a ??thing.?? It would be a dispute over whether the miraculous natures were imbued at Creation or first initiated at their enactment, and in view of the Chazal cited by RambaM, RambaN would have some explaining ?to do. And of course, although the Rambam strongly objects to the idea that Hashem is constantly recreating the world, he also famously states that Hashem is constantly maintaining it, and that if He would remove His maintenance, the world would cease to exist. ? And if one insists on inferring from RambaM?s words an issue of Nature being considered a ????thing??, as opposed to a mere normal pattern of behavior, consider this quote:? http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=38545&st=&pgnum=14&hilite? The One Who created it [the world] made its general properties as a kiyum gadol. ??...This is what it means when it says, ??I know that all that G-d will make, IT will be ?forever.??...The yesodos ... all these are kayamim l-olom. It is impossible to add upon or take away from them, for it says, ??And G-d MADE [things] so that [people] will be in awe before Him, for ...these [things] stand forever. The above are the words of RambaN, in his Drasha on Kohelles. One could argue therefrom that he considers the general properties of the world as ??things?? that are permanent. Or not. > To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. To the Rambam, as well. > > : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to > : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. > Especially > : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. > > You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel > hapo'el, but still think you can reach what the rishonim are talking > about? No. You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? Zvi Lampel -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban Drasha on Kohelles.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 500027 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 25 17:29:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:29:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the Destruction of Sodom? Message-ID: <20181126012932.GA7767@aishdas.org> See https://www.sciencenews.org/article/exploding-meteor-may-have-wiped-out-ancient-dead-sea-communities or . I am including just a teaser. I intentionally ended with the note that the researcher works at a Xian university, as that does speak toward objectivity. We'll see what peer review says of the evidence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Science News Archaeologists at a site in what's now Jordan have found evidence of a cosmic calamity An exploding meteor may have wiped out ancient Dead Sea communities By Bruce Bower 10:00am, November 20, 2018 Preliminary evidence indicates that a low-altitude meteor explosion around 3,700 years ago destroyed cities, villages and farmland north of the Dead Sea (shown in the background above) rendering the region uninhabitable for 600 to 700 years. DENVER -- A superheated blast from the skies obliterated cities and farming settlements north of the Dead Sea around 3,700 years ago, preliminary findings suggest. Radiocarbon dating and unearthed minerals that instantly crystallized at high temperatures indicate that a massive airburst caused by a meteor that exploded in the atmosphere instantaneously destroyed civilization in a 25-kilometer-wide circular plain called Middle Ghor, said archaeologist Phillip Silvia. The event also pushed a bubbling brine of Dead Sea salts over once-fertile farm land, Silvia and his colleagues suspect. People did not return to the region for 600 to 700 years, said Silvia, of Trinity Southwest University in Albuquerque. He reported these findings at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research on November 17... From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:49:35 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:49:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Weight of a Shekel Message-ID: <20181126204934.GA12575@aishdas.org> No, they didn't find a sheqel, they found something just as good -- a beqa from bayis rishon, as in machatzis hasheqel "beqa lagulgoles". Just multiply by 2 to get a sheqel haqodesh. (Ie a beqa is a plain old sheqel.) (There apparently weren't 1/2 sheqel coins during basyis rishon.) See or https://www.timesofisrael.com/straight-from-the-bible-tiny-first-temple-stone-weight-unearthed-in-jerusalem/ The Times of Israel Straight from the Bible: Tiny First Temple stone weight unearthed in Jerusalem By Amanda Borschel-Dan 21 November 2018, 12:57 pm Volunteer at City of David sifting project finds rare `beka' measure, used by pilgrims paying half-shekel tax before ascending to Temple Mount, in dirt from dig near Western Wall [Picture of weight, bearing the word beqa in kesav Ivri in mirror writing. The caption reads:] A First Temple period weight measure called a 'beka' was unearthed in a City of David excavation in the Davidson Archaeological Park and discovered in the wet sifting project in Jerusalem's Tsurim Valley. (Eliyahu Yanai, City of David) An extremely rare, minuscule biblical stone weight inscribed in ancient Hebrew script with the word "beka" was discovered in rubble taken from excavations at the foundations of the Western Wall. Only a handful of similar stone beka weights have been unearthed in Jerusalem, said archaeologist Eli Shukron... Unlike several hundred years later, during this era, there was no half-shekel coin. Pilgrims brought the equivalent weight, a beka, in silver to pay their tax, which would have been measured out on scales in the very spot under the Temple Mount where the tiny stone weight was unearthed. Shukron said in a press release, "When the half-shekel tax was brought to the Temple during the First Temple period, there were no coins, so they used silver ingots. In order to calculate the weight of these silver pieces they would put them on one side of the scales and on the other side they placed the Beka weight. The Beka was equivalent to the half-shekel, which every person from the age of 20 years and up was required to bring to the Temple." According to the release, the biblical shekel weighed 11.33 grams.... To give you an idea of where that stands halachically, the Rambam's (H' Sheqalim 1:2) 384 se'or. A barleycorn is 0.044 and 0.05 gm, so the Rambam's sheqel would be at least 16.9 gm. Rashi (Shemos 21:32) says that a sheqel is half of a the ounce used in Cologne. Which today we would call .5 troy oz, or 15.55gm. The CI holds it's .51 troy oz (15.86 gm). Once again, the evidence about shiurim from Har haBayis is below even the Rambam's shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:26:21 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:26:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly :> from G-d. : Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or : uses intermediaries. Except that he calls it a neis. It can't both be Divine Intervention AND left to metaphysical mechanics. I mentioned that RDBerger et all never go around back to the first Rambans they discuss to explain what they do mean after all. He does deny teva in the famous comment at the end of parashahs Bo (13:16) (where he refers you back to comments on Beresishis 17:1 and Shemos 6:2). For that matter, he even denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. We have to close the circle somehow. Teva = nisim nistarim. Nistar through allowing patterns, minhago shel olam. ... :> Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern :> of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that :> behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain :> ways. : : I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that : it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow : apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the : behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". (I think this description of the Ramban is the belief most of us leave yeshiva day school with.) : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. Physics does not inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His Action to be hidden by routine. : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim in the usual sense. ... :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : : To the Rambam, as well. To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. To the Ramban, a person who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from Him as needed. Tir'u baTov! -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 llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 27 06:18:44 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:18:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why Didn't The Brothers Tell Yaakov "Yosef is alive"? Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 37:35 35 All his sons and daughters arose to console him, but he refused to accept consolation. He said: I shall go to my grave, mourning for my son. Thus his father wept for him. (?His daughters? probably refers to his daughters-inlaw.) All of them ?arose? to console him. They did not ?go? or ?come?; they ?arose? to console him. ?To arise? in order to perform an act implies that the act is born of resolution, an act one must bring oneself to perform. Until this point, they themselves were immersed in grief. No one feels so much grief as do those who must console a mourner. To see one?s aged father inconsolable, viewing every cheerful thought as a sin, would move even a heartless scoundrel to agonized remorse. He would be too distraught to offer consolation, because he would be in need of consolation himself. But why didn?t any of them attempt to sprinkle soothing balm upon the wound? Why didn?t they reveal to him: ?Yosef is alive!?? The answer: because that would have been the greatest cruelty of all. In the minds of parents, a child who was torn by wild beasts is never lost, but a child who is wicked is worse than lost. Therefore, he who would not aggravate the father?s grief a thousandfold would have to remain silent until the day when Yosef would return and the joy of the reunion would mitigate in the father?s mind even the crime that had been committed by his other sons. Had they told Ya?akov at that time the truth about what had been done to Yosef, Ya?akov would have felt as though he had lost not only one son, but ten sons at one time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 06:39:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gradations of Lifnim miShuras haDin Message-ID: <20181128143951.GA12638@aishdas.org> Surprisingly, not a subject I've thought about before. Apparently, there are different kind of lifnim mishuras hadin callings. See Arukh haShulchan CM 222:8. The SA (se'if 2) talks about the case where someone buys something from one of 5 people, doesn't recall which, and each of them are tov'im for payment. The money is held in escroe by BD until the claimants come to agreement or Eliyahu arrives and sorts it out. And if he is a chassid, he should pay each of them, kedei latzeis yedei Shamayim. The AhS adds: And a chassid adif miyarei Shamayim (YS) because a YS does not want to be mevater his own property in a business matter, and a Chassid is mevater. (Shabbos 120b). Presumably a YS is the person concerned latzeis yedei Shamayim (or else I can't understand the AhS). And this goes on to the case of the yoreish of one of the potential sellers, claiming he would be patur even LYS (Sha"kh, Ramban, Ritva.) Whereas the Qetzos says that while he is patur even LYS, chassid, ra'ui lo la'asos kein mimidas chassidus. So, there seems to be two kinds of lifnim mishuras hadin involved here, and there is a nafqa mina lemaaseh: the YS who is concerned LYS, and the chassid who is pursuing his midas chassidus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 11:48:46 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:48:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Baalus and Chameitz (was: help with 2 sugyot) Message-ID: <20181128194846.GA21056@aishdas.org> On 1 May 2013 (v23n74 ) I replied to a question by RAM with (in part): > But I think the key here is the word "property". I suggested in the past > that there is no such thing in halakhah. (With a probable exception of bal > yeira'eh bal yeimatzei.) There is baalus, but that's a different concept. > Returning to bal yeira'eh as an example... A son does not inherit chameitz > from his father who dies while owning it on Pesach. The issuer hanaah > means a lack of baalus. Even though it's the father's in the sense of > being chameitz she'avar alav haPesach (for the part of Pesach the father > was alive to own it). > As is implied in what RAM writes, baalus is more like custodianship than > what we think of when we hear "property". Which is born out in the word > "baalus" as well. Baalus revolves around control and responsibility, > not an abstract principle of how the world is divided up among people. > My previous thoughts on baalus and qinyan, as shaped by prior conversations > here, are at . Well, Arukh haShulchan Yomi adds another data point -- CM 245:10. Someone gives another a gift and the recipient uses a language of bitul (bitul, mevatel, mevuteles hi, tivateil, etc..) to reject the gift after it reached him, if it's metaltelin, the item is hefqer. The AhS notes the connection to bitul chomeitz that renders it hefqeir. However, he says this is no raayah because chameitz on Pesach isn't in his reshus, it's only made "ke'ilu hi birshuso" by bal yeira'eh. And that's why gilui daata is enough to get the chameitz out of his reshus. But (citing the Ran, beginning of Pesachim), something that is mamash his is different. The AhS concludes that bitul only makes the gift hefqer because it's a gift, but if it were actually his nekhasim, it wouldn't be sufficient. (Now that I wrote all that, I seem to recall someone did along the years mention that bitul chameitz only works because we're talking about quasi-baalus, and not real baalus. But I invested too much to what to skip sending this email now. And besides, I added another maqor.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 28 21:29:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 05:29:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. Message-ID: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to both monetary and spiritual liabilities. I was wondering, according to those who said you can waive the spiritual liability, whether that would also work retroactively (e.g. would somebody escape lashes for less than a penny's worth of damage -if the aggrieved party waived the spiritual damages after the fact of the hit) 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 Nov 30 10:19:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links Message-ID: <20181130181913.GA25124@aishdas.org> Einstein and G-d: http://nautil.us/blog/how-einstein-reconciled-religion-to-science Eistein said things about G-d that appear to contradict -- he both speaks of the Designer of existence and belittles the G-d of religion. Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's -- not emunah in a Borei but our standards, but far from atheism in their self-perception. --- Stephen Colbert explains his faith to Dr Neil de Grasse Tyson https://www.facebook.com/michael.bernstein.86/videos/10100134331341237/ He says that his faith doesn't come from a place of evidence, it comes from gratitude. Until they can explain why we exist rather than not exist, we need some basket to put that gratitude in. A little too Gcd of the Gaps. He could have made the same point using a more Non-overlapping Magesteria approach. IOW, he shouldn't be talking about belief until Dr Tyson and others in his profession can explain why we exist. Rather, he should point out they can't -- "why we exist?" isn't even a scientific question. Science doesn't cover all of human experience. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 18:36:04 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 21:36:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:26 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> RMB : This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > :> from G-d. > > : ZL: Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the > : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas > : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at > : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or > : uses intermediaries. > > RMB: Except that he calls it a neis.... ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' from Hashem than RambaM did. denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: > From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, > all our things and everything that happens to us is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago shel olom. It can't both be Divine Intervention > AND left to metaphysical mechanics. > Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine intervention manipulates but does not undo. The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force .'' > And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits > sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." > > Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. > We have to close the circle somehow. > ... According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". ZL: You are basing a lot on the Ramban using the expression ''hakol begeiras Elyon.'' But that expression, as well as ''neis,'' is no indication of disagreeing with the idea of Hashem intervening and conducting a neis nistar working through intermediaries to manipulate but not undo minhago shel olom. Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim has a chapter on this. And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own through the control of the angels over the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force . And behold the control was /from the time of their coming into being until forever more, *a gezeyras Elyon* [another girsa is Elyonim] that He placed in them/.'' The correct translation of ''gezeyras elyon[im] may even be ''a gezeyra about the upper world(s)/beings/forces,'' with elyon not being a reference to Hashem, just as it obviously is not in the first sentence of this passage. The gezeyas Elyon is what He placed into the forces that produce nature, the minhago shel olom. In the passage where Ramban declares that all that occurs to us is neis and not minhago shel olom or teva, he is contrasting our belief that Hashem, through neis nistar, manipulates minhago shel olom according to our deeds, with that of those who hold that nature runs mechanically with no connection to human behavior. Realizing this answers all that you proceeded to write: > > ...ZL: > : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem > : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... > > RMB: You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. ZL: I cited his repeated explanation of vayehi chein, and now his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12. RMB: [Ramban holds, contra RambaM, that] Physics does not > inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His > Action to be hidden by routine. > > ZL: : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that > : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and > : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of > : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. > > RMB: But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras > Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim > are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? > ZL: This is again your unwarranted inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras Elyon. > > ZL: : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you > : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a > : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much > : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... > > RMB: Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other > says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim > in the usual sense. > > ZL: This is again your inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras > Elyon, which I showed is incorrect. Rambam speaks in terms of Seichel > HaPoel setting up the world's machinery of spheres that influence matters > on earth. Ramban speaks in terms of Hashem creating influencing spheres > controlled by angels. Ramban considers Nature no less an ''it'' than > Rambam. Rambam considers Nature no more an ''it'' than Ramban. > > ... > RMB: :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. > : > ZL: : To the Rambam, as well. > > RMB: To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah > necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. > And RambaN (Devarim 18:13) speaks of Hashem redirecting the normal course of the spheres to act in favor of those who draw close to Him through their avodah. (In fact, Rambam in Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end], too, puts it terms of avodah: "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". According to both, Hashem intervenes to manipulate the machinery of minhago shel olom based upon man's closeness to him. > ZL: : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without > : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? > > RMB: The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is > saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, > he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. > > Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is > hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. ZL: I'll concede that point, although I'm still left with the question that the Rambam refers to minhago shel olom oneshim, too, as the greatest of nissim nistarim. How is abandonment to nature a neis? And he also refers to, for example, the Egyptians being punished for volunteering to fulfill the role of persecutors foretold of in the bris bein habesarim. The plagues were not a mere abandonment to nature... Tsaruch iyun.... > To the Ramban, a person > who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from > Him as needed. > ZL: That's an interesting twist on how to look at oneshim as a chessed. > > Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/03/18, 8:45:33 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban on astrology Devarim 18, 9-13.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2384560 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 4 09:31:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:31:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181204173107.GC16262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 09:36:04PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the :> : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas :> : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at :> : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or :> : uses intermediaries. :> RMB: : Except that he calls it a neis.... : So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar.... Different "it". The Ramban calls everything a neis. The fact that that doesn't imply what you would think if you only looked at those 2 comments doesn't change the fact that to the Ramban, teva is a neis. So: The Rambam acknowledges sekhar va'onesh via neis nistar, for those who earn such HP. (Hashgachah = both sekhar va'onesh.) And yet normal teva is the action of the Seikhel haPo'al, a metaphysical automaton "preprogrammed" by the Borei. The Ramban holds that all of teva is neis nistar, whether it's hashgachah (leshitaso: hashgachah = sekhar), onesh, or minhago shel olam. Again, but in significantly different words: To the Rambam, teva follows minhago shel olam because the Seikha haPo'al has a single mission and lack bechirah. According to the Ramban, teva is a word that means the subset of Divine Action that follows minhago shel olam rather than being selected by HP. I believe you agree that rishonim understand the Rambam's position on teva and the Seikhal haPo'al the way I explained it. I am not clear how you can insist they got it wrong. : ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, : > all our things and everything that happens to us : is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the : manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or : non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day : behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and : everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago : shel olom. Right, but that's not HP. According to both Rambam and the Ramban, not everything that happens to every person is HP. And yet they are all neis. You are also incorrectly deducing from the Rambam's talking about that whih happens to us that he means to exclude things that don't impact human life, such as the growth of a tree in the middle of the Amazon where it possibly effects no one. However, he is saying the Torah is founded on knowing how to view what happens to me personally. Not abstract knowledge about how the world works. That tree in the Amazon isn't on topic. ... : ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling : it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' : from Hashem than RambaM did. Even before we get to our point, not really. According to the Rambam, sekhar is a neis nistar. Onesh is almost always abandonment to teva. (Similarly, to the Rambam on Cheileq, gehenom is kareis is a lack of olam haba, and not suffering in olam haba.) Suffering as onesh is usually just what happens to a human being trying to fight what we would call today the law of increasing entropy. (It's easier to break things than make them.) On rare occasions, there is a Makas Bekhoros, but those are nissim geluyim. After all, leshitas haRambam, sin causes a lack of knowledge of the Borei, and thus a disconnection from Him, and thus a lack of hashpa'ah. HP itself is causal, leshitaso. Just as nevu'ah is causal, and it take a neis for Hashem to hide information from a navi who has enough yedi'ah to be connected up to be able to "look" for it. So, they disagree about whether onesh is HP / neis, even before we get started with our dispute. (Something also mentioned in the shiur from Gush I pointed you to.) :> It can't both be Divine Intervention :> AND left to metaphysical mechanics. : Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem : created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar : v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In : contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine : intervention manipulates but does not undo. And to repeat myself, you're nmistaken. The Rambam has a delegate Hashem gave nature to, and when there is a break from minhago shel olam, Hashem (via mal'akhim, beings higher than the Seikhel haPoal) is intervening. The Ramban does not have such a delegate. When there is a break from minhago shel olam, it's because someone earned Hashem making another kind of decision; another priority rose to the top in (kevayakhol) how He Chooses what to Do. Your reasserting otherwise still doesn't explain why you feel the Abarbanel and Narbonni got him wrong about this idea that a separate seikhel was created to do teva, that just runs minhago shel olam. And in fact, further down you stop denying this and instead argue from the Ramban in Devarim that the Ramban also has such sikhliim. I am not clear where exactly you stand. : The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm : of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each : ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago : shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. Runs like a machine, ie following a minhag. Whereas the Rambam gives it an actual metaphysical machine. : To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing : astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created : the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the : spheres. You are literally quoting a Ramban that says that even though there are kokhavim, mazalos, mal'akhim and sarim which has a nefesh, one cannot worship them or use astrology to tell the future (kesoa'avos hagoyim haheim) because they're only responding to His Will. A navi, who is looking at His Will, can know the future. : ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim : controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and : constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the : stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force : .'' Manhig = controller? : And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that : very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own : through the control of the angels over the spheres. Not on its own. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 04:19:47 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 07:19:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 > From: Micha Berger > > Einstein and G-d: > > ...Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's He said so explicitly ''I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... '' New Times, April 25, 1929, in answer to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/04/18, 7:16:09 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Tue Dec 4 08:24:16 2018 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 18:24:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Tuesday evening) begin Prayer for Rain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Tuesday evening), December 4, 2018, corresponding to the evening of 27 Kislev, 5779, the third night of Chanukka. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: https://www.lookstein.org/professional-dev/veten-tal-u-matar/ (Thanks to Russell Levy for suggesting the article.) In unrelated news, here's what keeps me busy: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/ Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky Post-doctoral Fellow Department of Mathematics Ariel University Ariel 4070000, ISRAEL ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Tue Dec 4 11:25:15 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One clear difference between the Rambam and the Ramban is the value of miracles as evidence; see H. Yesodei HaTorah 8:1 vs. Toras HaShem Temimah Ed. Chavel pp. 146, 150, 152, etc. I think the explanation is hinted at in the Ramban in Shoftim you cited. The Rambam holds that miracles are ad hoc, but the Ramban holds that miracles also follow laws and those laws echo creation. David Riceman Sent from my iPad From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 6 05:32:53 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 13:32:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] seuda shlishit Message-ID: <1c08882303fd4627b3659b0785fb9331@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> It is certainly preferable to either eat bread or stop eating before shekia (or close to it - beyond our present scope). If you partake in a full meal but refrain from bread for a certain reason, leniency has strong grounds. If you are picking at food according to your mood, and even more so if you previously fulfilled seuda shlishit, it is difficult to allow eating as night approaches. (Me- Is this generally followed?) 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 Thu Dec 6 14:45:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:45:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Havdalah or Menorah on Motzai Shabbos Which comes first? Message-ID: Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos - Chanuka? Not a recent question, this situation of competing halachic principles has been the basis of the centuries-old debate regarding which mitzvah has priority and should therefore be performed first. In other words, on Motzai Shabbos Chanuka this annual halachic dispute, simmering since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up... Please see https://goo.gl/oV2gpg YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 7 11:21:41 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 19:21:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: Q. I will be traveling to New York from my home in New Jersey for a Chanukah party at my parents? house and won?t be returning home until late at night. I have the following options: I can light at home at 4:00 PM (which is before sunset); I can appoint an agent (shliach) to light in my house for me at the proper time; I can light at my parents? house; or I can light upon returning home late at night when there are no longer any passersby. What should I do? A. The Mechaber rules that if one will not be able to light the Chanukah candles at the prescribed time, he may light them any time after Plag HaMincha (Shulchan Aruch OC 672:1). Plag HaMincha in the winter is approximately an hour before sunset. However, if one must leave immediately thereafter, it may not be advisable to leave candles unattended. The possibility of using an agent is questionable, since Mishnah Berurah (675:9) rules that when an agent lights for him, the person must stand next to the agent and hear him recite the brachos; obviously, this is not feasible in this case. The third possibility, lighting at one?s parents? home, is not acceptable. One must light where he lives (i.e. the place where he eats and sleeps on a regular basis). Since he does not live in his parent?s home but is merely eating a meal there, he may not light there. One should follow the fourth option and light upon returning home. As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. Therefore, one may light even if it is late and there will be no passersby to see the menorah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 8 17:32:58 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 20:32:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49e62b3e-cb2d-9d77-dbff-c94f400def1e@sero.name> > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit > primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising it, if not to the passersby? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 18:33:18 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:33:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: . Someone quoted the OU's Halacha Yomis: > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. R' Zev Sero asked: > What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising > it, if not to the passersby? I don't think the OU meant to suggest that one isn't yotzay if his family doesn't see the neros. When danger caused us to move the menorah indoors, *everyone* lit indoors. No exceptions were made for those who live alone. It seems clear to me that one is yotzay even if he is the only one to see them lit. Come to think of it, one is yotzay Pirsumei Nisa if no one hears him read the Megilla, or if no one sees him drinking Arba Kosos. Why should Ner Chanuka be different? It is true that the Mishne Berura 672:11 says that if everyone at home is already asleep, then he must either wake someone or light without the bracha. But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants to act like that, we don't stop him." Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 12 21:41:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:41:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music and literature: As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the better strategy? 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 Dec 12 21:44:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? 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 Dec 15 19:22:45 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 22:22:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: <4EBAA25A-8790-4673-AAFF-7E2AC74B5C9A@cox.net> With an extremely unusual exception, all professionals will tell you that the first time your husband assaults you must be the last time. Furthermore the law is clear and unequivocal: Any incidence of a domestic crime must be dealt with by arresting the guilty party, be it husband or wife. I can tell you that any call we get involving a domestic always results in an arrest. Dina D'Malchusa Dina This is the law and we are mandated to follow it. I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve your spouse. Mechila or no mechila, the consequences are serious and the law must be followed. Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 16 11:13:33 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot Message-ID: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of chutz l'aretz. Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? Ben From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 16 12:56:05 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 15:56:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? First thought, just to help the ball rolling. Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? So, there are people actually eating challah in the Rambam's world. Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both being deOraisa. (In particular, it can be taken retroactively; you can eat before hafrashah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Dec 17 08:28:25 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:28:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Asara b'Teves Message-ID: The message of this commemoration is that after the destruction, we must trace its sources and mark its stages; we must look backwards to events that are not earth-shattering and perceive how the seeds of the destruction on the Ninth of Av were planted on the Tenth of Teves. The more we study history, the more we learn that we should not concentrate only on the final act itself, but also on all the stages that led up to it. This also applies to the Holocaust which is probably the worst tragedy in Jewish history. Along these lines we also recite Kaddish on the 10th of Tevet for all those whose date of death is unknown, who perished in the Holocaust. Apparently, the tenth of Teves is "the Day of God" about which many prophets spoke ? the tenth day of the tenth month. (The 10th of Teves is the only fast day that can fall on a Friday). The number ten in kabala is related to the sefira of malkhut, and therefore, the very essence of the day is appropriate to the theme of God's kingship. Chazal teach that at midnight a north wind would blow, rousing King David from his sleep to serve his Creator. It is in the middle of the night, specifically in the depths of the darkest part of the night, that the sovereignty of Israel awakens, and the kingship of God is revealed in the world.May the Kingship of the Almighty finally rule all mankind thus fulfilling the vision of the prophets: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall men learn war anymore; for all men, both great and small shall know the Lord.? Amen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 17 09:09:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:09:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 16/12/18 3:56 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that > : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? > > First thought, just to help the ball rolling. > > Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. I assume Sefardim also, though I don't know this for certain. But the SA certainly says to do so, and only the Rema says the minhag is not to. > They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem > with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump > actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? AFAIK it's got nothing to do with chinuch; the reason it's given to ketanim rather than gedolim is because they have never experienced tum'ah that comes from their own bodies. It can also be given to an adult cohen who has been to the mikveh. The Rema says this is not our minhag because since it's not eaten in EY there is no need for it to be eaten in chu"l. Other acharonim suggest that it's because we have no cohanim meyuchasim, so we're not even certain this child is a cohen in the first place, or because we're worried that the child won't be careful with it and it'll get into people's food, or just that if it's not burned immediately it will somehow find its way to someone who shouldn't eat it. > Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both > being deOraisa. Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan. (Nowadays even chalah of EY is midrabanan, but it has an ikkar min hatorah, whereas in chu"l it's entirely midrabanan.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:25:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:25:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181217172541.GA5532@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:09:38PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both : >being deOraisa. : Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan... Sorry, chalah of crops made from chu"l that were brought into EY are indeed deOraisa, and yes those aforementioned qulos still apply. (Similarly, challah from Israeli grain that was needed in chu"l is only chayav miderabbanan.) 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:14:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181217171454.GA25337@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:33:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the : brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the : opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar : Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants : to act like that, we don't stop him." Going back to the SA (OC 677:3) the mechaber says that *yeish omerim* that if you light at home alone after others have lit there without you, you make the berakhos. Interestingly, the se'if opens "yeish omerim", it's the only opinion quoted. The Rama quote the Mordechai that this is because he is obligated to see the neiros, vekhein nohagim. Ateres Zeqeinim ad loc quotes the Maharash: veyeish cholqin. So, if you want to be machmir to light, (he calls it "rotzeh lahchamir") light without a berakhah. The Maharil says that once you light on your own, you showed you didn't want to be yotzei with the earlier lighting, so you weren't. And that's why it's not a berakhah levatalah. The picture I'm trying to show here is that the discussion about the berakhah appears to be because this is after someone else lit for the home. Not because you're alone. And, if I understand the Mordechai correctly, he appears to be saying that whether or not the purpose of the mitzvah is pirsumei nisah, the actual mitzvah includes just seeing the lights. Perhaps because even internalizing the neis I myself already know about intellectually qualifies as "pirsum". But that's not how R' Moshe discusses it. He simply says that pirsum isn't me'aqeiv. 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 09:05:16 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:05:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] lighting the menora Message-ID: As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. My impression is that most modern poskim certainly in EY disagree and that many/most light outdoors for the public -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 18 09:24:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:24:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Comedy -- is it good for the Jews? In-Reply-To: References: <49f57ed6-82ab-b6eb-2210-00930742efaa@sero.name> <20181211154507.GB6212@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181218172413.GB29597@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:02am EST, R Moshe Y. Gluck replied to me on Areivim in a conversation about a stand up comic at a venue that lost their hekhsher over it: : One can argue that comedy, in it of itself, is assur, independent of : subject matter because of Assur L'maalos Piv Schok B'Olam Hazeh (Berachos : 31a). This gemara makes an interesting contrast to the rather famous gemara (Taanis 22a) about Rabbi Beroqa Choza'ah and Elihahu haNavi in the marke of Bei Lefet. Elihahu points out two beduchei as among those there who would merit olam haba, eiuther because they chear up the depressed or bring peace to those arguing. Given the first "i nami" in Taanis, where's the chiluq to be drawn? Another problem I have understandign the gemara in Taanis. The market in question was full of Jews. (Another person Eliyahu pointed out was noted for not dressing like one, but turned out to be employed by the prison system and he protected the women in his jail.) And "kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq". So why are just these people being pointed out as being "bar alma de'asi"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:28:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:28:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. In-Reply-To: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182837.GA18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:29:12AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability : (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to : both monetary and spiritual liabilities... Does it work at all? You can be mochel nezeq when it's mamon, but corporeal? Wouldn't Shim'on be a rasha for lifting his hand to Re'uvein either way? Related: Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? 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 micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:34:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:34:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] culture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181219183447.GB18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:41:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music : and literature: :> As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even :> the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from :> the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness :> of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. : My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the : better strategy? It has to be slower, when you think you haven't yet assimilated culture and you're trying to hold the line, than when you consciously choose to have a strategy with regard to acculturation, and expect the line to move. One will only have unconscious motion, the other will have conscious change as well. So for the masses, it means less assimilation. Then we have to ask if cultural assumilation is a bad thing. Does Hashem not want us to sing our tefillos to the kosher elements of the sound of our era? Is there a Jewish aesthetic to begin with? Way deep wading in this issue. However, for the yechidim who realize it's going on and that everyone is fooling themselves.... I see a big OTD risk as cynicism is bound to creap in, as well as (including?) a loss of respect for any authority figures who are fooled or caught blindfolding others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:20:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:20:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? In-Reply-To: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182054.GA6255@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting : the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), : animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get : no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) This is the end of OC 1:1. (AhS Yomi for 4th. Yes, cycle 2 is starting in just 4+ months! The first Tur for the AhS to write on was CM, which is why you find the haqdamah there. So "beginning" was ambiguous. Or I'm just a nitpicker.) : Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is : it equivalent of free will? .... I took the se'if to mean that angels have no YhR and therefore lack free will. Animals have no *capacity for* knowledge, and therefore couldn't possibly have a YhT, and thus also no bechirah. Only people, caught in tention between YhR and (properly applied?) da'as have bechirah, and that's why only we get both reward and punishment. : The dogs being : rewarded for not barking? There is an interesting implication from the AhS that animals do get sekhar, and angels do get oneshim. Perhaps it makes sense even without presuming they have bechirah if we take a causal approach to sekhar va'onesh. The animal that does the right thing, even through no credit of its own, is still thereby a superior being than before. Especially if it is more likely to repeat behavior done once (or more likely to refrain if refrained once). And similarly in the reverse, for angels that fail. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Dec 19 22:03:14 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 01:03:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: >I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >your spouse. Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? From isaac at balb.in Wed Dec 19 22:57:07 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:57:07 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Re Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2CC046A4-B9E6-4853-A683-179A213256CC@balb.in> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu---theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively more authentic version of the next Baal HaMesora. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Dec 20 08:12:18 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:12:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You are asking a loaded question so I will have to answer it on a few layers. First of all, I?m not sure what YOU mean by a verbal assault. The legal definition of assault varies from state to state but generally: Simple assault is an attempt to do a serious bodily harm to another person, or actually committing an act to put another in fear of serious bodily injury. Simple assault is usually classified as a misdemeanor. So if by verbal assault, a husband or wife (without touching each other), puts the other in fear of being hurt, then it meets the criteria of a crime (misdemeanor) and in most states mandates an arrest. With that scenario, yes, I would say the same for a spouse who verbally assaults the other. What most lay people confuse assault with is a BATTERY which is any unlawful offensive physical contact with another person, with or without his or her consent. ... Unlike the crime of assault, battery requires that actual contact is made, while assault charges can be brought with only the threat of violence. Though it may seem extreme to say that you don?t deserve your spouse if you commit a simple assault or battery, our own sages have said that if your wife burns your food, you have every right to divorce her. I think it boils down to the specifics and whole picture of each case. I believe your question may have meant what if a spouse speaks disparagingly to his/her spouse. In other words, what if a husband demeans his wife and calls her stupid or ugly, etc. My feeling is that you are dealing with the tip of the iceberg and most likely you have a bad marriage and a dysfunctional relationship. > On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: > > >> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >> your spouse. > > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 20 12:31:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:31:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181220203131.GB27441@aishdas.org> On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: :> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who :> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve :> your spouse. : > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? Hezeq and onaas devarim are different issurim. But they both are forms of harm recognized by halakhah. (Maybe I mean all three are recognized: hezeq haguf and hezeq mamon are different things, with different dinim.) And if the ona'as devarim gets to the point of halvanas panim, it's compared to retzichah. BM 58b lumps OD and pinning a nickname on someone together with eishes ish as sins that cause gehennom to be permanent ("sheyordim ve'ein olim") and ein lo cheileq le'olam haba (59a). And of course, "noach lo le'adam shayapil es atzmo lekivshan ha'eish, be'al yalbin penei chaveiro." (Mar Zutra, BM 59a) Which is taking seriously, not exageration, in discussions of yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. So to ammend my first paragraph, verbal abuse is far MORE vilified by the din than hezeq. I would consider answering: lo kol shekein! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 20 21:43:37 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:43:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer Message-ID: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From a write-up on borer and peelers: "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] Me-1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex county, us, world...............) 2.Is a sieve a sophisticated fork??? 3.No doubt that minhag yisrael includes many who do it-it's just not clear to me how that developed (i.e a priori first principles seem to lead to prohibition) - perhaps a good example of mimetic tradition? 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:22:47 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:22:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: <> Indeed I am always bothered by those who claim that they are not influenced at all but outside culture. Even if not directly we are all influenced by outside forces. There is no such thing today as Jewish music since anything the leviim sang has been lost. Living in Israel sefardi music is much different than ashkenazi music simply because Arabic music is different than Hungarian music. Anyone who learns Rambam is influenced at some level by Greek philosophy. Read rishonim on the reasons for dina demalchuta and compare it to the old defenses of the rights of kings - just happen to be identical. Many rishonim were familar with secular philosophy and even the Ramah knew philosophy. In spite of appearances Chatam Sofer had a broad background and spoke German. All of this without referring to RAL who has a spirited defense of much (certainly not all) of modern literature and parts of modern culture. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:30:25 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:30:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports Message-ID: << Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? >> Certainly mechila works on some level. There are stories of RAL in his younger years playing basketball with the students. Once a student complained that it wasn;t fair because they could not block their rebbe. RAL answered that in playing ball not to treat him as a rebbe. Certainly we are talking about minor contact and not severe wounding Kibud Av ve- Em is a step beyond ordinary treatment of others especially causing a loss of blood. From what I have seen the standard psak is that a doctor should preferably not treat a parent for anything requiring incisions or blood. However, for anything serious that the child is better than others than certainly, he is the doctor of choice. I recall that RMF allows cosmetic surgery only foord "god reasons". This incliudes feeling embarrased by one's appearance and also improvements especially for women for shidduch persons. I assume he would not be happy with various facial "improvements" for senior citizens -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Thu Dec 20 17:33:08 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 12:33:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively better version of the next Baal HaMesora. From mcohen at touchlogic.com Fri Dec 21 06:48:04 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:48:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma Message-ID: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means increase. Therefore not 'blessed is the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever' (artscroll) but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his kingdom be increased forever. His source is olas tamid (which I don't have), and iyun tefilah (which I looked up and I cant find this mentioned) Is this the kavanah that you are all having when you say krias shma? mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:10:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:10:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <20181221151048.GA23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 09:48:04AM -0500, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: : R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means : increase. ... : but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his : kingdom be increased forever. I am vague enough on the translation of the English word "blessed" that translating "barukh" for "blessed" is trading one unknown for a bigger one. As for my own kavanah (when I stop to have one): May the public perception (or: reputation) of the significance (or: importance) of His rule-by-public-acclimation be increased eternally without stop. Explanation: Sheim is name, which would be how others perceive something. Hashem's sheim is thus how He seems to people, which could be reputation and/or perception. Kavod shares spelling with kaveid, heaviness. (We'll discuss livers some other time.) And thus we give honor to significant "weighty" matters. Like massive things, we don't trivially push them around. And so I think of kavod as honor more in terms of significant and important than glory. Ein melekh belo am -- unlike a mosheil, what makes a melekh a melekh is the acceptance of the governed. The Gra has a whole piece on Melekh vs Mosheil and "umosheil bagoyim", until the day when "vehayah Hashem leMelekh". "Malkhusekha malkhus kol olamim umemshaletekha bekhol dor vador." Notice in that last pasuq, malkhus is framed in terms of "kol olamim", and here it's "le'olam va'ed". Le'olam -- for as long as there's an olam. Va'ad -- note the shoresh of "ad", until the missing end. There is another kind of Eternity. Hashem Himself is lemaalah min hazman. Not eternal in the sense of existing for an infinite amount of time, but in the sense that the concept of time doesn't apply. However, His Sheim is a product of us relating to Him, and thus within time -- as long as there is an "am" for Hashem to be Melekh of. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Dec 21 07:35:02 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:35:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <892aea1f-7804-ca75-2a17-2b632b2d08f7@sero.name> On 21/12/18 9:48 am, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: > One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod > malchuso lolam vaaed > > How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. > > R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch > means increase. I don't think this is perush hamilim. It's an additional facet that can add to the value of kavana, but is not required. Another facet is that "baruch" can mean to extend, as in "hamavrich es hagefen", so a bracha represents bring the shefa from the higher worlds to this one. An important thought, but one who doesn't have it in mind, or is even entirely unaware of it, has still said shma properly. Also, sheim is not *just* how others see one; ones name is connected directly to ones essence, as we see from the fact that when someone has fainted we use their name to call them back. But it is mostly used for others, just as malchus is how one relates to others, i.e. dibbur, shechina, reflecting what is going on inside one to the outside world, and yet it remains one of the essential attributes of a personality, and thus it is also one of the sefiros which those attributes reflect. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:34:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:34:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer In-Reply-To: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181221153420.GB23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 05:43:37AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From a write-up on borer and peelers: : : > "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are : > "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] : : 1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex : county, us, world...............) I could understand why the peel normally being eaten might mitigate boreir, as there is no pesoles. But how does it change the status of the peeler? In any case, the AhS (OC 391:22, but the discussion starts at se'if 19 ) only talks about peeling lots of (harbeih) garlic or onions, where he accepts the fact that it is boreier, despite being confused about how it even caqn be borer. There is a clear gemara (Beitza 13b) that says that Ravs and Rav Chiyya's wives would peel barley for them on Shabbos. And the AhS wants to know why garlic or onion would be any different. He therefore concludes that the issur isn't peeling, but the separating of the peels once they're mixed into in the heap. He explains the BY's source Y-mi accordingly. I should point out that when I was a child, no one I knew identified peeling as a form of boreir. Seems it may have been beshitah, and not ignorance. The AhS also talks (se'if 9) about non-mixtures, items that are nir'im la'ayin, like clothes, keilim and books. I do not know what he means by keilim, picking out forks from a jumble in the drawer? I bring this up because this issue was also something I didn't hear of until YU. Seems to me boreir grew a lot when the MB became "poseiq acharon" for all y'all. (Minus Sepharadim, of course, who limit boreir to literal okhel, IIUC.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 10:14:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:14:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20181221181420.GA18815@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:33:08PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the : Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, : whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of : Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic : tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- : performing Masoretic acts and decisions... I am not sure we are correctly using the word "mimetic" when discussing the unconscious copying norms and aborbing the culture of such a small "community" as that of posqim. However, if I understand what you mean correctly, I wrote something similar on Torah Musincs, where I tried to nail down what RYBS and RHS mean by the term "Mesorah". Teasers, as they state my point without proving basis: The word "masorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. ... For regular pesak too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from texts. Kara veshanah velo shimeish talmid chacham, harei zeh am ha'aretz.... If he read scripture and studied law, but did not serve a talmid chacham, such a person is an am haaretz (an ignorant peasant). - Sotah 22a ... Similarly, a poseik needs to pick up that feel, and not only the formal rules. He needs the unstructured knowledge of halakhah. Consider this rather poetic description of how the Rav experienced his shiur, entering the dialog of Torah through the ages as he joins his students in the classroom. Notice how he winds up by discussing this experience as "masorah": ... ... In an article in Jewish Action, Rav Schachter provides his definition of the word. He opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. ... The Rav identifies masorah as the ineffable skill to think like a poseik. Masorah is a skill obtained from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in a culture of mimeticism. ... Without masorah, the poseik has no way of determining which solutions to new problems are in concert with the spirit of previous rulings. Halakhah is not frozen; it does not have inertia, but it does have momentum. Apprenticeship, training under a master, transmits the feel for where the halakhah has historically been taken. Following reasoning found in a minority ruling is appropriate only when one is motivated by the Torah's own principles. The person who speaks halakhah as a first language knows when an innovative change is within "poetic license", and when the result simply violates the Torah's "grammar." As R. Yochanan quotes in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah - the apprenticeship of Torah is greater than its study". :-)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 llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 21 11:29:00 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 19:29:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Is_it_forbidden_to_teach_Torah_to_one_w?= =?windows-1252?q?ho_has_not_said_birchas_ha=92Torah=3F?= Message-ID: I wonder how this applies to restaurants. How are they allowed to serve people who do not make brachas before eating? YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Is it forbidden to teach Torah to one who has not said birchas ha?Torah? A. In regards to birchos ha?nehenin (brachos recited on food), there is a concept that one is not permitted to give someone food if the recipient will not recite a bracha. Offering food to one who will not recite a bracha is a violation of ?lifnei iver lo sitain michshol? (enabling one to stumble) (See Shulchan Aruch OC 169:2). However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l (Minchas Shlomo 1:91) writes that this does not apply to teaching Torah to one who did not recite birchas ha?Torah. Birchas ha?Torah is a birchas ha?mitzvah. Though birchos ha?mitzvos are obligatory, we do not find that Chazal forbade the performance of a mitzvah if a bracha is not recited. He notes that not studying Torah (bitul Torah) is a more serious offense than omitting the bracha. If possible, one should instruct those who have come to learn Torah how to recite the bracha, but if this is not practical, one should teach them Torah in any event. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 17:26:16 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:26:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Angels and Requests Message-ID: . In the Friday night poem "Shalom Aleichem", we ask the mal'achim to give us a bracha. We've often mentioned here that some people avoid this poem because it is either similar to avoda zara, or perhaps might actually BE avoda zara. I call your attention to the morning's parsha, Bereshis 48:16, the pasuk "Hamal'ach hagoel osi." Yaakov Avinu refers to a particular mal'ach and asks that this mal'ach should give a bracha to Yosef's sons. At first glance, this seems to be very similar to Shalom Aleichem. How is this justifiable, in the view of those who consider Shalom Aleichem to be problematic? I came up with two possible answers, and I invite the chevra to critique them, and/or suggest other answers. 1) Perhaps the halachos of avoda zara were less restrictive in those pre-Sinai days, and making requests to a mal'ach was okay for Yaakov but not for us. I suppose this is possible, but the centrality of Monotheism to the avos, it would surprise me. 2) I note that in the immediately preceding pasuk, Yaakov addressed Hashem. If so, then maybe Yaakov was not asking the mal'ach directly for a bracha the way we do in Shalom Aleichem. Rather, he was speaking directly to Hashem, asking Hashem that the mal'ach should give the bracha. This would solve the problem of "Who was Yaakov praying to?", but not the problem of "Where do brachos come from?" If the mal'ach is capable of giving a bracha, that too smacks of avoda zara, doesn't it? All comments are welcome. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 03:08:38 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 06:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bircas Kohanim when when the Shaliach Tzibbur is a kohen Message-ID: . On Areivim, R' Sheldon Liberman asked: > I heard over Shabbos that in chutz l'aretz, during the chazzan's > repetition at shacharis, if the chazzan is a kohen, then during > bircas kohanim, there is an opinion that the tzibbur should > answer "Amein" rather than "Kein y'hi ratzon". > > Has anyone heard this? The critical words here are "there is an opinion". It seems reasonable that somewhere in a vast library of seforim, there might be a sefer that suggests such a thing. Whether anyone actually does this is another matter entirely. I don't remember ever hearing anyone actually do this. I'd even argue against it. It makes about as much sense as if one would answer "amen" during the third stanza of "Shalom Aleichem". In both cases we are asking for a bracha, but in neither case have we actually heard any bracha on which to answer "amen". (When we answer "kein yehi ratzon", it means "please give us that bracha" and not "I believe in that bracha which You gave".) Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 26 08:49:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:49:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shul Message-ID: Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points out. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 27 11:49:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:49:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Amoraic statements Message-ID: Anyone know of any writings on how to think about Amoraic statements that are not sourced but very basic (i.e., why weren't they recorded earlier)? Two quick examples: 1.) Shmuel - dina dmalchuta dina (the law of the land controls), 2.) Rav-Tisha achlu dagan vechad achal yerek-mitztarphin.(9 who ate grain and 1 who ate greens combine[for a zimmun of 10]} 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 Dec 27 11:50:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:50:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sukkah Yeshana Message-ID: <0ba366bf435347f8ac060c596a575ca0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The Mishna in Sukkah (9a) discusses Sukkah Yeshana which one would have thought meant an old sukkah (schach) yet the discussion in the gemara indicates that it is an issue of lishma (intent). Why didn't the Mishna use the language of lishma? The gemara then posits a pasuk as the source of Beit Shammai's position, then asks doesn't he need that pasuk for something else, and replies ein hachi name (yes) and so quotes another pasuk instead. What was the point of Ravina/Rav Ashi including the rejected pasuk as part of the record? 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 seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Dec 30 09:44:16 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:44:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, etc. Message-ID: > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on > Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me > Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. > Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points > out. That's not why they talk. They talk because they saw their parents or other adults talk. They learned that talking is perfectly acceptable. The fact that the Shul has not followed the Mishna Berura and appointed people to end the talking merely reinforces the talkers' understanding that talking is OK. It's like asking why people cheat on their taxes. They don't cheat because they're greedy. We're all greedy. But the tax-cheaters don't have a red line. I admit sometimes the davvening is too long for me, and I get restless. But I never talk. And bli neder I won't davven in a shul where there are talkers, even if it's the only shul in town. Ruins it for me. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 18:45:48 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 21:45:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine posted: > Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because > davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there > are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people > get restless. If there were people who can keep quiet during the weekday minyanim, and only talk on Shabbos, then I would consider it to be a reasonable explanation. But in my experience, the same people talk regardless. If someone talks during a weekday maariv, then shaving twenty minutes off of the Shabbos morning won't prevent his restlessness. The authors of the linked article suggested: > Not talking until the conclusion of Chazaras HaShatz, including > the time between when we finish our silent Amidah and we are > waiting for the chazzan, is doable, it is realistic, it is a > fair expectation of those attending and it is the minimum to be > respectful of our friends and neighbors. Sadly, IMO that's not doable, and not realistic. I'd like to think that I'd be satisfied if they'd be quiet merely from when we finish our silent Amidah until the chazan begins. THAT is a minimum for being respectful of our friends and neighbors. They don't even have to be silent for a noticeable improvement. Halevai they would hold it down to a whisper. (And it doesn't count as a whisper if they can be heard 20 feet away.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 03:22:36 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 06:22:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: I should have concluded my previous post with this: Despite my pessimistic tone, I praise those who are working towards a solution. I have seen many corrective attempts fail, but that doesn't mean there's no way to fix it. Talking in shul is a serious problem, and I apologize if my frustration made it sound otherwise. Akiva Miller From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Oct 3 08:32:16 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 11:32:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: <1db301d45b2e$43dda750$cb98f5f0$@com> Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz? (not sepharadim) I was surprised to see it done. Sources? Thanks, 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/ ======= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 2 22:30:47 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 01:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3e882718-3c29-80fa-6211-ff7172a97fba@sero.name> On 30/09/18 14:13, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. I think you meant the Ramban. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 23:18:08 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 09:18:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:23 AM Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. So > go figure out how /he/ understands the idea that 2 were not taught via > Moshe. > According to the Rambam, the first diber _is_ one of the 613, and this gemara is his proof text -- see Sefer Hamitzvot Mitzvot Ase #1. Assuming that "Rambam" is a typo for "Ramban", see his hassaga on the Sefer Hamitzvot. Ramban holds that the second diber includes two of the 613 (don't make idols; don't worship them). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Wed Oct 3 00:23:19 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:23:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:43:14 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine" > From Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra ... >> In 1921 the great bibliographer (and much more) Yitzchak Rivkind >> .... On Simchas Torah they would open the Aron Kodesh >> when saying Aleinu, both at night and during the day, and while singing >> the Niggun of Mussaf of Yom Kippur would bow on the floor exactly like >> we do on Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur. When he asked for the source of >> this Minhag he was told it comes from the Gra... Interesting. The Robshitse Rov had a similar practice, falling on his face during the hakofos. (It is reported that one year, after bowing during hakofos [the first time?], he commented that only he and his son Yaakov [of Melits] understand the secret. After Yom Tov, it became known that R' Yaakov too had participated in this rite.) (Another story tells of how the grandson of the Kosnitse Maggid, R' Elo'ozor, spoke lightly of this minhag [made fun?] to the Robshite Rov's son, R' Eliezer of Dzikhov, whereupon R' Eliezer protested vehemently, saying all his father's customs have a very high source. On his return, R' Elozor's wagon tipped and he was thrown out of his carriage, falling, as we do on Yom Kippur, on his face. He saw this as a retribution for having spoken lightly of the minhag.) From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Oct 3 09:16:33 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:16:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra Message-ID: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 01:17 PM 9/30/2018, R. Zalman Alpert wrote: >The kluiz of the GRaA in Vilna was essentially the only place in Vilna >and all of Lithuania that followed minhage HAgra to the kotzo shel yud >Chaim Grade a lost talmid of the Chazon Ish and a Vilna native mentions >this in his wonderful novels about shil life in Vilna > >Because the Jslm settlement in early 19th cen was started by disciples >of the GRAthe Rivlins,etc these minhogim becamr and remain the standard >for at least the yishuv hayoshen of Jslm and beyond that group > >And thats how we know these customs in realism rather than from seforim >The Litthuanian yrshivas did not follow these customs nor did kohol,and >certainly not the chassidim of Lithuania who after WwI played an impt >role in Jew rel life in greater lita including Vilna My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and are practiced by many there. Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the Torah? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 3 14:51:19 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 17:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For > example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the > Torah? Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim of the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 14:46:37 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:46:37 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >are practiced by many there. >Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >Torah? It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the original Minhag. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 3 15:32:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:32:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading : the Torah? While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does make a similar point. ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. 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 JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 3 15:42:28 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 22:42:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. > _______________________________________________ This is a description of the fact but not an explanation of why this was a halachically acceptable result (ie where is this exception to the minhag hamakom rule) Kt Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 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 Wed Oct 3 15:54:51 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <16705774-1a3c-c42c-0f78-317676dc6114@sero.name> On 03/10/18 17:46, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >> My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >> practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >> find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >> are practiced by many there. > >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >> Torah? > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. That is a different issue, and one that was once controversial and that one can still question. Here the issue is much simpler, because when Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 18:16:02 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:16:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> Message-ID: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. Because if there was, each returnee would have to adopt the Minhag Hamakom the moment he hit an inhabited city. In contrast, there were no religious Jews left in England after the expulsion, so the newcomers can (and should) follow their old minhagim. The same would presumably apply when Jews started coming back to Spain a few decades back, and unlike Moroccans in France a few decades before. But, as I wrote before, it seems that the Minhag is to follow whatever Minhagim you were used to, especially if you have enough landsmen to create a breakaway community. On October 3, 2018 2:51:19 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading >the >> Torah? > >Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim >of >the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they >now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those > >minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed >the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably >French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? > >-- >Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all >zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you >prosper >_______________________________________________ >Avodah mailing list >Avodah at lists.aishdas.org >http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 21:54:40 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 21:54:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 3, 2018 3:32:20 PM PDT, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. What does he hold about Sefardim moving to France or Germany (which had a continuity - Germany going back well, at least a thousand years and France, while it had a break, did have a religious Ashkenazi community before and after the war). On October 3, 2018 3:54:51 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >o Here the issue is much simpler, because when >Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local >minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in >England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed >them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, >there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to >adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 4 06:19:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:19:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. _______________________________________________ The gemara (Bava Metziah 83b) discusses what hours a worker gets paid for based on the Torah "standard." The gemara queries why not just find out what local practice is? The first answer is it's a case of a new city which was nkutai. Rashi defines nkutai as meaning its residents came from multiple other cities, with multiple other practices. Perhaps this is a model for minhag? New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care what we do? 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 Thu Oct 4 10:17:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:17:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181004171737.GA32625@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:19:57PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a : preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard : for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care : what we do? BM 83b is talking about norms for business, which is likely an entirely different use of the word "minhag" than in issur veheter. For example, when we say "minhag mevatel halakhah" in CM discussions, we are relying on the presumption that both parties would take compliance to local business norms for granted, and a deal can have any conditional both parties agree on. In this CM sense of minhag, there is no reason to assume that halakhah would have problems with other norms emerging, since they are based on the agreement of all parties. But that's a whole different topic than Ashk vs Seph differences in the other 3 Turim, which is where we started. That's minhag in the sense of: 1- Rgional pesaq when other regions hold differently (eg bet yosef meat); or 2- Extra-halachic accepted prohibitions or obligations (eg avoiding qitniyos). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 09:16:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:16:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: <20181003205226.GC17060@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181004161626.GF25881@aishdas.org> Moving this from Areivim. On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 4:28pm -0700, Rabbi Meir Rabi wrote on Areivim: : The Beis Hamikdash wasn't inclusive. More than that, (according to some : opinions) there were professions which weren't obligated to do Aliyah : LeRegel because they smelled bad and couldn't be Oleh Regel with everyone. The beraisa (Chullin 4a) says that dog fertilizer gatherers, tanners and copper smiths are "peturin min hare'iyah". The Rambam tells them get get cleaned up and go (Hil' Chagiga 2:2), the Mechaber (Kesef Mishnah ad loc) explaining that we hold like the Rabanan, not that beraisa. But even if we held like that beraisa that's whether they have a petur for not coming, not an issur to come. In fact, inclusivity might be the whole reason /why/ the Rabanan don't hold like the beraisa. But lo ra'isi eino ra'ayah, so to speak, so naniach someone else does take a harder line, what would that mean? Kehunah is not inclusive of all baalei mum. But attending... The BHMQ is inclusive on the basis of things not dependent on the person's own decisions. No one, not even a nakhri child of an eishes ish, is excluded by virtue of who he is. (In the nakhri's case, up to the soreg, but still, that's true of all nakhriim.) You're talking about someone excluded because of what they chose to do. (Again, given said "some opinions".) Admittedly, too many people lack options. But someone who really wants to be oleh regel who is still forced by circumstance to an unpleasant job would choose a different one. Or beg, if they value aliyah laregel more than the protection from sin offered by "yafeh salmud Torah im derekh eretz". My point is, it's a choice, and not the same kind of exclusion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call micha at aishdas.org life which is required to be exchanged for it, http://www.aishdas.org immediately or in the long run. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:46:34 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:46:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <1b84de96-ba9a-be08-b14f-3941c6ca49ec@sero.name> On 03/10/18 21:16, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the > Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. No, there was not. The First and Second Crusades utterly destroyed the communities that had survived the Roman and Arab occupations, and the communities that started resettling EY in the Ramban's day were all immigrants who brought their chu"l minhagim with them, including the minhagim of paskening like the Bavli, keeping two days of Rosh Hashana, and not benching lulav when the first day of Succos falls on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:51:23 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:51:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0f6cfe7e-6504-98a8-c784-c122f84a59ca@sero.name> On 03/10/18 18:32, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? > : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading > : the Torah? > > While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY > community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does > make a similar point. > > ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to > switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. > He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old > minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi > Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 4 12:10:49 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:10:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rabbi wrote: 'When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways.' Agreed. Yerushalayim didn't have continuity as we know via the Ramban finding less than a minyan there when he arrived, but Chevron AFAIK had continuity from Chazal to 1929. I think Teverya did too. The museum of the old yishuv in the Old City refers to the 'mustarvim' as one of the communities in 19th century Jlem, those who were culturally pretty Arab and claimed descent from the pre-crusades community. For more info this wikipaedia page: History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel is well footnoted. So if there's well documented continuous Jewish presence and even communities in EY throughout, how did the SA set minhagim in EY such that ROY held they were obligatory on new arrivals? What happened to pre-existing customs? Or is it that the disruption and wax and wane of communities over EY with continuous small scale aliya meant there was no such such thing as minhag hamakom? Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 14:48:15 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 17:48:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181004214815.GD14160@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:10:49PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not : countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume : such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? I think it has more to do with communication and transportation changes than a change in principle. The new metzi'us is that we're much more aware of what people five towns over are doing. On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 02:51:23PM -0400, Zev Sero replied to my post: : >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to : >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. : >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old : >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi : >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. : But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his : whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all : the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there : were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument : works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? Well, you might have a question about Edot haMizrach, but EY? Didn't you just write about how the Jewish settlement of EY in the 15th cent wasn't all that dense? But I don't think this is relevent, anyway. Let's say they were wrong to take their minhagim with them. Even if the change in minhag was wrong, the normal practice in EY did indeed change. Unlike the situation once that norm was lost and no new consistent minhag emerged (on all but a few issues). So, I could see ROY saying that right or wrong about its establishment, the SA's minhag still stands as the minhag hamaqom. OTOH, invoking the SA means that he is bringing a textual component to the establishment of minhag. IIRC, ROY frames it in terms of the fact that the SA was written in EY, not that the Mechaber got there due to one of the first large yishuv in centuries, nor the yishuv itself. So perhaps we need to know more about ROY's model of minhag before spending so much time on guesses like the one above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 20:13:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 23:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem Message-ID: On Areivim (subject line same as here), several people have bemoaned how difficult it is to use a wheelchair (and many other assistive devices) in the Old City in general, and the Kotel area in particular. In terms of absolute, quantifiable, objective fact, I can't imagine how anyone could dispute that. I am bringing the topic to Avodah in order to discuss what our feelings and attitudes should be towards this situation. Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I often remark that we are fortunate to live in a time when the technology has allowed us such efficient wheelchairs. Our economy has allowed us to make building codes that require ramps and such, which would have been laughably expensive just a few decades back. Ditto for "kneeling buses" and the like. But it seems to me that you don't need technology or wealth to realize that if the shul is built at a median altitude, it will be easier for *everyone*. And yet Chazal thought it is a better idea to make the shul look impressive. Surely I'm missing something here. Can someone please set me straight? Thanks Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 19:04:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 22:04:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim > on chol hamoed in chutz la?aretz? (not sepharadim) > I was surprised to see it done. > Sources? I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 21:10:16 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 00:10:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/18 15:10, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > > Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not > countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to > assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Perhaps the first post-Talmudic book on halacha was a booklet on the differences between minhag EY and minhag Bavel. So the concept of minhag EY goes back to at least the time of the geonim. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 05:01:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:01:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna?s instruction[1] and codified by the Shulchan Aruch,[2] world Jewry started reciting ?Gevuros Geshamim B?Tchiyas HaMeisim?, better known as the formulaic insert ?Mashiv HaRuach U?Morid HaGashem?, in the second bracha of Shemoneh Esrei. This addition, showcasing the Might of G-d by mentioning the fact that He is the only One who has the power and ability to make rain, is considered so imperative that one who forgets to insert it must repeat the whole Shemoneh Esrei.[3] As there are no vowels in the Gemara or Shulchan Aruch, an interesting question arises: what is the proper way to pronounce the Hebrew word for rain (???) in this sentence? Is it Ge shem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel; eh sound) or is it Ga shem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel; uh sound)? Although the word for rain is pronounced Ge shem when saying the word by itself, still, its proper pronunciation might be changed when part of a sentence. Contemporary halachic authorities used various rules of Hebrew Grammar (dikduk) to come up with the proper solution. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 5 05:28:54 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:28:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 8:01 AM >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 >> On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction... With all due respect for the many great g'dolim who weighed in on this issue and came up with explanations about what the proper pronunciation should be, they came late in the game, after grammarians had already started changing the pronunciation. The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 07:37:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 10:37:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:01:40PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 I have yet to see a discussion that starts at the beginning. Bemechilas kevod everyone who holds "gashem", and who am I to argue against the Gra, the Netziv, the CC, R' Aharon Kotler, R YS Elyashiv, or Rav Moshe? But this article gets closer, by mentioning Sepharadim and the Levushei Mordekhai. Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:28:54PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : they came late in the game, after grammarians had already : started changing the pronunciation. : The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the : rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, : Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be : no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. But this doesn't prove that our mesorah was necessarily that there was a significan pause after "umorid hagashem". Yes, the Teimanim say "Jafen" on wine, and yet still say "geshem" here with a segol. Their mesorah is that is is not a pause. But for Ashkenazim, those older manuscripts do not prove whether or not there is a pause, since the diqduq they used would have "geshem" either way. As for Nusach haAri, Lubavitch's Alter Rebbe liked R Wolf Heidenheim's (Ravah's) siddur and diqduq, so his Nusach Ari was one of the early adopters of these language innovations. Interestingly, this means that most Ashkneazim today are davening in a nusach that is primarily a haskalisher attempt to reconstruct an authentic nusach, that is based on some ahistorical assumptions of what "authentic" was, to boot. And R/Dr Mandel is the only person I know who unwound that shift from Mishaic to Biblical Hebrew across all of davening. Unless you're willing to take that drastic step ("sabe'einu mituvakh, vesamcheinu biyshu'asakh"), saying "geshem" when most of your Hebrew is Mishnaic could something different than it did in those manuscripts, depending if a pause was intended. And, depending on whether the phrase might even be an exception to the usual rules of diqduq. (See R Spitz's article.) We simply can't know. R' Spitz concludes: Postscript: This is just one of a number of places where the majority consensus of Poskim maintain that dikduk decides the proper reading of tefillos.[30] Although many Gedolim through the ages spoke about dikduk's importance,[31] unfortunately its study at present is much neglected. In the words of Rabbi Yisroel Reisman in his excellent book Pathways of the Prophets:[32] "The myth of the lack of importance of (at least) a minimal amount of knowledge of dikduk must be dispelled. This is an area where a small amount of time and effort go a long way. Let's do it!" But to some up this post, we also need to know *which* diqduq. To provide the footnotes for that last quote: [30] See at length Rabbi Yisroel Reisman's Pathways of the Prophets, "Rules of Dikduk" starting on pg. 312. [31] For example see the Rambam's Peirush HaMishnayos (Avos Ch. 2, 1), Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim 142, 1), Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah (Ch. 5, 3), Shu"t Chavos Yair (124), Shu"t Sheilas Ya'avetz (vol. 1, 10), and Bnei Yisaschar (Introduction to Igra D'Kallah and Mayon Ganim 13, 6), all cited in the aforementioned chapter. [32] Pathways of the Prophets (pg. 325). L'iluy Nishmas the Rosh HaYeshiva - Rav Chonoh Menachem Mendel ben R' Yechezkel Shraga, Rav Yaakov Yeshaya ben R' Boruch Yehuda, and l'zchus for Shira Yaffa bas Rochel Miriam and her children for a yeshua teikef u'miyad! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Fri Oct 5 07:14:32 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:14:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An interesting discussion on this is given here by Dr Shnayer Lehman https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm YUTorah Online Online study of the Jewish holidays, Parsha, Halakha and Talmud by Yeshiva University www.yutorah.org From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 5 04:54:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 07:54:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When Sefardi and Ashkenazim Meet Message-ID: <56.57.22391.E4157BB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Rabbi Eli Mansour discusses the convergence of Sefardi and Ashkenazi traditions in contemporary Israel. Please see the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgoo.gl%2FWT2Hjq&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C97625655127d4ae2115708d62aad6b61%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636743321668910329&sdata=qGd8srOfQuC0kDFzrWfAVXfNbcQiB%2BvvgPyGWe3HehQ%3D&reserved=0 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 04:45:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:45:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5310ADD1-3CFE-455E-A5FD-9847E3F075C7@sibson.com> > > I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. > > Akiva Miller > > > _______________________________________________ > But do they duchen at shacharit on yom tov? 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 Fri Oct 5 08:00:43 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:00:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> References: , <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 10:37 AM ... > Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal > form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs > "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, > or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei > Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). > The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because > they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And > Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. ... A slight correction to R Micha's post: as far as we can tell, Chazal Hebrew DID have pausal forms. But they were not based on trop, of course, nor even on on the end of a sentence. They are used consistently in a case of parellismus membrorum in L'shon Chazal, and I am pretty sure in some other situations as well, according to the evidence from the oldest mss. with vocalization, such as the famous Kaufmann ms. of the Mishnah. But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: ??? ???? ?????? ?????, ???? ?? ?? ??????? ...? ?????? ????? ???????? ??????, ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? [For those in digest text mode and therefore can't see the Hebrew, this quote begins "LaKeil Barukh, ne'imos..." -micha] To the best of my knowledge, all old nuskah'ot have "yittenu." Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 06:14:47 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 13:14:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3252f45264ff47778db42a4dcee99b7d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I---------------------------------- IMHO Thomas Kuhn?s thoughts on paradigm shift are applicable here. Western liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be (e.g. I might like to do the avodah but I?m not a cohain) So yes, it could really be (but I?m not qualified to say it is) 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 seinfeld at daasbooks.com Fri Oct 5 08:40:01 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:40:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: 7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY: 1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts scientific History, that?s not a kasheh on the Torah, it?s more like a sha?elah - ?Why did HKBH write this? What?s He teaching me here?? 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no significant debate about that. 3. We don?t know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek ? sounds a lot like the descriptions we have of the Big Bang. 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round. They really do look that way. So either HKBH made them looking old for some reason, or they really are old. A person can ignore the question and say, ?It?s enough for me just to believe,? but the Gemara (and plenty of Rishonim and Acharonim) says that we have an obligation to study Nature to the best of our ability. 6. There are plenty of things that the smartest scientists admit they don?t know. For instance, they think that right after the moment of creation (Big Bang), the entire universe inflated instantly, like someone blowing up a balloon. Just to make this clear. There are patterns in the universe that defy logical explanation. In order to explain these patterns, it has been proposed (and accepted by many but not all cosmologists) that from 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second until 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second after the Big Bang, the universe expanded at an exponential rate (in that short moment it got 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and then the expansion slowed down. They have good reasons for believing this theory. It helps explain some of the bizarre things that we see when we look through our telescopes, chiefly, the fact that the universe appears to be the same in all directions. Yet they have no idea what could have caused this inflation. Worse for them, the current rate of expansion has been proven to be accelerating, but again they have no idea what invisible energy source could be causing this. It would be far simpler to say, ?It looks the same in every direction because it was created at the current size; there was no Big Bang and no expansion and no inflation.? But wait, we see that it is indeed currently expanding. Doesn?t that prove the Big Bang? - Expansion doesn?t prove anything. It?s a fact that requires a theory to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously expand. - Maybe this bizarre things accelerating expansion that we see, along with hypothetical inflation, are just the artist?s signature on His artwork? For after all, the only thing that can cause acceleration is more energy. The best rational explanation for this invisible ?dark? energy is that Hashem continues to be mashpia on the world and wants us to know it, without being too obvious. But wait, we also know that the stars are zillions of miles away from us, and given the known speed of light, their starlight should have taken millions or even billions of years to reach us. Doesn?t that prove at least that the universe is mighty old? - No, it doesn?t: see #5 above. 7. Yet to constantly answer, ?Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, ?What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with ?Hashem does it? without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. So what?s the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, or was it just made to look that way? I don?t know, but I?m personally completely comfortable with either answer. Neither answer can (to my understanding) be proven nor disproven. I suspect they are both true. That, as my grandfather z??l would have said, is my 2-bits. Your critical feedback welcome. Good Shabbos Alexander Seinfeld jewishspirituality.net From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 08:25:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:25:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on Marriage Message-ID: The following are excerpts from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 1:28 28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. "????????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ????????????: 28 God blessed both of them, and He made both of them responsible for the fulfillment of mankind?s mission. ??????? refers to marriage, the union of the sexes for production of human fruit ? children. Just as the choice energies and saps of the tree become ?free? in its fruit as an independent germ (see above, v. 11), so the noblest traits of godliness and humaneness of the father and mother unite to produce an independent human germ. ?????? refers to the family. r'vah = to multiply. Begetting children is not sufficient in order for the human species to multiply. Even in the case of many species of animals, increase of the breed is dependent on care of the young; and in the case of the human species, such care is absolutely essential ? even if viewed only from a physical standpoint. A human child has no chance of survival at all, if his parents do not provide him with care from the moment of his birth and do not continually promote his bodily well-being and development. Not the birth, but the care is the true cause of human increase. But r'vah includes more than this. The parents are obligated to reproduce themselves through their children: They must recur in the image of their children; and the children are to resemble their parents ? not only physically, but spiritually and morally. The parents are to plant and nurture in their children the best of their spiritual and moral powers. In short, their duty is to form and educate their children spiritually and morally. Only then will they recur in the image of their children and fulfill the mitzvah of ?????? . ?????????? refers to property (see Commentary, v. 26). Man is commanded to master the earth and subdue it. His task is to acquire the products of the earth and to transform them, so that they become fit for his purposes. Acquisition of property is prerequisite for the tasks of home and society. Property serves as an instrument with which home and society achieve their aims. Thus, the acquisition of property becomes a moral duty. The mitzvah of ??????, however, is written here last, which implies a limitation: There is no moral value to property, unless it is devoted to home and society. It is a person?s duty to acquire material assets, in order to build a home and to further the society. He should not build a home and support the society in order increase his assets and his wealth. The mitzvah of ???????????? is given at once to both sexes; they are to collaborate in harmony so as to fulfill this mission of man. Nevertheless, before establishing his home, man must first acquire material assets, and this duty ? subduing the earth, so as to further man?s aims ? is primarily incumbent only upon the male. For this reason the duty of marriage and of establishing a home is assigned directly only to the man, and only to him is it given as an unconditional duty. To the woman it is given as a conditional duty; it applies to her, only when she joins her husband. (See Yevamos 65b.) These commands place the Divine imprint on every aspect of familyand communal life. The Torah does not recognize the compartmentalization of life into God-oriented or ?religious,? on the one hand, and profane, untouched by things Divine, on the other. God claims all of life for His service and for the fulfillment of man?s mission as adom. This applies, first and foremost, to family and communal life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 11:59:27 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:59:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <20181005185927.GB26105@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 02:46:37PM -0700, RMR wrote: : It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they : vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, : they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. : So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter : Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the : Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the : original Minhag. I think it's more that minhag hamaqom is about the community, not the geography. If so many new people move in that they overhwelm the old community, they also overwhelm the old minhag. However, when Edot haMizrach got to the US in the late 20th century, many of them moved into existing communities and neither drowned out the old minhag nor did they adopt it. I think they should have done the latter, since minhag avos is only a "thing" when there is no minhag hamaqom. (Except in places like Deal, NJ, which is predominantly Syrian) And for many minhagim, the existing community -- from Yekkes to Vizhnitzers -- did have a single practice. This gets me to an issue left unresolved in a previous discussion of minhag hamaqom: Does minhag hamaqom apply piecewise, or only when there are so many practices that are consistent that there is a general feeling of unity of pesaq. For example, we talk about there being a "minhag hamaqom" in EY about things like saying Shir shel Yom after Shacharis even when there is a Mussaf, or Hakafos after Hallel. But the list of things in which the vast majority of the observant communities of Israel agree upon is quite small. Heterogeneity is the norm. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 12:31:12 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:31:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99B66C72-E111-47AA-ABA5-8E2A753AE7A4@opengemara.org> On October 5, 2018 8:40:01 AM PDT, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: >7 things every Jew should know about Ma'aseh Bereishit, even if it was >not taught in BY: >1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras >Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts >scientific History, that's not a kasheh on the Torah, it's more like a >sha'elah -- "Why did HKBH write this? What's He teaching me here?" ... >4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the >descriptions we have of the Big Bang. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work -- according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). >7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit >facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, >"What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem >does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we >would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving >us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how >to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things >work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Oct 6 11:38:57 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 21:38:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:13 PM Mandel, Seth via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have > at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that > "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, > and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, > in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei gever" in birchot hashahar? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 15:42:10 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C9B4494-797A-437D-B042-3D7AAD5FEFBD@opengemara.org> 1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? 2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). 3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 7 05:56:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 08:56:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181007125626.GC4739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 06:22:12PM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they : also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla : for geshem. I think that's the usual. After all, in Tefillas Geshem we don't just continue the list "mashiv haruach umorid hageshem, mekhalkeil chaim bechesed..." The pause before "Livrakhah velo liqlalah" is less of a question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From isaac at balb.in Sun Oct 7 00:22:12 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 18:22:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I say Geshem (as per R' Soloveitchik et al) I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla for geshem. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sun Oct 7 12:30:33 2018 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:30:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] BDE Moras Shulamith Bechhofer Message-ID: Information from RYBG on facebook: Kevurah for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h,will be at Har HaMenuchos. My brother, Horav Yochanan Meir shlita sitting shiva for 2 days from Monday night after the kevura until Wednesday afternoon in Ramat Shlomo, number 37 Shtefenesht Street by the Schaefer family. Shiva for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h will be at my mother's apartment 146 Beach 9th Street, apartment 4D, Far Rockaway, New York. Beginning Monday morning, Shacharis at 7:30 am, Mincha and Maariv at 6:05 pm. Please try to come be menachem avel before 10:00 pm. I will be returning to Monsey for Mincha Gedola on Friday at 1:15 pm, Maariv Motzoei Shabbos an hour after shekiah, and Shacharis on Sunday morning at 7:30 am, at our house, 3 Zabriskie Terrace. Besuros Tovos. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Sun Oct 7 13:03:01 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 20:03:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message Message-ID: I thought Alexander Seinfeld?s post on this subject was very interesting. I would, however, make one small change. Instead of writing ?7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY,? I would say: 7 things I and some other Orthodox Jews believe about ....? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 01:34:52 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:34:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant past. For example, in the recent controversy over Judge Kavanaugh the following appeared in a world street journal article Christine Blasey Ford was believable and sincere when she told her story of being assaulted by a young Brett Kavanaugh. So was Judge Kavanaugh when he categorically denied her claims?and none of her purported eyewitnesses have any memory of the gathering she describes. They can?t both be telling the truth, but it is possible neither is deliberately lying. The article then goes on to describe how one's memory is affected by (unconscious) attempts to heal emotional wounds. This leads to repression of embarrassing memories or memories becomes less clear over time Furthermore, the adolescent brain (9 to 25) is not fully developed. Middle adolescence (14 to 17) is a time when teens have little connection to the past or future and think only of the present. (In Israel at least 14-17 year olds are very conscious of their future and especially army service at 18) ----------------------------- I don't personally agree with all the details of the article but the total impression is that two people in their 50s testifying about an event in their teen years should be taken with a big grain of salt. Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so would probably pass "drishot"; As an aside I am aware of dayanim questioning witnesses. Is their anyting in halacha about the defendant giving his version and being questioned by the dayanim? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Oct 7 19:16:55 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2018 22:16:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi thanks for your comments. >1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? Not necessarily. Meaning, at times it does, but not always in the way that secular people use the term History. So we should not compare the two. I?d rather say, ?It contains historical information? >2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as >the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no >plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and >there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or >you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the >world was created old). We don?t have to make it work. The point is that most people frankly have no clue what cosmology says about origins (other that it?s complicated and somewhat mystical), and they often dismiss Torah because it appears to them so unsophisticated. Peeking at the Rambam gives one a clue that we have a Mesorah of a extremely sophisticated, complicated and mystical Bereishis. >3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So >hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a >source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted >from Gan Eden)? No I don?t. But I believe I saw in Rav Hirsch that Adam was first created outside Gan Eden and only put in there for the test. From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 8 05:24:45 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:24:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46de6a96-5987-0a36-1097-b2c09f3d0ebd@sero.name> On 08/10/18 04:34, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note > that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so > would probably pass "drishot"; She certainly wouldn't. The most glaring problem with her claim was precisely that she could not fulfil the most basic drishot: "when and where did this allegedly happen"? Without being able to specify these it becomes "eidut she'i ata yachol lehazima" -- it's impossible to claim that the accused was elsewhere that day, let alone the witness. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 06:26:27 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:26:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700, Rabbi wrote: The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes > are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that > nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan > Eden)? *Yes, Chazal and the Rishonim all understood that the six day creation process was not a natural one.* ''All of creation was created fully formed''. At *ma?aseh b?reishis* the ox was created not as a calf but as an adult [Rashi in *Rosh Hashanah* 26a s.v. *shor sheh-hu par*]; and Adam was likewise created as an adult standing fully erect, the Talmud reports, within the same 24-hour period. The idea that Creation was anything less than a totally miraculous process, not conducted through natural processes at all, ''accelerated? or otherwise, is rejected by the *Maharal* (*Be?er HaGolah*, p. 83, *Be?er Four*): Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory?not by means of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. The *Rambam* explains in *Moreh Nevuchim *that it is illegitimate to base conclusions about the origin of the world by examining how the world looks now and assuming that the processes that would now produce such results were responsible, because the nature of things at their origin is different. EVERYTHING produced comes into existence from non-existence; even when the substance of ?a thing has been in existence, and has only changed its form, the thing itself, which has gone ?through the process of genesis and development, and has arrived at its final state, has now ?different properties from those which it possessed at the commencement of the transition from ?potentiality to reality, or before that time. Take, for example, the human ovum as contained in the ?female's blood when still included in its vessels: Its nature is different from what it was in the ?moment of conception, when it was met by the semen of the male and began to develop. The ?properties of the semen in that moment were different from the properties of the living being ?after its birth when fully developed. It is therefore quite impossible to infer, from the nature ?anything possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the ?condition of the thing had been at the time this process commenced. Nor does the condition of ?a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and ?attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually ?existing, you will fall into great confusion: You win reject evident truths and admit false ?opinions.? Let us assume, in our above instance, that a man born without defect had after his birth been ?nursed by his mother only a few months; the mother then died, and the father alone brought him ?up in a lonely island, till he grew up, became wise, and acquired knowledge. Suppose this man ?has never seen a woman or any female being: he asks some person how man has come into ?existence, and how he has developed, and receives the following answer: ''Man begins his ?existence in the womb of an individual of his own class, namely, in the womb of a female, which ?has a certain form. While in the womb he is very small; yet he has life, moves, receives ?nourishment, and gradually grows, till he arrives at a certain stage of development. He then ?leaves the womb and continues to grow till he is in the condition in which you see him.'' The ?orphan will naturally ask: ''Did this person, when he lived, moved, and grew in the womb, eat ?and drink, and breathe with his mouth and his nostrils? Did he excrete any substance?'' The ?answer will be, ''No.'' Undoubtedly he will then attempt to refute the statements of that person, ?and to prove their impossibility, by referring to the properties of a fully developed person, in the ?following manner: ? When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and remained alive, able to move?? ? If any one of us would swallow a living bird, the bird would die immediately when it ?reached the stomach, much more so when it came to the lower part of the belly; if we ?should not take food or drink with our mouth, in a few days we should undoubtedly be ?dead! How then can a human being remain alive for months without taking food?? ? If any person would take food and would not be able to excrete it, great pains and death ?would follow in a short time--and yet I am to believe that man has lived for months ?without that function?!? ? Suppose by accident a hole were formed in the belly of a person, it would prove fatal, ?and yet we are to believe that the navel of the fetus has been open?!? ? Why should the fetus not open the eyes, spread forth the bands and stretch out the legs, if, ?as you think, the limbs are all whole and perfect?!? This mode of reasoning would lead to the conclusion that man cannot come into existence and ?develop in the manner described.? We, the community following in the footsteps of Moses and Abraham, believe that the world came into being IN such-and-such a form, and BECAME such-and-such FROM such-and-such (*haya kach mi-kach *), and such WAS CREATED AFTER such. Aristotle comes to uproot our words, bringing proofs against us based upon nature in its stabilized, perfected and active state. As for us, we declare against him that this is legitimate evidence [for determining processes that must have occurred] after nature?s having settled down in its fully developed stage; but in no way does this correspond to something?s characteristics at its being brought into existence, and produced out of absolute non-existence (MN 2:17). Shabbos marks the cessation of a process that was ongoing beforehand. If G-d's method of development of the world was through the same natural laws and processes in effect now, what ceased on the first Shabbos? None of the things mentioned above [the creation of Eve from Adam, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge, the history of the serpent and the events connected therewith] is impossible, because THE LAWS OF NATURE WERE THEN [UNTIL THE END OF THE SIX DAYS] NOT PERMANENTLY FIXED (Ibid. 2:30). The Ralbag uniquely understands specific statements by Chazal to be saying that Hashem created virtually everything simultaneously and instantaneously on the first day, all in their fully developed form (with the exception of the growth of vegetation of the fifth day) and that therefore the ?days? of Creation are ?categories.? This makes the creation process even less natural. It is noteworthy that the approach of the Ralbag is to build the understanding through the teachings of *Chazal*, and not through rejecting them on the basis that they differ with the science of the day. Zvi Lampel > > > > > [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/08/18, 9:21:07 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Oct 8 07:38:02 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 10:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Noach An Interesting Insight Message-ID: Last week God created the world. This week (some 1,656 years later), God destroys the world. Interestingly, the Baal Hatanya (Shneur Zalman of Liadi) writes that the flood has never ended and continues until this very day. We are all subject to the floods in life. We are flooded with all sorts of problems, issues, conflicts, etc. ? some more, some less. The world is still chaotic but when we do our part to minimize our personal floods, we help to minimize the floods of the world. The flood of money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy. Theodore White (American political journalist and historian) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 11:37:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:34:52AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. : Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by : many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant : past. Chaqirah is the ability to answer specific questions about the when and where of the event: 1- Which shemitah cycle 2- Which year in the cycle 3- Which month 4- Day of month 5- Day of week 6- Hour of day 7- Where And the SA discusses what we do now when we don't use 1&2 as the primary means of identifying the year, if the person is off by a day in the month, but has the correct day-of-week so that it's an obvious calendar mistake not error, etc... There is also the regular notion of cross examination, derishah. Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, asked of each eid separately. And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. So let's talk more about dinei mamonos, where neither hasra'ah nor eid echad neeman be'isurim apply. Still, we confabulate memories. Especially emotionally laden ones like something a heated argument is churning over. But can two eidim confabulate identically when they can't hear eachothers' cross-examination? But I would like to really focus on is: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. If so, why would we hold terei kemei'ah? After all, if dozens of people say the same thing, why would we believe two holdouts equally? For that matter, what would eidus be more trustworthy than even "smoking gun" level evidence? I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. But I fear that more than one paragraph on this topic would annoy people who didn't go for the idea in prior iterations. So, unless there is interest expressed, I will stop here. 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 larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Oct 8 14:39:41 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 17:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben Shapiro's take on abortion. YL Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when he speaks and is being interviewed. On Sunday, at the conclusion of the latest edition of The Ben Shapiro Election Special on the Fox News Network, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro used the last segment of the show to mount a powerful assault on abortion that was unlike any seen on a network news show before. Shapiro showed pictures from ultrasounds and illustrations of babies at various stages in utero to support his case, aware that when women see ultrasounds of the babies they are carrying, they are much less likely to consider having an abortion. Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. The later the abortion takes place, the more brutal the procedure, but no matter the brutality of the procedure, it is obvious that abortion is not some mere optional surgery to be performed for convenience. And it?s even more obvious that those who want to protect the lives of the unborn aren?t trying to control women?s bodies. Those who cherish abortion are trying to control and dismember the bodies of the unborn. Think about that next time you see a radical feminist in a Handmaid's Tale outfit suggesting that you?d better respect her right to carve apart an unborn baby in the womb or you?re some sort of fascist. No more euphemisms. See https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F36835%2Fwatch-shapiro-gives-fiery-unprecedented-assault-daily-wire&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=%2Bqenj6TOK0BiMopCLwHGel5WMFGPn5BJJ7Onf2R6yuM%3D&reserved=0 and especially the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Ftime_continue%3D27%26v%3DpoB8aIXI0Yo&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=kLq3f6Bo%2F9X3rP4HXORP3uhB5Wo6hC1ifHM%2BVBGt9j4%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 19:50:38 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:50:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181009025038.GA29143@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 05:39:41PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: :> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of :> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. Well, Rav Moshe holds as much, but most posqim do not. Shapiro is conflating the fact that Yahadus considers abortion a serious avlah with Pro-Life rhetoric that the avlah happens to be retzichah. Halachipidia has the following list (my translitations): What is the Prohibition? 1. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein - abortion is considered murder. However, this murder does not come with a death penalty. There are some cases of murder when the murderer does not get the death penalty. One of these cases is someone who murders one who is terminally ill. [4] 2. Rabbi Issar Unterman - abortion is considered abuzraihu deretzichah akin to murder.[5] 3. It is a violation of the positive commandment of peru urvu Part of the commandment is to allow every potential soul to come into being, and if one does abortion, they cannot do this. [6] 4. Spilling the seed/Onanism. The fetus is more similar to the basic seed than to a human, so destroying the fetus would be like destroying the seed.[7] 5. Aborting the fetus is injuring the mother (Chavalah). Exodus 21 says that if two men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and there is no death, but the fetus is miscarried, then they have to pay a monetary payment. So the fetus is more a part of the mother than a separate life. [8] 6. It is a Rabbinical prohibition. There is no clear prohibition in the Torah, so our only real sources are the rabbinical sources.[9] 7. According to the Zohar, one who kills a fetus is guilty of destroying God's handiwork. [10] it is unclear if this constitutes a different view of the technical prohibition, or if this is just a reasoning explaining the severity of abortion. A punishment unlike that for murder is detailed. Notes: [4] Iggros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat, Part 2, Chapter 69 [5] I.Y. Unterman, Noam VI (1963), 1-11 as cited in David Feldman, Birth Control In Jewish Law [6] Yevamos 63b [7] Talmud Bavli: Niddah 13a; Chavos Yair, Siman 31 [8] Exodus 21:22 [9] Sanhedrin 72; Tzitz Eliezer, Jerusalem, 1963, volume VII, number 48, p. 190. [10] Hok L'Yisrael, Shemot for Monday, Zohar, Shemot 3b Note how most shitos do say the fetus is not a person. #5 in particular is based on the idea that the fetus is an organ of the mother. (Which is also consistent with pen paqua.) No.s 3, 4 and 7 are about stopping the process of later producing a person. Likely #2 (abuzraihu deretzichah) as well, although it could be some other near-retzichah connection. And as for #6, it depends which deOraisa the deRabbanan is supporting. But even so, not retzichah, no human life yet. As the Bach explains the Rambam's position... You can abort a fetus to save the life of the mother a moment before it would have crowned, because it is kerotzeiach -- LIKE a rotzeiach. But it's not actually a rotzeiach, which is why in the same situation but a moment later, once the baby did crown, one could not commit infanticide to save the mother. A fetus before crowning is not subject to the same issur as after. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 9 11:04:42 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:04:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 Message-ID: In June 1990 Light Magazine published an article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer dealing with "his life in perspective; what is Torah Im Derech Eretz? ; his attitude toward modern Hebrew; and his mida of emess and bitachon. The article is at Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 9 15:26:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> References: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181009222604.GA27505@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 02:37:57PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, : asked of each eid separately. : : And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim : had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they : had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. .... REMT, kedarko beqodesh, gently corrected me in private. The eidim testifying need to have witnessed hasra'ah, and didn't have to have given it themselves. Which means that the tail of my post applies to sin/crim as well, not only dinei mamunus (as long as it's not eid echad ne'eman be'isusim). I think what I said about confabulation vs indepent derishah vechaqira of each eid separately, and (more importantly) my argument for not assuming that the neemanus accorded eidus isn't because we necessarily consider it the least fallible both still stand. Chodesh Tov! 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Thu Oct 11 01:20:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:20:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom Message-ID: << But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? >> The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a sefardi community and ROY's claim is that the Ashkenazim should have followed the existing sefardi customs. Obviously the talmidei hagra and the chassidim didn't agree. How far one goes back is part of a responsa by RMF that one who davens "chassidic" can change to Ashkenaz but not the other way since the original minhag was Asjkenaz and changed by the early chassidim. So according to RMF the fact someonepnes great...grandather 10 generations ago davened in nusach Ashkenaz has halachic meaning As to minhag EY and minhag Yerushalayim most date back about 100 years ago and a few to the days of takmidei hagra and the early chassidim. Almost none to earlier than that. The minhag of having a single drummer at a wedding in Jerusalem has mostly been replaced by a single organ player that can simulate a whole orchestra. Others claim that it holds only in the old city or that it was established by the old yishuv some 100 years ago and they are not part of that community One widespread minhag EY from the talmidei hagra and hasidim is not to wear tefillin on chol hamoed. Even in this case I have heard of some olim who put on tefillin after they return from shul. One really ancient minhag in Yerushalayim refers to not leaving a corpse overnight and so having funerals in the middle of the night. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 03:01:59 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:01:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fish With Legs?! In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: In Parshas Noach, we read about how Hashem brought the Great Flood and destroyed all living creatures, save for those inside Noach?s Ark and the fish in the oceans, who were spared as well. It would be fascinating to find out on which side of the Teiva a ?fish with legs? would have been. Would it have been considered a fish or an animal? Far from being a theoretical question, this actually happened when... To find out the full story, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Fish with Legs?!" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 02:58:05 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:58:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach Message-ID: The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both immorality and dishonesty?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 09:49:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011164903.GC19398@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 09:58:05AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach :> It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality :> than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. : : I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both : immorality and dishonesty?" The Meshekh Chomah notes... Pausing here for a shameless plug: I am now giving a quick (15-20 min) talk on Facebook Wed nights 9:30pm EDT. This comment is from that. So, the MC notes... That the dor hamabul sinned both - sexually - ki hishchis kol basar; and - financially - chamas. And he writes about the opening pasuq, based on a Rashi on the Gemara (AZ 6a): tamim -- anav ushefal ruach tzadiq - [bemaasav -gemara] - belo chamas RMShK writes that Noach "bedorosav" -- his 2 doros -- had very different challenges. Living in the pre-flood dor, being a tzadiq bemaasav and not influenced by the general dishonesty and sexual license around him, was the greater challenge. (How often does someone cut ethical corners because "that's how business is done now?") However being tamim in his midos, his anavah, was easy. The culture didn't value his tzidqus. However, in the post-flood dor, everything existed becaus of him. And the people around him had learned from the experience of tending to the animals for a year. Little challenge from peer pressure, but a much bigger challenge keeping his ego in check. This is a point the MC makes on "Malki-Tzedeq melekh Shaleim" -- the year in the midbar was a lesson in sheleimus, and that's his part of the foundation of Y-m. Avrahama added "behar Hashem Yeira'ah" to make Yerushalayim. (And thus the "-ayim", pair, in the name.) See MC Bereishis 22:14. Back to the point, it would seem that chazal attribute both difficulties to Noach's pre-flood life. It too was an "age of both immorality and dishonesty". 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 llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 08:58:19 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:58:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood ? make the ark [to consist] of enclosures for animals ? and cover it inside and out with pitch. In any event, a tavah is shaped like a box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ has no relationship to the one Noach built. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 11 07:06:55 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:06:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/10/18 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole >> Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other >> countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing >> communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and >> not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? > > The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established > community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new > minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a > sefardi?community But this isn't the case. After the crusades destroyed the original EY community with its minhagim, a new community was established by olim, who brought their mihagim with them from chu"l, and by the time the grushei Sefarad arrived there was already an established community. And what about the rest of the Mediterranean, where there were thousand-year-old communities? Leshitaso shouldn't the Sefardim who settled in each of those countries have adopted the local mihagim? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 11 06:10:16 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:10:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices Message-ID: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were an ongoing situation? 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 Thu Oct 11 07:29:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:29:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching Torah to Women Message-ID: Although throughout the ages there were Jewish women who were learned and revered1 the concept of formal education for women is barely a century old.2 Before this time, they would learn whatever was necessary from their parents.3 Girls generally did not go out of the home, and were often illiterate.4 The modern school system teaches many subjects to the girls, including Chumash, Halachah, Navi and Mishnah. Some even teach Gemara.5 Girls learn Chumash in depth with Ramban, and study more halachah than boys in yeshivah.6 The Bais Yaakov movement was spearheaded by Sarah Schenirer with just twenty-five girls in 1917,7 as a reaction to many factors8 which had changed the status quo.9 Since then, hundreds of girls? schools have been created. For more on this topic Click here to download "Teaching Torah to Women" For information about the history of the Bais Yaakov movement see https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note the curriculum of the Bais Yaakov Seminary in Krakow starting on page 77. In particular, Five Books of Moses: This included the study of the Five Books of Moses in the original and in its entirety with the commentary of Rashi and Rabbi Samuel Raphael Hirsch. and German: Instruction in the correct oral and written use of the language. The goal of this course was to provide the teachers with the ability to read by themselves the important religious literature of Hirsch and others which were written in the German language, as well as selected classical works such as the poetry of Schiller, Goethe, Nathan the Wise by Lessing, Zweig, and Beer-Hoffman. Times have indeed changed, have they not! YL study times. of the Five -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 10:04:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:04:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: <20181011170422.GD19398@aishdas.org> I got to the Arukh haShulchan's discussion of Chazal changing the entire definition of qinyan. MideOraisa, paying would be the qinyan. But Chazal were afraid that sellers wouldn't properly safeguard the item between payment and handing it over to the buyer. After all, any loss or damage is the buyers, ownership was already transfered. So, chazal made various qinyanim that demonstrate the buyer taking the item. The Torah gives the halakhah. Chazal realize that given the low state of the people around them, the halakhah would have cons that outweigh the pros. So, they change it. Reminds me of pruzbul or heter isqa, cases where in order to help someone who needs a loan get one, we allow suboptimal loan arrangements. In each case, a different validation for doing so: - Qinyan in general allows custom and agreement by both parties override the default law. - Similarly heter isqa was always technically allowed; our rabbanim just standardized a means of utilizing this alternative financial arrangement. - Pruzbul is violating shemittah derabbanan. So, while the gemara requires the motive of helpoing the poor get loans to even violate the ke'ein deOraisa, tHillel didn't rewrite Torah. But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and limit the damage. So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:01:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:01:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011190137.GG27474@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 03:58:19PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 :> In any event, a tavah is shaped like a :> box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward :> the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut :> through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. : Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ : has no relationship to the one Noach built. True; it's just the reconstruction of some Xians, given the text and the assumption that it was build not to capsize. RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis for Noach et al not to have capsized. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Oct 11 13:34:12 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:34:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Again read RSRH's commentary and you will see how he arrives at his conclusion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:14:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011191454.GA19331@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:13:44PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else : being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. : I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a : location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and : elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities : of young folks. RJR suggests that the advantage to the tzibbur would indeed trump the disadvantage for the individual. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 1:14pm UCT, he wrote: : ... Western : liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish : thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role : and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be... The comment RAM was replying to (I think) was my discussion of the advantage to the majority of the community of being pushed to think about those who need more help. IOW, not accessible shuls for the sake of those who need accessibility, but for the sake of those who need practive remembering as they pursue qedushah they they must consider others. (Especially leshitas RSShkop, where qedushah is /defined/ as commitment "leheitiv im hazulas". Not exclusively so.) I think it's simply that the hill wasn't thought of as a major inconvenience. And perhaps an obstacle likely to keep someone from coming wouldn't be a proper place for your elevated shul. Or, possibly that yes, this halakhah was only speaking "when all else is equal". Tir'u baTov! -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 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 13:10:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:10:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 01:10:16PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan : once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), : which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were : an ongoing situation? I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood of feeling anything. 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 Oct 11 16:42:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 19:42:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 09:38:57PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei : gever" in birchot hashahar? I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing But look at the Kaf haChaim OC 46 s"q 18. So I know they did in 19th cent Baghdad. However, ROY is recorses in Qol Torah vol V pg 20 as promoting gaver and aved. But in the cases we started with -- gefen and geshem. Also, Rav Pa'alim vol II, OC #25. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 12 04:36:37 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 07:36:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. > >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, >including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is >where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the >fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when >you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below >with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis >for Noach et al not to have capsized. First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because HaShem kept it afloat. Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different before the flood than after it. In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the flood were the same as they are today? If they were different before the flood, then your physics analysis does not hold water! >:-} ( have no basis for asserting that the laws of physics were different before the flood, but it is possible in light of the different climatic conditions.) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 12 05:26:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:26:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7285ED0D-3270-486A-9AD2-8DBA569E7AF4@sibson.com> [Micha:] > I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. > Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give > priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning > to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. > But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all > that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can > have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. > Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an > abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood > of feeling The question of relative priorities is always complex. I don't think this question has an algorithmic response Other than if you say all other things are equal, Which of course they never are. Kt Joel Rich From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 12 05:33:15 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:33:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> , <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Transliterations mine, but I tried to be more consistent with RSM's already present transliterations. -micha] From: Micha Berger Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:42 PM > I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing Since my name was mentioned, I think R. Micha was inviting me to add my ha'penny's worth. The Ashkenaz mss. all have gover. As due Yemenite mss. I do not remember what most S'faradi mss. have. One thing that people are only partially aware of, including many rabbonim who decided to comment on grammatical matters without the necessary study, is that L'shon Chazal is a different language than Biblical Hebrew, but that Chazal grew up knowing T'NaKh by heart, and so sprinkled their language with Biblical quotations, just as English writers leaven their language with quotations from Shakespeare or the Bible. Those quotations are in the archaic dialect of English that was spoken in the 16th-17th Century when Shakespeare lived and the King James translation was done. and do not represent the language spoken by a 21st Century writer. Similarly the language of T'filla as composed by Chazal uses their spoken Hebrew, which we call L'shon Chazal, but it is as full of quotations from the T'NaKh as a raisin bun is of raisins. Which makes it often difficult to distinguish what is L'shon Chazal from what is a quotation. I am writing a treatise about this, which God willing I will publish one of these days, which will contain proofs and various strategems to distinguish what is what. But if the language is found in a posuk, you can be sure it is a quotation. And the phrase ????? ??? [mitz'adei gaver] appears twice, once in T'hillim 37 and once in Mishlei 20, once at the beginng of a phrase and once at the end. It seem fair to me to assume that they used the form at the end of a phrase to put in the b'rokho, and so I would argue that the b'rokho is incorporating the language of ?????? ?????????-?????, ??????? ???-??????? ????????? [MeiYY mitz'adei-gover, ve'adam mah yovin darko.] and so it would be "gover," as the mss. I saw have it. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com Fri Oct 12 07:20:01 2018 From: loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com (Looking ForInspiration) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: Hello! This is my first post to aishdas.org, so forgive me and direct me if needed. Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both? Thank you in advance. Mordechai From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 12 08:20:24 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181012152024.GE12524@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 07:36:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: : >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. : >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, : > .... It would be another neis : >for Noach et al not to have capsized. : : First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the : animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen : in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed : have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because : HaShem kept it afloat. Which I noted. However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compell him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about apparence except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. : Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the : flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that : there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a : much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different : before the flood than after it. : In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the : flood were the same as they are today? Saying the world had a different climate doesn't mean the laws of nature changed. It could mean the earth changed. There is no reason to believe science itself changed since; and in fact some reason to believe it hadn't. After all, "mikol melakhto asher bara E-lokim la'asos" was before the first Shabbos. The notion that the universe changed in a new fundamental way since isn't 100% in concert with that. Although I realize "nishtaneh hateva" has numerous explanations, I don't know if any require believing the laws themselves changed. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 12 09:57:31 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:57:31 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Welcome on board! I didn't look up that sugya itself, but it could be that it was a Mishna Rishona Mishna Achrona thing. Like the reason that the Halacha in Machlokes VeAchar Kach Stam is different than in a Stam VeAchar Kach Machlokes. Also, regarding who actually wrote the Mishna - it's a Machlokes Rashi (who said (in Eiruvin, in the Samechs on the sugya of More Halacha Bifnei Rabbo) that the Mishna wasn't written in the Gemara's time) and the Rambam (who said that Rebbi wrote the Mishna). I heard that it boils down to the two Girsas of Rabbi Sherira Gaon's famous letter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 19:31:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 22:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people > on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in > reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in > the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, > halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) I think your cases are great examples of how Hashem deliberately left room for us to "improve" the Torah somewhat, thereby partnering with Him, exactly as you've explained. > And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. > Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is > not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into > account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and > limit the damage. > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted > keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be > when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than > the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged > YhR? Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her (unless he follows the prescribed procedure). That's what is meant by "lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR." The only solution is the one prescribed by the Torah itself; there is nothing for Chazal to add. Alternatively: D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. Chazal can forbid shofar on the years when RH is on Shabbos, but they can't ban it entirely on Yom Tov because of musical instruments being muktzeh. So, given that the Torah DOES allow one to take the Yefas Toar (after following the prescribed procedure), how might you word your proposed d'rabanan? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 12 14:16:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 21:16:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which Actions Have Value Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:16 You shall make a light for the ark and finish it within one cubit of the top, and set the entrance to the ark in its side; you shall make it with lower, second and third stories. God chose one man who was to save himself, his family and the animal world; he would be able to save them and himself ? only if he would do everything just as God had commanded him.?Gadol ha-mitzuveh ve-oseh me-me she-aino metzuveh ve-oseh (Kiddushin 31a) is a fundamental principle in Judaism. Contrary to prevailing opinion, a person?s actions have value only if they constitute the performance of God?s Will. What a person does on the basis of his own judgment, and the like, is of secondary, uncertain importance. During the 120 years that passed between God?s announcement to Noach and the actual onset of the flood, Noach could have done so many things: he could have built a hundred arks, and so forth. Scripture?s sole intent, however, is to say that Noach did exactly as God had commanded him; the rest he left to God. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 14 09:02:01 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 16:02:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] In sight Into Korbanos Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 8:20 20 Then Noach built an altar to God and took of every pure animal and of every pure bird, and offered ascent offerings upon the altar. la Shem; our offerings are directed to the aspect of God?s rule that desires not destruction, but life. '? is the source of all life and of all future existence, and He is ready at all times to grant new life, new vigor, and a new future. Symbolically, one offers his own life in order to win new life from God; one offers oneself up to God in order to be consecrated by God and to be elevated to a holy life on earth. One does not bring an offering to a vengeful, angry, bloodthirsty god. Rather, one who brings an offering devotes to God?s Will every pulsebeat, every nervous impulse, all muscular strength. To make an offering means to win from God eternal life. One does not offer up an animal; one offers up himself through the animal. When a person offers an animal before God and leans his hand upon it; when he slaughters it, collects its blood, dashes its blood upon the altar, and surrenders its head, legs, breast, and carcass to the flames ? in doing so he offers to God his own blood, his own mind, his own muscular strength, and surrenders himself completely to the fire of God?s Will, as set down for Israel in the Torah. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 14 20:08:41 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 23:08:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lech L'cha "Go For It" Message-ID: <406EA56D-CA2C-4FE0-B5F1-5C237B5152BE@cox.net> 12:1 Vayomer HaShem el Avram: "Lech L'cha," etc. The gematria of Lech L'cha is 100. So Avram was being told that life is a compromise: 50/50. And if he lives with give and take (50/50), he ends up with 100%. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 00:53:35 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:53:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: < Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. >> Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. Killing a fetus is not murder and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 01:12:31 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:12:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: << I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. >> First anything I brought from the Kavanaugh case was simply it was that stoty that made me think of the issue. The details of that story are immaterial. The basic question was that recent studies demonstrate false memories and especially from years ago and when the wirnesses may have been teenagers when they are not yer completely developed. On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered neveilah. The Taz doesn't like such a scenarion but many others disagree with him. They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:45:24 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89a90ad8-4240-fb55-2d1d-fba96a91819b@sero.name> On 15/10/18 04:12, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to > death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Mon Oct 15 05:49:36 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <0A43202F-B23C-41DE-A4E7-8002ED599973@tenzerlunin.com> ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses. * * * They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport).? ISTM that there should be a significant difference between executing someone when you have definitive information (I won?t use the word evidence) that he is innocent and eating a piece of meat that, although it in fact came from a non-kosher animal, is treated halachically as kosher. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 07:16:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:16:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015141643.GA20844@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:12:31AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death : even though the facts might not be true. : More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of : modern techniques versus two witnesses I didn't think I was implying that. If there is evidence -- regardless of DNA's own issues -- but not eidim, the facts are not established to the point of chiyuv misah. If there are eidim to convict, but the evidence points otherwise, the dayanim can't close derishah vechaqirah until they resolve the conflict to their own satisfaction. Given the whole bit about "achas leshev'ah / leshiv'im shanah", perhaps their own satisfaction should be to a "beyond reasonable doubt" kind of standard. (Maybe the person had a mum exactly where the knife entered would probably be considered by most of us "beyond unreasonable doubt".) : I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In : particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem : was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it : can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of : the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered : neveilah... The case in the SA that I remember : They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif : and not the metzius. That is a misphrasing. I said that pesaq relies on how we perceive the world -- and in fact this perception is the meaning of the word "metzi'us". (Which, I will note again, comes from "matza", which doesn't imply theoretical objective existence.) The nearest I come to the way you put it would be to say that matters like probability go into how we think about an unobserved unknown. Evidence is a matter of changing the odds, not of establishing definitive metzi'us. ------------------ And my pet theory is an extension of R' Aqiva Eiger's teshuvah (#136) explaining the difference between kol deparish, where rov matters, and qavu'ah. RAE makes is a chiluq between rules of birur when the reality is unknown (kol deparish) and ones where the reality was established but the halakhah is unkown. Treating this as a very broad kelal, eidus changes a kol deparish type question into a qavu'ah. Which is why rov no longer epplies, and terei kemei'ah. Evidence without observation keeps it a kol deparish question, although it does shift the odds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:40:52 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:40:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15/10/18 03:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life.?>> > Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. > Killing a fetus is not murder According to some. > and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. And as Ronald Reagan pointed out, if you're not sure whether something is murder, then committing it is at least reckless endangerment. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 08:50:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:50:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 06:40:52AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is : : With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. Except that the Bach explains that's is NOT what the Rambam holds. Which is why Rotzaiach 1:9 distinguishes between aborting to save the mother before crowning, and not committing infanticide a fraction of a moment later after the baby crowns. If abortion were murder, there would be no shift in priorities between the mother's and baby's lives before and after birth. Or: A "KErodeif" (as the velad isn't doing anything itself to risk the mother) who isn't a full person may be killed, but once born, ein dochin nefesh mipenei nefesh. Rashi (Sanhedrin 72b "yatza rosho") says that the unborn fetus isn't subject to "ein dochin NmPN" because it isn't a nefesh yet. The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 09:01:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:01:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> References: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015160131.GB26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:50:59AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the : contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam : cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? The Arukh laNeir (Sanhedrin 72b) writes that the chiluq is that in the second case we cannot isolate whether the child (once crowned) is the mother's rodeif, or the other way around. The IM (CM 2:69) writes similarly. But neither deal with the Bach's question of how that means "ein dochin" is the principle in particular invoked to explain why we cannot kill the baby after crowning, but not the fetus a moment before. Also, how is it true that we always know before crowning that it's the fetus in the mother's way, but if the head is partly out, we don't? Balebatishe question.... Let's say it's the umbilical cord vs the mother's blood loss -- does that dynamic change with crowning? But in any case, my point was that the Bach means that we cannot say as a certainty that there is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam about whether a velad is a person. Just that some acharonim take him to say so. And once you look at acharonim, variants on the theme that is definitely Rashi's abound. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 06:48:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 09:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: *Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400* *From: Looking ForInspiration >* *To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org * *Subject: * *Hello!* *This is my first post to aishdas.org , so forgive me and direct me **if needed.* *Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that **when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, **it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this **mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author?* *I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, **Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone **can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible **as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it **would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, **the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba **Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of **Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write **the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both?* *Thank you in advance.* *Mordechai* This should be helpful: >From Rambam's Letter to R. Pinchas HaDayyan (In R. Sheilat's edition, Teshuva 140): ...every decision that he [Rebbi Yehuda HaNassi] presented without attaching an author's name originated [not with him, ?but] with other sages. And those other sages as well were not the originators of those decisions, ?but [merely stated how they understood what they] obtained from the mouths of others, and the ?others from still others, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. .. [T]hey ...explicitly stated in so many places, ?Rebbi ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue A, and presented them anonymously; but he ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue B, and presented them anonymously.".This ?openly states that whatever Rebbi endorsed as final halacha, and considered the proper ?practice to follow, he stated without associating anyone?s name with it. And in so many places ?the Gemora says, ?This anonymously-stated halachah is an individual?s opinion [and not the ?majority?s]?--Rabbeynu did not mentioned the names of any of them [--neither that of the ?individual whom the halacha followed, nor that of the majority]. ? ?[Only] when it came to matters that Rebbi did not consider settled, but still debatable, and ?about which he did not lean one way or the other, did he state both opinions in the names of ?their proponents (?R. So-and-so says this, and R. So-and-so says that?) mentioning the names ?of those sages, or of recently living ones, from whom he heard those opinions--but [still] not of ?their mentors or mentors?-mentors' names. For at the time, many people still followed one ?opinion, and many still followed the opposing one. Suffice it to say that he [himself] told us ?explicitly why, in some of the mishnas, he attached names:? And why do we mention the words of Shammai and Hillel only to negate them [by ?adding that the majority of sages disagreed with both and decided differently]??to ?teach the following generations....? ? And why do we mention the dissenting words of ?individuals along with those of the majority...???So that if a Beis Din will agree with the ?individual?s opinion and rely upon it....[R' Yehuda (ben El'ai) added:] And why do we ?mention the words of the individual together with those of the majority only to negate ?them??So that if a person reports receiving a teaching other than that which was ?accepted by the majority....?? ...it was only necessary to mention opposing opinions during those times ?that some practiced one way, and others practiced a different way, when some obtained the ?law according to one sage?s opinion, and some according to another sage?s opinion. End of quote from Teshuva. Regarding stam mishnayos that contradict, each mishna had its own author and, following Rambam, Rebbi placed them in the order he did. One explanation is that he changed his mind, and his pesak is identified by the rules of stam v'acher kach machlokess (machlokess meaning a mishna with an opposing view, not necessarily a mishna contaning two views), and vice versa. However, the majority of Tannaim in Rebbi's day did sometimes differ with him. And in cases where the Beis Din Gadol did not put the issue to a formal vote, later authorities, even Amoraim, did not necessarily follow Rebbi's decision. Regarding the last point, check out Rambam's payrush, followed also by the Rav MiBartenura, on the mishnayos at the beginning of Eidiyos, and see how it differs from that of the Raavad and Tosefos Shantz Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/15/18, 9:02:19 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Sat Oct 13 20:23:41 2018 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 23:23:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Moving this aspect of the discussion over from Areivim. Subject line is mine. -micha] On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM Micha Berger via Areivim wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 01:26:50PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: >: I am surp[rised that you did not suggest that men begin wearing >: tephillen the entire day as was apparently the custom in ancient >: times... > For people who had desk jobs. > Laborers didn't, for pragmatic reasons. And in an agrarian society, that > was most men most of the day, except in the winter. My impression was that the heter to not wear tefillin (issur to wear tefillin) only applied to particular cases, such as one who was carrying a burden (of a particular size or content, i.e., excrement) on their head, but that a normal farmer/craftsman/laborer would generally wear tefillin the entire day. A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did not wear tefillin, but it is critical of this practice, and although the gemara appears to give a justification of such (while still maintaining its objection to the reality), it is not along the white collar/blue collar axis. Josh From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 11:18:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015181859.GE5656@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 11:23:41PM -0400, Joshua Meisner via Avodah wrote: : A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did : not wear tefillin... The context is, any mitzvah, like milah, that people were moseir nefesh for when there was a government deceree is still muchzeqes beyadam. Tefillin was given an example where there never was such a history, and therefore our commitment remains less. It says "merupeh beyadam", not that people weren't wearing them at all, which is what you say here. Nor, more on-target for our discussion, that people were wearing them just for davening instead of all day. Possible referants: Tzeduqim wore their tefillin on the bridge of their noses (bein einekha). So many Jews were nikhshal. Or maybe there were sects who believed like the Qaraim or R that there are no physical objects involved at all to keep the ideas in sight and at hand. But it just struck me -- most likely, that they weren't careful to keep a guf naqi. After all the gemara reads: ... kegon tefillin, adayin hi berufah beyadam. DEamar R' Yanai: tzerichim guf naqi... What's that dalet doing there in "de'amar" if R' Yanai wasn't discussing said ripui? RGS writes : Here's a question for you: Why don't men wear tefillin all day long? The mitzvah is not just during morning services; it is throughout the day (cf. Tur, Orach Chaim 37). So why don't we wear them all day? The answer to this question is historical... There is textual evidence that already in Talmudic times there were many people who did not wear tefillin.... His argument here is the same as yours. ... The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 13a) specifically condemns those who never wear tefillin. This laxity by many on wearing tefillin continued into the Middle Ages. Tosafos (Shabbos 49a sv. ke-Elisha) write that one should not be surprised that at that time people were lax in tefillin, since they were in the times of the Talmud also. This is attested to in many other places, and in the times of the Geonim there are even implications that almost no one in the land of Israel wore tefillin. The Beis Yosef (Even Ha-Ezer 65) quotes the Kol Bo who suggests that in some communities ashes are not placed on a groom's forehead because the community members do not wear tefillin. There was even a responsum by R. Sherira Gaon, copied in many medieval works on halakhah, answering a question about whether it is yuhara (haughty) for a yeshiva student to wear tefillin when no one else does. It seems that in order to defend this practice, some rishonim utilized the idea that one who wears tefillin needs a "guf naki - clean body". The Shibbolei Ha-Leket (Buber ed., p. 382) quotes one view that "guf naki" means that a person is clean of sins.... Sefer Ha-Chinukh (no. 421) states that "guf naki" does not refer to someone who has no sins or impurity, implying that someone else had suggested that it did. The author explicitly condemns those who are strict on the holiness of this mitzvah and thereby deprive the masses of the mitzvah. Rather, "guf naki" refers to the ability to refrain from passing gas and thinking improper thoughts while wearing the tefillin. R. Moshe of Coucy (Semag, mitzvos aseh no. 3) tells of how he would travel around thirteenth-century Europe, preaching to people that they should wear tefillin during the morning prayers. Even if they cannot control themselves all day, people can certainly maintain a guf naki for the prayer services (that is the view of Tosafos [Pesachim 113b sv. ve-ein]; Rosh [Hilkhos Tefillin, no. 28 and Beis Yosef [Orach Chaim 37]; footnote 8 in the Schlesinger edition of Semag assumes the Semag agrees). Evidently, this practice of wearing tefillin only during morning prayer services took hold and the prior practice of widespread abandonment of the mitzvah slowly turned into minimal performance of it during the morning prayers. However, someone who cannot control himself and cannot maintain a guf naki may not wear tefillin. Despite the biblical obligation, someone in a definite situation such as that should not wear tefillin at all (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 38:1). For this reason, the Arukh Ha-Shulchan (Orach Chaim 38:6) rules that those who are not obligated in the mitzvah of tefillin -- such as women -- should never place themselves in even a doubtful position of not maintaining a guf naki. ... 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 Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il Tue Oct 16 00:45:18 2018 From: Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il (Ezra Chwat) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:45:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> References: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <85b0325c428741fcb0a9d98b30ef7206@Ex1.Nli.loc> [Micha] wrote: > Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the > water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the > fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity > is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Great insight, it's pshat in [Beresheet VII: Vateilekh hateivah al penei hamayim] meaning, all of it above surface, as in Gen I 2. Although there are a plenty (majority) sources in [lehon miqra] and [lehon chaza"l] where the meaning clearly infers partial immersion below the water surface. [Doq vetishkach] search and see. In any case this also sheds literary light on the two images presented for [lechem hapanim] (Menahot 94b): [sefinah roqedet] vs [teivah perutzah]. Why these images instead of description? Perhaps theres a message here about [teivat Mosheh] or [teivat Noach] Here's Rashi's drawing (source ) Dr. Ezra Chwat |Manuscript Bibliographer Department of Manuscripts The National Library of Israel, Jerusalem Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, P.O. Box 39105, Jerusalem 9139002 ezra.chwat at nli.org.il | www.nli.org.il From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Tue Oct 16 05:10:21 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:10:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Zev Sero commented: ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway.? What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 16 05:25:28 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:25:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: On 16/10/18 08:10, Joseph Kaplan wrote: > Zev Sero commented On Micha's remarks: >>> it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though >>> the facts might not be true. >> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, >> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. > What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the > value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel > Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Well, we *know* that it is indeed what He wants. That is surely beyond all question. All we can discuss is *why* He wants it, and what lessons we can draw from this counterintuitive fact. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:16:00 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:16:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> > RMB: > > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, > or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes > posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? > Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? It is in general true that the Torah prefers to regulate strong emotions (like greed and lust) rather than to extirpate them. See for example Hagigah 9b ?yaeh aniyusa liyehudaei ??, and yet the Torah doesn?t prohibit wealth (though see Parshas Shoftim 17:16-17), though historically several communities have enacted sumptuary laws. And see H. Deos 1:4-5 about the difference between a tzaddik and a hasid. The Rambam implies (at the end of 1:5) that he prefers tzidkus to hasidus but see H. Deos 6:1 that this applies only in a virtuous society. It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical level, however, I don?t see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. But there?s a more important point. What?s weird about war is that it?s not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say ?hasatan mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama? that?s partly because the soldiers don?t have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over his lifetime. So it makes a lot of sense that k?nagged YhR is specifically mentioned in the context of milhama. David Riceman From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:35:09 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42DB0493-2688-4FB1-B731-24A6D9C76BC7@optimum.net> [Corrected as per a follow-up email. -micha] RMLFI: > I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, > Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone > can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible > as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it > would be much appreciated. If you really mean that read through YL Epstein's "Hakdamah L'Nusach HaMishnah". Albeck wrote a (shorter) "Hakdamah L'Mishnah" and, IIRC, [Epstein also] wrote a "Hakdamah L'Sifrut HaTanaim". There's a mahlokes rishonim whether the mishna is a sefer peak or an encyclopedia of sources. This is related to the machlokes amoraim about whether halacha k'stam mishna. But it is possible for mishnayot with contradictory anonymous conclusions to have been edited by the same person. David Riceman From t613k at aol.com Wed Oct 17 20:57:38 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 23:57:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16685525a33-1ec3-bc74@webjas-vac183.srv.aolmail.net> In a message dated 10/15/2018 ? From: Micha Berger >> However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compel him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about appearance except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. << >>>>> ? ? ? The bottom may have been flat but not the top.? See Ber 6:16 "A window [tzohar] shall you make for the Ark, and to a cubit finish it from above...." (ArtScroll translation) ? I understand this to mean that the sides of the ark, at least the upper level, were slanted so that rain would run off (the reason most roofs of houses are slanted rather than flat).? At the top it only one square cubit wide, where the window (if the tzohar was a window, or possibly an LED light) was set in place. ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 18 03:08:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 06:08:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181018100847.GF26742@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:29:42AM -0400, Toby Katz wrote: : He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on : this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does : not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, : let alone the same as murder... This "let alone" undermines his whole thesis. Few akharonim take the Rambam to mean that abortion is murder, and of those who do, not all hold like their understanding of the Rambam. : We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these : issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians : recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that : Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. Or even to start with the assumption they are similar. It is best to just look up our views, and then see pragmatically which party to work with. Rather than identify with either camp and risk assimilating their values. 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 t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 17 21:29:42 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 00:29:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> ? From: "Prof. Levine" > IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an > abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben > Shapiro's take on abortion. >> Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is >> Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when >> he speaks and is being interviewed. ... >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... Ben Shapiro is a brilliant commentator and makes a powerful case against abortion. He also makes a Kiddush Hashem by publicly identifying as an Orthodox Jew and always wearing a yarmulka. However, I am troubled by this statement of his: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, let alone the same as murder. If a young woman is raped c'v the very best and most prudent thing she should do is take the "morning after pill" which prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum. To many Christians the morning after pill is exactly the same as abortion or infanticide, but the Torah does not view it that way. When a certain couple with whom I am intimately acquainted were undergoing IVF treatment in order to have children (which they ultimately did, B'H), they asked their most serious shailos of a very prominent posek in Baltimore. One shaila was what to do with excess embryos that were created in the lab. An embryo is just a fertilized ovum that has developed into a tiny little ball of cells, could be just eight or sixteen cells at first. When you hear that embryos are created in a lab and sometimes frozen to be thawed and implanted at a later date, please do not imagine that little babies are in the freezer. (Only in Lakewood are young humans put in the freezer.) Since multiple pregnancies are hazardous for the mother and often do not have a good outcome for the babies, as a rule no more than three embryos are implanted in the uterus at one time. In IVF powerful hormones are given which often result in the release of multiple eggs at ovulation, which in turn result in multiple embryos at fertilization. But if you are not going to implant more than three, what do you do with the extras? The posek told the couple that they could do what they wanted -- freeze the extras for a later attempt, or discard them. Catholics would consider the discarding of these little balls to be the same thing as murder, and possibly they would consider putting them in a freezer to be child abuse. We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. I suspect that Ben Shapiro is not aware of a very important distinction. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 05:40:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:40:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" Message-ID: >From https://goo.gl/7m1UWj Halacha L'kovod Shabbos - "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" One is permitted to spray one's hair (e.g. sprinkle or hand-pat water on frizzy hair) on Shabbos as long as it is not very wet, because the Melocho of Melabain (cleaning or scouring) does not apply to the human body. (If the hair gets very wet it may not be squeezed out since hair is subject to the prohibition of S'chita - squeezing). However, the use of hairspray which will stiffen the hair and form a structure may involve the Melocho of Boneh (building). If one sprays the hair first and then styles and shapes it; this would be prohibited on Shabbos because it is similar to Boneh. However, some poskim permit the use of hairspray if one is careful to first style and shape the hair, and then only afterwards add the hairspray. When done in this manner the loose hair is shaped at the time of styling, and does not resemble Boneh because the hair is loose. The subsequent spraying merely acts to retain a pre-existing shape. Once the hair has been sprayed it can no longer be shaped, styled, or touched. {We mentioned previously that the use of hairspray on Shabbos does not involve the Melocho of Zoreh.} Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah 302, Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa 14:50:131, Kitzur Hilchos Shabbos re:Gozez:5:16, Biur Halacha 303:27, Hilchos Shabbos R' Shimon Eider, Minchas Yitzchok 6:26, Sefer 39 Melochos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 19 05:31:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:31:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hirhurei tshuva Message-ID: <7e7b234b4f3d4d51bc22ea4cdc8114d5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The Artscroll Yom Kippur machzor has the following comment (I could not find the GRA's statement in Aderet Eliyahu). "David replies with just two words: "I have sinned to HASHEM." Nathan answers, "[If so] God has removed your sin and you will not die. "The Vilna Gaon notes that according to the Masoretic text there is a space after David's brief confession, even though it is in the middle of a sentence. This implies that David wanted to say more - he felt that he should go into more detail about his sin and the sincerity of his remorse - but was so overcome by remorse that he could not speak. He didn't have to. Nathan broke in to tell him that he had been forgiven - because his confession, brief and incomplete though he thought it to be - was utterly sincere." Me-Do you think this thought coheres with the following insight from R'YBS: "In response to this Divine verdict, R'Yehudah HaNasi cried, marveling at how some individuals merit the World to Come only after a lifetime of effort, while others acquire such reward after only brief effort. The Rav emphasized that the executioner not only earned a share in the World to Come, but achieved the same level as did R'Chananya in this regard. "Why did R'Yehudah HaNasi have such an emotional reaction to the afterlife destiny of the executioner? The answer is that although prior to this incident R'Yehudah HaNasi had certainly understood the redemptive power of teshuvah, he had not previously appreciated the redemptive power of hirhur Tshuva, "awakening" of teshuvah. If teshuvah is indeed a multistep process, involving sin recognition, remorse, and resolve, how can an individual possibly be considered righteous after only a moment's thought? Only through hirhur Tshuva, which is spontaneous, instinctive, and sudden. In one second, an individual can live the jarring experience of awakening from spiritual slumber." 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 Fri Oct 19 07:03:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:03:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Most Profound and Far-Reaching Vision of the Future Ever Permitted a Mortal to Behold or to Utter Message-ID: In his commentary on Bereishis 9:25-27 25 He said: Cursed be Canaan; he shall be a servant of servants to his brothers. 26 And he said: Blessed be God, the God of Shem; may Canaan become their servant. 27 God will open [people?s] emotions to Yefes, but He will dwell in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be a servant to them. RSRH provides deep insights into a number of important topics. He writes 25?27 We have here what may be the most profound and far-reaching vision of the future that God ever permitted a mortal to behold or to utter. The entire history of mankind ? past, present, and future ? is contained in these three verses. and then later on The spirit of Israel does not produce ecstatics who lose their grip on reality and go mad. Judaism yearns for God?s closeness, but requires of man clarity of thought, a composed and sober mind. Ecstatics who ?merge with the divine? lack freedom of choice; they imagine that they themselves do nothing, but that God acts through them. This is not the way to serve God. Our task is to make use of the intellect and the freedom God has given us, in the earthly sphere which He has assigned to us; to serve God faithfully, conscientiously, and with a clear mind. Only thus will we attain the highest perfection a person can reach; only thus will our actions be sanctified, and will we be worthy of God?s closeness. IMO there is so much of import in his commentary on these verses that I have taken the trouble to post it at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/profound_far_reaching_vision.pdf If you take the time to read this, you may well find insight into what we see going on in the world today as well as what has happened in the past and will happen in the future. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 21 07:14:12 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 10:14:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayera "We have to teach empathy as we do literacy." (Bill Drayton) Message-ID: <0D74D2E3-332B-4E5B-9E58-56B4273FC281@cox.net> 1) The following is a beautiful reflection of Jewish sensitivity. The original source of the story is not known. See Bamberger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 1939), p. 209, note 17/ "Once, Abraham's love of strangers clashed with his zeal for God. He invited a wayfarer to his home and, finding the wayfarer praying to his idol, chased him away. God reprimanded Abraham severely: 'I have borne with him these many years although he rebelled against Me, and you cannot bear with him one night?!' Abraham had realized his sin and did not rest until he had brought the stranger back.? (Benjamin Franklin composed his "Parable against Persecution" on this very theme). 2) The Sidrah opens by saying that God appeared to Abraham [Gen. 18:1], but when Abraham applies the vision to his own world he suddenly sees three men standing before him [Gen. 18:2]. Abraham is the religious man par excellence for he sees God in the human situation. Franz Rosenzweig Based on the puotation in On Jewish Learning, ed. Nahum Glatzer (New York: Schocken, 1955), p. 124 3) 18:2 "And he lifted up his eyes and he saw, and, behold, three people....." Who were these three people? Michael, Gabriel, and Rafael. Michael came to inform Sarah that she would bear a child; Rafael, to heal Abraham; and Gabriel, to overturn Sodom. (Bava Metzia 86b) 4) The sin of Sodom consisted not only in what the people did but in what they failed to do. Thus, no one raised a voice in protest when the crowd molested Lot's guests. Failure to protest is to participate in the sins of a community. (Gen. R. 50:9) This is reminiscent many years ago of Kitty Genovese, a woman in Queens, N.Y., who was screaming for help at the top of her lungs in a major apartment complex, and not one person lifted a finger or even phoned the police. This woman was killed due to the negligence of every person aware of her screams. Are we raising our voice in protest when we witness people being hurt? "The dew of compassion is a tear." Lord Byron (1788-1824) One of the greatest British poets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 21 16:38:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 19:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:18:17AM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : I don't understand why it would need such long : deliberation or a long teshuvah to demonstrate what every school : child knows, that a mumar remains a Jew. You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein's "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity". (Reprinted in Leaves of Faith. ch 3 pp 57-84) http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage (When I hit that URL, the article was available on Google Books in its entirety.) It isn't as open-and-shut that "Yisrael, af al pi shechat'ah, Yisra'el hu" is as universal or as much as a given as most of us were taught in school. We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the qiddushin are chal. But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking Hoacheia 17a. Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim even though their conversation had been accepted for generations before then. RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. Including, RAL writes, Brother Daniel or any other meshumad applying for citizenship under the Law of Return. 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 rabbi at opengemara.org Mon Oct 22 02:45:07 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:45:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> References: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 21, 2018 4:38:17 PM PDT, Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein... > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage ... > We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to > practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the > qiddushin are chal. > But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a > non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, > Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking > Hoacheia 17a. > Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim ... I didn't learn that sugya in a while, but I was under the impression that it's a machlokes Rishonim how to learn the Aseres Hashevatim (I think it's the Meiri there). Some learn that they were a horaas shaah. Others learn like you wrote, that one who is a min is considered completely not a Jew. The thing is that the Halacha doesn't follow those Rishonim, as we're still Choshesh for the Kiddushin of a Min (who does give up their Jewish identity). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Oct 23 23:02:52 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:02:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters Message-ID: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim B:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to harvest because? they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. The Radbaz explains that since the workers aren't experts, they will either give too much pe'ah or too little.? Meaning, the issue is technical, not that they aren't chayav to give and therefore they can't do it. What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or twice with them. Ben From eliturkel at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 07:51:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:51:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: << RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. >> RAL is the most persuasive essentially after several generations. It is hard to believe that someone who converted to Xtianity in the middle ages would have descendants who are Jewish through the mothers when all connection to the Jewish world is lost. I once read that there are 80 million descendants today from the Jews in Spain that left Judaism. While we only count those through the maternal side this would still give a lot of "halachic" Jews for people who might be strong anti-semites today. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 25 06:33:46 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:33:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: Message-ID: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we say lo palginon (we don't split)? 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 Oct 26 11:06:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:06:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026180609.GA18376@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:40:01AM -0400, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no : significant debate about that. Quibble: +/- 168 years during Galus Bavel, and perhaps other issues. Also, the Seder Olam, R' Yossi bar Chalafta (acc. to Yavamos 82b & Niddah 46b), is only one tanna among many. For that matter, he is "only" the primary author, as it quotes people who lived later than RYbH. Of course there are machloqesin about many of his positions. (Our calendar is Sefer Olam chronology with a different year 0. Seder Olam numbers the year of Adam's creation as 0, and we use year 1 for the week before Adam, so that our numbers are SO + 2. But the same age.) But in a much smaller scale than you intended to, there are numerous debates. I have a pet theory that these factors are the reason why shetaros, and in particular gittin, explain the year is only as "beminyan she'anu monim kan ba'ir Ploni-ville..." But in any case, since lemaaseh no din relies on the year, pesaq doesn't apply, and machloqesin neither have to be nor even can be resolved. : 3. We don't know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam : HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a : day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. The Ramban is clear -- a yom was 24 hours on a hypothetical clock, the way we measure time now. R' Dessler explains the Ramban as equally saying that a yom was 1,000 years. Which wouldn't be long enough to help, but it gets weirder -- not just any 1,000 years, but a millennium of the 6,000 of world history. According to REED, the Ramban correctly holds that time is non-linear. (Michtav meiEliyahu vol II pp 150-154, Yemei Bereishis veYemai Olam, I paraphrase it paragraph by paragraph at ) R' Dessler writes that the arrow of time and the whole concept of a time-line is specific to how human beings perceive reality, and even that only as people have done so /after/ the cheit. Which gives him the room to say that the scientific age of the universe is not so much wrong as choosing a less than optimal way of viewing a problem that doesn't admit any one answer. The age of the universe is 6 millenia or so plus 6 days as seen from the perspective the Torah advises us to adopt. But that doesn't make some other answer less correct, or less useful for some other purpose. : 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the : descriptions we have of the Big Bang. : 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny : that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round.... Well, the Ramban on bara mentions hyle, which is the Greek for chomer in chomer vertzurah (which they called hylomorphism). So Hashem first made substance without form. Or maybe, less hard to imagine, the current substance, but in forms that no longer exist. Now, Quantum Mechanics is nothing at all like hylomorphism, but... According to Big Bang theory, in the first fractions of a second after yeish mei'ayin, things were so hot that individual particals had no identity. What now appears to be four kinds of particles, for kinds of fields, mediating forces was just one mush, not so mention the particles we think of as matted. As things cooled, the symmetry split again and again until the types of particles and forces we know today differentiated. Does sound like chomer beli tzurah. : - Expansion doesn't prove anything. It's a fact that requires a theory : to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made : the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously : expand. How do we explain "Shakai"? That He said "dai" and the expansion ended, no? : 7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit : facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, : "What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem : does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, : we would be much poorer... But there is no way to disprove "the universe is young and Hashem had His Reasons for doing it that way", reasons we can't identify. We might want answers that feel less facile, but that doesn't make it false. Might just be human hubris, to need a universe we can understand. That is different than what you're talking about, which is more similar to separating a scientific study of cause with a Torah study of purpose. But it does raise the question of whether "a bit facile" is a meaningful RELIGIOUS problem. You want to know the science, fine. But life's values doesn't rest on it. Nor should you assume science can't his a wall. : So what's the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, : or was it just made to look that way? REED says both. Because, in his typical Kantian perspective, he has science address the world as humans perceive it, believing the world as it exists "out there" is actually unknowable. And so, the world before eitz hadaas and observation by human consciousness of our sort is amenable to different descriptions. Each capturing a different shadow of the basic unknowable. On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. That natural is just a term we use to describe the patterns by which Hashem usually acts. It is all "by Himself". >From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> + When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. :-)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 From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:41:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:41:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters In-Reply-To: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> References: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181026184149.GC20611@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:02:52AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim [2]:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to : harvest because they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. ... : What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here : and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or : twice with them. I assume you're llimiting your question to pei'ah. Because leqet requires getting out of a habit when you're in the middle of gathering. And for the same reason, why not worry about shikhechah? I would think that even with instructions, it's leqet and shikechah that's hard to get used to and get right. :-)BBii! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:36:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:36:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026183619.GB20611@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:20:01AM -0400, Looking ForInspiration via Avodah wrote: : Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that : when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, : it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this : mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? It didn't. The mishnah took a 3 generation process: R' Aqiva, R Meir and Rebbe. Stam mishnah is usually like R Meir, although the gemara at times proves a different maqor, not even the final redactor. (Stam Sifra keRabbi Yehudah, even though the Sifra is not by Rebbe, but by his student, Rav.) You have statements like on RH 19b, where you're told the mishnah is not in accord with R" Yehudah haNasi. So the notion that the opinion of the mishnah is necessarily the opnion of the redactor is not a given. Nor is the stam mishnah always R' Meir. Therefor conflicting opinions isn't proof of multiple redactors. (Although,as I wrote, redaction was one school, not one person.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:05:56 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:05:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20181028150556.GB10183@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:10:21PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : Zev Sero commented: :> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, :> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. : What, if anything, does this teach us -- about Halacha or morality or : the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Perhaps it tells us that more die when the appeals process is endless? And thus, once the case is closed, it's closed. And we trust G-d to insure that any miscarriage of justice in the case is just in the broader context. Just thinking out loud to keep the topic going... It needs more discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 28 05:04:29 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:04:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:19:23 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:19:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf : The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of them a couple of decades ago. Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an artificial evolution of halakh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 10:09:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 13:09:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: At 11:19 AM 10/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: Please see >http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. > >And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >them a couple of decades ago. > >Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an >artificial evolution of halakh. I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that RYBS said this. In any event see http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf From there The findings in this article seem to confirm the judgment of some scholars that the rabbinic sources cited by R. Epstein should not be taken as accurate and that they require independent confirmation from the original sources.61 Certainly the inconsistencies found in MB cast serious doubt as to its value as a completely accurate historical account. We will never know what lies behind the puzzling inaccuracies in R. Epstein's oeuvre, nor is it for us to speculate. R. Menachem Kasher, after setting severe strictures about the reliability of R. Epstein's citations, nevertheless expresses a charitable understanding of the circumstances that may have brought this about. Noting R. Epstein's statement in MB that he lived a "life of suffering" (hayyei tsa)ar), R. Kasher writes that R. Epstein was a "great man" (adam gadol) whose )) is "a monumental work" (avoda anakit), and he attributes the many inaccuracies in the work to R. Epstein's difficult and inordinately busy life which did not permit him to check his sources as carefully as he should have. One old lesson emerges reinforced from all this-a lesson for researchers in any field, especially the field of Torah scholarship. Primary material must be carefully examined, and if only secondary sources are available, their veracity must be meticulously ascertained. Rayna Batya seems to have been an extraordinary woman, but the inaccuracies in R Epstein's telling of her story cloud our ability to know her and her absorbing story. We close this article, which is written in sadness rather than glee, by noting one final irony. When Mesorah Publications published a translation of R. Epstein's MB, tided My Uncle the Netziv, it deleted certain key words.64 The passage in which we learned of Rayna Batya's scholar- ship was one of the changed passages. The original passage, for example, mentioned the venous books she used and included, among others, Mishnayot and books of aggada. In the English translation, these books were deleted from the list, causing much indignation in the scholarly world at this attempt to revise history. How ironic it is that this effort to "sanitize" R. Epstein's reputation should have inadvertency hit upon the truth: that the story of Rayna Batya lie many other elements in MB and Torah Temima are in fact in need of serious revision. _________________________________ In light of all this can we really be sure that the Netziv read newspapers on Shabbos? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:25:15 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 12:09 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the > accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that > RYBS said this. > > In any event see > http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition article would Certainly qualify. HM From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 14:35:04 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 17:35:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 05:25 PM 10/28/2018, Harry Maryles wrote: >FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical >of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to >R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition >article would Certainly qualify. IIRC Rabbi Meir Fund is the one who told me that RYBS said that there are many inaccuracies in the writings of the Torah Temima. Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be well documented. YL From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:49:03 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:49:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <5E34DB8F-9432-4A3B-BD90-808E37069230@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be > `well documented. I glanced at it. But I did not read it. All I was doing was saying what my rebbi told me personally HM From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 19:06:13 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 22:06:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage > ... > RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends > up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who > reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who > goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed > not be Jews. One must be wary of the phrase "would indeed not be Jews". As RAL reiterates there, over and over, "Jew" can mean different things in different contexts. For example, Please see what he wrote there on pages 66-67, distinguishing between "shem Yisrael" and "kedushat Yisrael": > If we ask, in purely descriptive terms, whether anyone born of > Jewish parents is a Jew, the answer must be yes. As an epithet, > the term "Jew" remains applicable to any individual who was > ever endowed with Jewish status - even to a mechumad. Hence, he > is obligated to pursue a Torah life, and should he decide to > return, he would perhaps require no new conversion.[38] > However, if we ask whether a meshumad has anything of a Jewish > personality and character, and whether, therefore, he continues > to be endowed with the personal status of a Jew, the answer is > a ringing no. He remains a Jew without Jewishness. What he > retains is simply the descriptive epithet: shem Yisrael. Of > kedushat Yisrael, however - of the sacredness of the Jewish > personality, that which essentially constitutes being a Jew - he > is bereft. > [38] The first point, that the obligation remains, is certain. > The second, that reentry would not necessitate gerut, is open > to question. One might argue that even for one who is endowed > with shem Yisrael, the recovery of kedushat Yisrael requires > gerut. It may also be contended that gerut would not be required, > but only because the return to the fold would retroactively > cancel the earlier renunciation. My point is that - according to RAL - even the very most extreme meshumad, who severs his connection to the Jewish people so completely that he has totally lost his kedushat Yisrael, still has shem Yisrael, and IS STILL OBLIGATED IN MITZVOS. This is a critical distinction. To refer to such a person as a non-Jew would easily mislead people to think that he is now relieved of his Jewish obligations. It would be most tragic if the meshumad himself was led to such a conclusion, for it would divest him of the last shred of motivation to return. He would think of himself as an ordinary outsider, for whom gerut is totally optional. (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say about the next generation. Suppose we are talking of a woman meshumedet, who still has shem Yisrael, but abandoned her kedushat Yisrael. Do her children have shem Yisrael or not? It has always been my presumption that her children (and the children of her daughters, etc etc ad infinitum) would be obligated in mitzvos, but this article makes me wonder about that. To phrase it in more technical terms: For a newborn to have shem Yisrael, does it suffice that his mother has shem Yisrael, or must she also have kedushat Yisrael?) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:03:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181029190301.GE13649@aishdas.org> So, here are the three shitos RALichtenstein discusses about how to resolve the apparently conflicting gemaros. 1- The Rashba (Yavemos 22a) takes the case of the marriage of a backslid geir (Yevamos 67b) as primary. And the gemara about Kusim does not mean that Chazal reject their attempt at conversion. Rather kol demeqadeish al daas chakhamim meqadeish gives Chazal the power to deny the validity of their attempts to marry (other) Jews. Variant on this theme: 1b- The Ittur (quf, Qiddishin 78a) says that R' Yehudai Gaon says that Chakhamim DO allow their marriage to a Jew, and that the statement is about stam yeinam, shechitah, and other laws that are limited to maaminim. Th SA (YD 159:3) similarly says that we may not pay a Kusi ribis, but we may charge him. 2- HaGahos Mordekhai (Yevamos 107) holds that the person is literally not a Jew -- but. Because we cannot know the extent of someone's apostacy, we aren't mindreaders, for something as major as eishes ish, we recognize lechumerah his marriage to a Jewish woman. 3- R' Chaim Solovei[t]chik notes that the Rambam WRT seider nashim (Ishus 4:15, Issurei Bi'ah 13:17) as following Yevamos, like #1. And yet WRT taharah, Peirush haMIshnayos (Nidda 7:4) says a Kusi's body is not metamei tum'as ohalim, because nakhriim don't. R' Chaim says that Yevamos refers to a geir who returned to his old practices, in RAL's terms "an apostacy of action". But the Kusim and the 10 Shevatim not only changed behavior, but also ceased identifying as Jews. The opinion I mentioned earlier as R' Aharon's was his following his wife's ancestor. The quote RAM provides from Leaves of Faith pp 66-67 I saw more as a subject - object distinction. In his own eyes, he has the din of a Jew. But in the eyes of how others are supposed to relate to him, he does not. And it's the latter -- how are we to classify others -- that was under discussion. To quote RAM on another point: : (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on : the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say : about the next generation... RAL writes a little later: > It might be be argued that it only applies to a mass secession, whereby > not only an individual but his whole social context becomes uprooted. Or > one might contend that only the children, born in complete ignorance of > their origins, are affected, whereas the apostate, paradoxically, might > remain a Jew. 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 emteitz at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 09:17:40 2018 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:17:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: RMicha Berger wrote: >>And yet, the Netziv spen[t] Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >>One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >>the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >>them a couple of decades ago. To which RDYitzchok Levine responded: >I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the >accurateness of his writings. Even granting RDYL's source, there is quite a difference between accuracy in the quoting of sources and accuracy in conveying an eyewitness account. The former would attribute carelessness and imprecision to R. Boruch Epstein; the latter would accuse him of being an intentional liar. Even granting the inaccuracy of his writing, it has no bearing whatever on the accuracy of what he attests to having seen. However, even if the N'tziv did read the newspapers, it is may have no relevance to the current discussion. As RMB cited, it was the haskala press. The Netziv may have been reading it for the purpose of "v'da ma shetashiv," which I believe would render his reading permissible on Shabbos. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:54:42 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:54:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: In-Reply-To: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181029195442.GF13649@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 01:33:46PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for : accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not : guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but : have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we : say lo palginon (we don't split)? QLbdRM applies to chaivei misos shogegin. Because it's shoegeig, BD doesn't kill him, but because he violated a law that carries dinei nefashos, he is off the hook for paying a plaintiff as well. Although in the case of shogegin, the Maharshal says he is chayav to pay midinei Shamayim, even if the court can't force him to pay, and the Qetzos questions this. REWasserman (Qoveitz Shiurim 93) says there are two issues -- which crime to try and which punishment to give. Because in the case of shogegin, there is only the first -- we try for the worse aveirah, but HQBH still holds him accountable for the onesh of the lesser one, since that's the only onesh he is up for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 18:40:39 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 12:40:39 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Toivelling a flower vase more used for food Message-ID: Is the classification of Kelie SeUdah determined by the manufacturer or the user? The Gemara (AZ 75b) rejects the proposition that scissors acquired from a G require Tevillah, only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. The reason we may have thought scissors do require Tevillah - since once Kashered, all food taste is gone, it's like a new device. In fact that's how the Gemara knows that new utensils do require Tevilla. Now, if new devices require Tevillah then it's got nothing to do with the food of the G. In that case scissors should also require. The Gemara rejects that because only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. Meaning it's got something to do with food, at least in the potential. The Ritva however, is troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food of a G. He explains that nevertheless, since they will be used eventually for food they have some connection to food, therefore even new utensils of a G require Tevillah, and he adds, because they're going to a sacred (kosher or Jewish?) use. But why was he troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food? Could this mean that if the G never intend to use it for food, but as a flower vase for example, but the Y chooses to use it for food, that it does not require Tevillah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 30 09:04:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:04:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Freshly Brewed Coffee- on Shabbos? Message-ID: >From the article at http://cor.ca/view-891-freshly-brewed-coffeeon-shabboshtml.html It is well known that there are various grades of roast of coffee beans, from light roast to dark roast. When does a coffee bean become fully roasted to the extent that halacha would allow for it to be cooked on Shabbos? Poskim have expressed doubt as to whether roasted coffee beans have the status of a food that is baked or roasted.8 Due to this doubt, we are not prepared to provide the heter to use microground coffee on Shabbos, even in a kli shlishi.9 ee the above URL for much more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Oct 29 14:12:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 21:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: Pasuk 24:4 in Bereishis says 4 But you shall go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son, for Yitzchak. RSRH comments: Eliezer is to be guided by two considerations: First, l'vni; she should be worthy of being the wife of my son; she should justify my hope that she will become my daughter even as he is my son. This is the general requirement regarding her character. But two people can each be of the most excellent character and still be incompatible. Hence, l'Yitzchak; Eliezer should make sure that the woman is compatible with Yitzchak's individual character. Avraham rejected the daughters of Canaan, preferring an Aramean woman for his son. Let us bear in mind, though, that the Arameans, too, were idolaters. Thus, the reason for Avraham's decision was not the idolatry of the Canaanites, but their moral degeneracy. Idolatry is basically an intellectual error, and that can be corrected. Moral degeneracy, however, takes hold of the whole individual, heart and soul. Hence, even a man such as Avraham could not hope to find among the Canaanites a modest, morally pure woman as a wife for his son, a woman who would bring with her a nobility of spirit and the purity of morality, as a pearl for his home. [Email #2. -micha] Someone who is a rabbi with broad based knowledge sent me the following in response to my earlier message with this subject line. It is amazing how RSRH always can find something so very thoughtful and true. The Rambam alludes at the same matter: that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo, and so he will lose his Chelemer in the Olam HaBo, while it is very possibly that he might do t'shuvo for hillul Shabbos, even if only on his deathbed. RSRH was indeed the kind of very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations. YL From t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 31 00:16:31 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 03:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> From: "Prof. Levine" >: Please see >: http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. My father asked me not to read novels on Shabbos. He didn't say anything to me about reading non-fiction. I was a teenager at the time. I said he asked me, not he told me. I understood that novels were not Shabbosdig. Secular novels, that is. There were almost no Jewish novels back then. It is possible that he phrased it as a request rather than halachic statement because he did not want to impose on me some stricture that might turn me off. Possibly we are now discussing chinuch advice for parents of teenage daughters rather than hilchos Shabbos. From: Micha Berger > And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. > One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from > the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of > them a couple of decades ago. > Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an > artificial evolution of halakha. Not Friday night and not maskilishe papers. I have a copy of the letter that was sent out by the Lakewood Cheder School, recalling the book <> which it had sent out as a fundraiser. The letter does not say what is wrong with the book. All it says is, <> There seems to be a little dig there at the Torah Temima, R' Baruch Epstein, who was the Netziv's nephew and also a ben bayis in the Netziv's home and of course a talmid of the Netziv in the Volozhin yeshiva. But apparently because he thought his uncle was human, a very great man but still human, he somehow didn't <> know his uncle. After the death of his first wife, the Netziv married the sister of the Torah Temima (yes, married his niece), thereupon becoming not only the uncle but also the brother-in-law of the TT. Who nevertheless never really knew his uncle/brother-in-law, according to Lakewood. My father (R' Nachman Bulman) wrote a haskama for the book My Uncle the Netziv, which is a translation (by Moshe Dombey) of parts of the TT's memoirs, called in Hebrew <> The book came out in 1988. To quote part of my father's letter, which is the first page of the book: > The experience of Torah life derives first and foremost from Torah > learning. But the impact of Torah learning is immeasurably richer when > the lives of living Sifrei Torah, of Torah Sages, become educative models > for our people. Further, such lives are vital links in the chain of Jewish > historical knowledge. Mekor Baruch is a matchless compendium of biography, > memoirs, and lore....A glowing portrayal of Volozhin and its last central > figure, the venerable Netziv, is a major part of the work.... I ran into a friend of mine in Brooklyn shortly after Lakewood recalled the book, and he asked me, <> At that point I had no idea who the Netziv was and had never heard of the book or of the Lakewood recall, but I knew my father. <> was my instant reply. I called my father up and asked him for the lowdown. He said that some people in Lakewood were upset because the TT said his uncle read newspapers, but it was because Lakewood was unfamiliar with the papers mentioned in the book. My father actually laughed out loud as he told me this. <> (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was amused by this, too. <>) I will quote a couple of paragraphs from My Uncle the Netziv, to give the flavor of the book and of the humanity, the depth and breadth of the Netziv's personality. He used to say that he considered the newspapers like greetings from the entire world and therefore waited expectantly for their arrival. [They were weeklies that arrived on Friday.] He would not look at the paper Friday night as that time was set aside for reviewing [his Torah learning]. He would save his perusal of the paper for Shabbos morning [after kiddush]. It upset him greatly when one newspaper slandered another....My uncle's wrath was particularly provoked by his favorite papers--the Magid and Levanon--who could not seem to talk about each other with any sense of dignity and derech eretz....The owner of the Levanon, Yechiel Brill, had unilaterally decided that his paper would be the sole voice of the rabbinical community and Torah outlook on all the issues of the day....to his great chagrin, he found out that many rabbonim and members of the Torah community were also avid readers of his arch rival paper, the Magid... The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe newspapers! I recently heard, by the way, that My Uncle the Netziv is once again being sold openly in Lakewood seforim stores (apparently it has been reprinted) and no one remembers that old controversy anymore. They will sell you the book without putting it in a plain brown wrapper, and I wouldn't be surprised if some people read the book on Shabbos. -Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From micha at aishdas.org Thu Nov 1 10:11:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:11:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181101171103.GI32359@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:16:31AM -0400, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the : book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to : learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was : amused by this, too. <>) Also, Zionism. The Netziv supported Chovevei Tziyon. I enjoy pointing out to people that although Zionism was a hotly contested issue in 19th cent Eastern Europe, it was not a communal division line. And so the Netziv's yeshiva had no problem having R' Chaim Brisker as its segan RY. (We really don't see Zionism opening up as a community-defining matter until sometime during or shortly after WWI. The Agudah's first attempt to have a Kenesiah Gedolah was interrupted by that war. Many rabbanim were stranded on the way to it. Including RAYKook, who spent WWI in Switzerland and then England. On their second and successful attempt, in 1923, being a Zionist made you ineligable for membership in the Agudah, and RAYK wasn't invited.) : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic ways.) Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Nov 1 04:37:27 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:37:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: ?that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo,? This is, indeed an intelligent and worthwhile statement. Yet it also is, as I see it, basic common sense that does not require a ?very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations.? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Nov 2 06:29:57 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:29:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Between Eating Meat and Milk Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I know that there are various customs as to how long one must wait between meat and milk. Is waiting between meat and milk a Rabbinic obligation or is it a custom? A. The Gemara (Chullin 105a) states in the name of Rav Chisda that one who eats meat is forbidden to eat cheese afterwards, but one who eats cheese may eat meat. Mar Ukva qualifies that when he would eat meat, he would not eat cheese until the next meal. There is disagreement among Rishonim as to how to understand the ruling of Mar Ukva. * Rambam held that Mar Ukva was teaching us that one must wait approximately 6 hours, the length of time between meals. Shulchan Aruch follows the opinion of Rambam although he states precisely 6 hours. * Tosfos understood that Mar Ukva meant that once one eats meat, it is forbidden to eat cheese until the meal is concluded by reciting Birkas Hamazon. In addition, the mouth must be cleaned. The Rama follows the opinion of Tosfos, but writes that there is a minhag to wait one hour and that the custom of those who are careful is to wait 6 hours. Interestingly, the common German custom is to wait 3 hours. So while all agree that there is a definite Rabbinic obligation to wait between eating meat and milk, there are different opinions as to how long one must wait. For Sefardim who follow the ruling of Shulchan Aruch, waiting 6 hours is an absolute obligation. For Ashkenazim, who follow the ruling of the Rama, the obligation ends once one cleans out one?s mouth and recites a bracha acharona. Waiting one hour, three hours, or six hours are different customs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Nov 4 06:33:48 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 14:33:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Asking a Non-Jew to Perform Melacha Part 1 Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Amira%20l'Akum%20101.pdf The author is Rabbi Shmuel Stein, originally from Brooklyn, is a talmid of Mesivta and Yeshiva Torah Temimah, Yeshivas Yagdil Torah in Eretz Yisroel and Bais Medrash Govoha. Rabbi Stein teaches the popular Wednesday evening In Hilchos Shabbos Shiur and writes a review sheet which is disseminated each week before Shabbos. He organizes the Kollel?s youth programs including Masmidei Erev and Miami Masmidim program. Rabbi Stein is the new resource director at Yeshiva Elementary school and teaches at Mechina of South Florida. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Nov 4 21:03:58 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 07:03:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: [Micha wrote:] > On 11/1/2018 7:11 PM, [RnTK] via Avodah wrote: >: The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the >: Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe >: newspapers!> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos Haskalishe newspaper. > About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist > papers. I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content is like. If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content In addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based content. I don't think of these papers as being Torah publications, rather they are party newspapers that include some Torah". I would ask a different question though: What constitutes a Torah publication? Does it have to deal with parshat shavua, Gemara, mussar, exclusively? Would reading about an opinion piece, written by a rabbi, on world affairs constitute Torah? Rav Kook regularly wrote news columns. What about a mixture of Torah and news? How much of each? Is the content of each article reviewed to make sure that it doesn't violate the laws of lashon ha-rah? From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 09:22:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 17:22:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 25:27 27 When the lads grew up, Esav was a man who understood hunting, a man of the field, and Ya?akov was a totally dedicated man, living in tents. Our Sages never hesitate to point out to us the errors and shortcomings, both great and small, of our forefathers, and precisely thus they make Torah great and glorious, heightening its instructiveness for us (see Commentary above, 12:10). On our verse, too, an observation made by our Sages indicates that the sharp contrast between the two grandsons of Avraham was caused not only by their natural tendencies, but also by mistakes in their upbringing (Bereshis Rabbah 63:10). As long as they were little, no one paid attention to the differences in their hidden natures (see v. 24); they were given the same upbringing and the same education. Their parents overlooked the cardinal principle of education: 'chanoch lanar al pi darco, ?Bring up each child in accordance with his own way? (Mishlei 22:6). Each child should be guided in accordance with the path intended especially for him, the path that suits the qualities and tendencies latent in the depths of his personality, and thus he should be educated, both as a man and as a Jew. The great Jewish task is basically one, but the ways of its fulfillment are manifold and diverse, as human character traits and paths of life are manifold and diverse. Precisely for this reason, each child must be brought up al pi darco; educate him to the one great goal, according to his own unique way, in keeping with his potential. To attempt to educate a Ya?akov and an Esav together in the same classroom, in the same routines and in the same manner, to raise both of them for a life of study and contemplation, will inevitably mean to ruin one of the two. A Ya?akov will draw from the well of wisdom with ever-increasing interest and desire, whereas an Esav will hardly be able to wait for the day when he can throw away the old books and, together with them, a great life-mission, of which he was taught in a one-sided manner, totally unappealing to his nature. For much more on this topic see Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 12:49:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 15:49:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah Message-ID: <20181105204918.GA15965@aishdas.org> The AhS discusses length a few times, but I just passed CM 218:1. It ends: And know that according to the measure in our country of Russia, every 4 amos in the gemara is 3 arshin of ours, which is 7 regel ["fut"] which is one sazhen. And every tefach is 2 vieshoks. Well, there is the translations from wikipedia's page on "Obsolete Russian Units of Measurement" >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete_Russian_units_of_measurement>. 1 fut = 30.48 cm (= 1' British Empirial) = 3/7 arshin 1 arshin = 71.12cm = 2-1/3' 1 sachen = 3 arshin = 2.1336m = 7' So, 4 amos = 3 arshin 1 ammah = 3/4 arshin = 3/4 * 2-1/3 ft = 1.75' = 21" 1 vershok = 1/16 of an arshin = 4.445cm = 1-3/4" Meaning a tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 ammah) Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). Given the round numbers the AhS is working with -- 3/4 of a local unit of measure -- RMF and the AhS could differ only by rounding tolerance. 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 llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 13:16:27 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 21:16:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? Message-ID: RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf For more on this see https://www.ajol.info/index.php/samj/article/viewFile/157422/147034 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 13:35:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 16:35:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181105213511.GA31108@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:16:27PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See : http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf There was a 1979 paper by [Dr?] Philip Lanzkowsky in the American Academy of Pediatrics Journal on the topic. The AAP Journal even cites RSRH! Abstract: Polycythmia as a result of twin-to-twin transfusion in monozygotic twins has only been recognized as a clinical entity in the last few decades. The first recorded case of polycythemia in the newborn due to twin-to-twin transfusion, however, was reported in the Bible: "And when her (Rebekah) days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first came forth ruddy, all over like a hairy mantle; and they called his name Esau...". Genesis XXV, 24-26. A ruddy newborn twin is a clear description of polycythemia in the newborn presumably due to twin-to-twin transfusion. According to Hirsch,[1] despite the contrastrating differences between Esau and Jacob, they were identical twins with complete exterior similarity. Twin-to-twin transfusion occurs in 15% of identical twins. One may further speculate that because of the marked intellectual and emotional differences between Esau and his brother Jacob, that Esau's intellectual restrictions might very well have been evidence of brain damage due to cerebral sludging as a result of polycythemia or kernicterus due to uncorrected hyperbilirubinemia pursuant to polycythemia. "... nothing is new under the sun.... It has already been in the ages before us."[2] The article itself is behind a paywall, though. The problem is that Rabbeinu Chananel quotes R Yosi that Yaaqov was conceived first. And R' Yosi is an amora. As my kids and I each learned in our respective parashah classes in elementary school, Yaaqov was allegedly really the bechor, because the pebble that comes out of the vessel last was the one put into the vessel first. It's the one nearest the exit, after all. I say allegedly, because bekhorah doesn't really go to the second twin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Nov 5 13:36:32 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 16:36:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] RYS and His Son Going to College (was Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: <38.4E.22391.2E7B0EB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:17 PM 11/5/2018, R Micha wrote: >HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, >they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch >Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in >math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it >happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. >And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic >ways.) He did not agree with nor approve of his son's decision to get a college education. >> From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 1 pages 313 - 314. >>R. Israel, however, was deeply distressed that his son had >>abandoned the study of Torah, since the son had excelled so well in >>it in his youth. The father derived no comfort at all from the >>son's remarkable achievements in the world of science, and cut off >>his support during all the son's student years. R. Israel exerted >>every effort to restore his son to Torah study. When Hamaggid >>reported in 1865, that "Mr. Lipkin was on his way to Koenigsberg to >>engage in advanced research, "the editor added that this was the >>son of R. Israel of Salant, and that he was "a pride to his saintly >>father, the Gaon, as well, may he live, who did not prevent the son >>from attending lectures at university, and so to integrate Torah >>and science, for the greater glory of the sons of our people." A >>few weeks later the same periodical (No. 11) carried a letter over >>the signature of R. Israel with these remarks: "Since Truth is the >>lamp at the feet of the righteousness that goes about on earth, I >>find it my duty publicly to proclaim that no glory accrues to me, >>as the slip of your pen would seem to indicate, in respect of my >>son. On the contrary, to me this is a 'bitterness of the spirit'. >>My heart grieves at the path which my son has wanted to set for >>himself. Whoever loves his soul and has the power to persuade him, >>to turn his desire not to run counter to my will and wishes, will >>do a great favor to one as depressed in spirit as I am today". >>Nor was there any contradiction between R. Israel's personal >>attitude and his simultaneous efforts to spread Judaism in academic >>circles. There was nothing in his views to prevent him from trying >>to infiltrate Torah inside the walls of the university and to >>influence students. Furthermore, he employed every means at his >>disposal to guard his son against straying from Judaism. He >>journeyed specially to St. Petersburg to extract a three-fold >>promise: that his son would observe Shabbat, refrain from eating >>trefah food, and not shave. [27] He would say that were he able to >>disguise himself as a woman, he would go to work in the restaurant >>patronized by his son, so as to supervise the kashrut. He also >>requested R. Isaac Blazer, then rabbi in St. Petersburg, by mail, >>to keep an eye on the son. [28] In this way, it is said, the son >>remained a loyal Jew. >>[27.] As related by Rabbi A. D. Berkovsky. Presumably this was the >>journey to St. Petersburg undertaken that year, 1872, as mentioned >>above, in connection with his political activities. R. Naftali >>Amsterdam is reputed to have related that, when R. Israel was in >>St. Petersburg, several of the university professors remarked to >>the son that they would want to see what made his father so great. >>The son suggested that they ask his father the most difficult >>question in geometry they could propound. They submitted a problem >>which had engaged their minds at that time. R. Israel studied it >>for a few minutes, and solved it to the astonishment of all the >>specialists in the field (told by R. Abraham Braude). >>[28.] R. Israel's last letter to R. Isaac Blazer concerning his >>son's conduct elicited the reply that the son had not tasted >>gentile baked bread for the past three months R. Israel understood >>this to imply that his son had been dead for three months, since no >>other bread was available in the capital. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t613k at aol.com Mon Nov 5 19:18:40 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:18:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> From: Micha Berger : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! [--old TK] HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. ? ?>>>> ? You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? When we speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a secular intellectual and academic movement and of? people who were not religious and who were often virulently anti-religious.? Wissenschaft des Judentums types. There definitely were secular, anti-religious journals being published in Europe in the 19th century, some in Hebrew, others in European languages.? These were not the journals that the Netziv was reading and discussing with his talmidim on Shabbos morning after kiddush. ? You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. ? The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were definitely Orthodox.? However, the use of words like modern, worldly, charedi, Orthodox and Zionist is anachronistic.? Those terms weren't used in the 19th century as they are today.? Nineteenth century Europe was not 21st century America.? Yechiel Brill, the editor and publisher of the Levanon, was a <> only in the loosest sense of having worldly interests and being a little bit on the modern side of the frum spectrum, but he was anti-Haskalah and anti-Reform.?? ? I don't know why you want to paint the Netziv as an avid consumer of secular newspapers.? That is just not accurate. ? Now, Ben Waxman wrote: ? >> I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content >>is like. >>If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah >>publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their >>content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all >>write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content. In >>addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based >>articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. >>So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, >>he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based >>content. Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view.? The letters to the editor could be long, weighty essays themselves.? You can't really compare them to Hamodia or Yated.? They were more like an Orthodox version of today's _Commentary_ magazine, but with more flame-throwing. ? The main thing they had in common with today's charedi newspapers is that they did not carry pictures of women.? But then again, they did not carry pictures of men, either. No pictures of anything!? Just pages and pages of words.? ?:) ? Ah, I remind myself of that song from <>?? ? Words Words Words I'm so sick of words I get words all day through First from him, now from you Is that all you blighters can do ? All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the far side of the moon. ? ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 23:28:59 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 09:28:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles Message-ID: This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgluck at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 6 05:10:10 2018 From: mgluck at mail.gmail.com (Moshe Y. Gluck) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 08:10:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sent: November 6, 2018 5:37 AM Cc: marty.bluke at gmail.com This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and obligatory on both parents? KT MYG Sent via the BlackBerry Hub for Android From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:35:51 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:35:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday, November 6, 2018, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not > mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and > obligatory on both parents? > > I didn?t understand this point either as this is not an inyan of chinuch but pikuach nefesh which would apply to the mother also. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:07:42 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:07:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Toby Katz via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive > today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with > access to old library archives. > > > All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the > far side of the moon. > This is not quite true: together with lots of other Hebrew journals, they are all available online at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/JPress/English/Pages/default.aspx I doubt if that site gets as many hits as the New York Times, so basically you are right, but at least anyone who cares can judge for themselves what these newspapers were like -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Nov 6 10:59:09 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 20:59:09 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <5b8a21c0-a020-2f8a-c85c-af2e6568db4e@zahav.net.il> If no one has seen them, how do you know what was in them? You did a research paper? Ben On 11/6/2018 5:18 AM, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one > alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic > researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies > and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's > intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the > issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 6 12:04:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:04:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181106200428.GC28629@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 10:18:40PM -0500, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : From: Micha Berger :> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... :> Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of :> whose paper.) : You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way. When we : speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a : secular intellectual and academic movement and of people who were not : religious and who were often virulently anti-religious. Wissenschaft des : Judentums type... This is revisionist. When Beruriah David's PhD paper talks about the Maharatz Chajes as a Masekil, she was indeed talking about Wissenschaft types, but certainly not unobservant, never mind "virulantly anti-religious". In any case, the modern parallel to what we're talkiong about is if one of today's "yeshivish" rashei yeshivah, who happens to also be a Zionist, read a newspaper -- not a Torah magazine like JO -- put out by a LWMO "Academic Orthodox" type institution. : You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were : pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to : Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. I think you misunderstand the history. This is Chovevei Tzion, the people who brought you Achad haAm. These were Orthodox Jews who aligned with Secular Zionism. The people who founded Petach Tiqva in 1882. Bilu was also well on its way by the Netzi's hayday. But that has little to do with haMad. : The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, : moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were : definitely Orthodox. Nope. This is also revisionist. At least "moderate chareidi" is. : Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one : alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers : with access to old library archives.... Or Google. http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=tab&tab=browse&pub=MGD&_ga=2.44647777.412515131.1541534577-590544565.1541534577#panel=browse 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Nov 7 07:15:12 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:15:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0e8301d476ac$adf40550$09dc0ff0$@com> > Meaning a AhS tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 > ammah) > Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an > ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). You meant to say: RMF (IM OC 1:136) tefach is 3.54" (9cm) and ammah 21-1/4" (53.98cm). [Yes, I typoed -- 3 and 4 are adjacent keys. Which is how the error didn't reach my times-6 result for the ammah. -micha] From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 7 07:16:46 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:16:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1a5d3f60-a1f2-d250-1c3d-fc81959fdb40@sero.name> On 6/11/18 8:10 am, Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm > not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek > and obligatory on both parents? My guess is that these decisions are usually left to the mother, and the anti-vaxx nonsense has spread mostly among women, so he's now telling the men that it's their duty to insist on vaccinating the children even if their wives are opposed. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 7 11:25:01 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:25:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn Message-ID: I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" be to daven first, then learn? 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 Tue Nov 13 10:06:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181113180654.GA7634@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 07:25:01PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven : (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning : starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" : be to daven first, then learn? Perhaps it's because of Berakhos 31a: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven neither from din, nor from devar halakhah, ela mitokh halakhah pesukah. And what is halakhah besukah like? Abayei said, like what Rabbi Zeira said. ... and then quoting a settled halakhah that Rabbi Zeira said once. ("benos Yisrael hichmiru al atzman...") Rava said, like that which Rav Hoshia said.. But I think you get the idea. So, maybe people assume 1,600+ year-old discussions in the gemara qualify. I don't think that's shitas Rashi, though. Rashi ('halakhah pesuqah") says the gemara is worried about topics that a person would continue thinking about during davening. (The Be'er Heitev holds like Rashi.) But in any case, looking a little more meta: The gemara's assumption is that one is supposed to learn before davening, and the gemara then discusses what it is one should be learning. Later on in the sugya: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven from within sorrow, nor laziness, nor silliness, nor chatter, nor qalus rosh, nor devarim beteilim ela mitokh simchah shel mitzvah. Perhaps the learning is indeed seen as a prep for davening. (In addition to talmud Torah.) See OC 93. In the SA, that second TR is in se'if 2, and the first, in se'if 3. Se'if 4 amos, "Ha'oseiq betzorkhei tzibur ke'oseiq baTorah", because there is similar simchah shel mitzvah. 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 zvilampel at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 13 17:07:16 2018 From: zvilampel at mail.gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:07:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:13 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality > : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means > : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are > : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem > : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature* Just to be clear, that was a quote of the Maharal. > While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your usage. > the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent. Rambam teaches that during maaseh breishis, Hashem put the normal properties and behaviors into the natures of the things He created and formed. He also instilled in them the potential for certain aberrational behaviors, to be actualized upon certain conditions, such as the staff turning into a serpent. But such changes open can only last temporarily. But then there is the constant reaction of natural events to mankind's good and evil deeds, which is a neis nistar. This, Rambam explains, is nevertheless the greatest miracle of all: > "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with > loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a > continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of > metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". > (Rambam's Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end]) This view as well is shared by the Ramban. And this is his point in the passages in which he is mistakenly understood to be saying that "there is no 'it' to nature." As an example, in Toras Hashem Temimah, he cites the Rambam approvingly and says, "Most people think that the Alm-ighty does not constantly enact miracles, that the world proceeds in its way, and many of the chachamim think so, too, but the Rav (Rambam) curses them....All our affairs are entirely miracles, there is no nature and way that the world proceeds, for behold the promises of the Torah are all absolute miracles ...The fact of "And I shall give your rains in their time [if you keep the mitzvos]," Hashem will open for you his good treasure-house, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its time an d to bless...is the same as the plague of the firstborn, the dever and arov, and the drowning of the Egyptians in the sea...the only difference is that between the hidden and the open...." So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago shel olom, no "it" to nature. > From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? >Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? >See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam. The Ralbag demonstrates he was well acquainted with the Rambam's writings on the subject, and he himself states that none of his fellow rishonim before him "realized" that this was what Chazal were saying. The two issues raised in this post, the issue of time with the issue of miracles and ha-olom beMinhago noheig, actually tie together. Rambam in the above mentioned payrush on Avos famously maintains that it was on erev Shabbos that Hashem instilled potential aberrational behavior in the nature of the 10 things listed. However, the potentials for aberrational behaviors were instilled in the natures of all other creations ON THE DAY THE TORAH INDICATES. E.g. one example he gives is that the nature of water to split was instilled on day 2. So he is understanding the days as units of time, in which there were days 1-7 and a 6th day bein ha-shemoshos. If one were to attempt imposing the concept of "step of logic" on the use of the word "day" in this passage, the passage would not make sense. Moreh Nevuchim 2:30 does not differ. In MN 2:30, Rambam emphasizes that time itself is something Hashem created. It is a result of the turning of the sphere, which itself is something that was created. Thus, creation did not happen after a certain amount of time, because time could not exist before creation. This is the meaning of his saying that creation, the initial creation ex nihilo, happened "outside of time." (See Abarbanel ?(p. 8, left-hand column, middle), Crescas and Ephodi. Shemtov does attribute the "levels" peshat to Rambam.) But then he poses a question: If the sphere and heavenly bodies were first created the fourth day, how were the first three days measured? He is obviously assuming, in his question, that the creation days of the Torah are units of time. The question is how could there be a first, second and third day, if the thing that produces time, the revolving sphere, did not exist until day four. The question includes the assumption that each day of maaseh breishis witnessed a new creation ex nihilo of the rakia, the vegetation, the creatures, etc., so the heavenly bodies that determine units of time did not exist until the 4th day. He answers that day does not mean a unit of time, but a step of logic. No, wait, he doesn't. He answers that Chazal teach that despite the impression one may get from the pesukim, there was not a new creation ex nihilo each of the 6 days. There was one creation ex nihilo of everything, and then a "revealing"/separation/extraction of each component. What occurred on day 4 with the heavenly bodies responsible for time was not their creation. Their creation and behavior of determining time began at the instant of creation ex nihilo. He cites the Chazal comparing the process over the six creation days to that of various types of seeds. Even though they were all planted one day, each one sprouts later, on a different day. Repeat: later, on different days. The question of how there was time and days 1, 2, and 3 before day 4 is answered with the principle that the heavenly bodies responsible for time existed from the moment of creation. Nothing in the Rambam's words (either here or in his treatment in the first chelek of word meanings) about days meaning levels. "The particle "ess" in the phrase "ess ha-shamayim ve-ess ha-aretz ("the heavens and the earth") signifies "together with." Our Sages have explained the word in the same sense in many instances. Accordingly, they assume that God created, with the heavens, everything that the heavens contain, and with the earth, everything the earth includes. They further say that the simultaneous Creation of the heavens and the earth is implied in the words, "I call unto them, they stand up together" (Tehillim 48). Consequently, all things were created together, but revealed (nisgalu) / were separated from each other (nivdelu) one by one (rishon rishon). Our Sages illustrated this by the following simile: We sow various seeds at the same time; some spring forth after one day, some after two, and some after three days, although all have been sown at the same time. This outlook, which is undoubtedly the correct one, solves the problem of... how the first day, the second day and the third day were determined.... This is explicit in the words of our Sages in Bereshis Rabba. They said, regarding the light the Torah says was created on the first day. They said it as follows: These [lights of the luminaries mentioned in the Creation of the fourth day] are the very same lights that were created on the first day, but were not hung in their places until the fourth day. Behold, they explicitly stated this idea." All this would be an awful way to express the simple idea that by "day" the Torah means not a unit of time but a logical step. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 14 09:01:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:01:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Did you intentionally reply off-list? Or should I copy your email and this one onto Avodah? On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, : Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your : usage. A lot resided in the word "hypostasis", and a reason why I couldn't find a more apt word among normal English ones. :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. But it's minhago shel olam. Not an "it". The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH. It is this direct causality that people mistake for his saying there is no teva. According to the Rambam, nature is the product of the Seikhel haPo'al, which is acted upon by mal'akhim, which, if you chase the chain of causality up to the start, is a product of hashgachah kelalis and Divine Da'as. But there is an "it" there. Teva is a metaphysical object, not a pattern. See Moreh 2:11-12 (ch. 10 may be a useful prelude.) (Nevu'ah is also mediated through the Seikhel haPo'al [2:35], but that's a different subject.) A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a person, and thus to that extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH delegates his fate. I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to nature". But you apparently took me to mean there is no nature. Rather than no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on. That's what I was talking about, and most of your reply doesn't actually address the chiluq I'm making. : So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. No, but he does mean there is no such "thing" as nature. It's not a hypostatis. : His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago : shel olom, no "it" to nature. : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. See also the Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. The Abarbanel specifically endorces the Ralbag's "yesod" in understanding the Rambam. https://www.sefaria.org/Abarbanel_on_Torah%2C_Genesis.1.1.10 This is how the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian like R' Yitzchaq Arama. RYBS too, Mainodies between Philosophy & Halakhah, pg 187. In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of time. His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before the sun. And it's not a problem we modern people would face, anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 14 21:37:51 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:37:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli Message-ID: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html Me-Yet R' Ellman would not ( at least when I asked him) say that any of these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food for thought 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 Nov 14 21:35:38 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:35:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions Message-ID: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? Do we see this same propensity in prior authorities who were not writing codes in this manner? Other reason why different authorities might deal with this issue differently? 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 Nov 15 10:52:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:52:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> References: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20181115185222.GA28484@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 10:31:20PM -0400, R Akiva Miller replied to my post: :> So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted :> keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be :> when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than :> the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged :> YhR? : Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal : encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to : the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate : the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the : fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But that's the converse of my question. I didn't ask why Chazal found the taqanos they did. Or in the case of ribbis, engineered a solution using a pre-existing loophole. I asked why the RBSO didn't. If Chazal knew that people couldn't keep up the moral standard, obviously the Author of the deOraisos did too. And therefore, why didn't He allow ribbis for the same "lo diberah Torah ela keneged YhR" reasons as eishes yefas to'ar. Once we have G-d making compramizes for EYT, why did He leave ribbis to Chazal? Why did Hashem make it that money is qoneh? He knew better than chazal that it would create situations where a seller is still holding something he no longer owns, and sometimes that will mean carelessness in how the item is guarded. Why did Chazal need to invoke hefqer BD hefqer and totally rewrite how sale works? (That said, I am almost satisfied with RDR's answer, below.) : But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. : The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her : (unless he follows the prescribed procedure)... Today's militaries assume otherwise. Avoiding ribis is less of a problem when "money" is primarily a metal or contract to swap, only a half-step beyond barter. One is "only" losing opportunity cost. But once we got prime rates etc... so that there is a difference between present and future value of money can be done in some settings, avoiding ribbis became something not enough lenders could afford, and the poor suffered. Eishes yefas to'ar is similarly situational. Whether it is "unwinnable" at best depends on the kind of war one is fighting. Maybe when fighting barbarian tribes. But not as a general rule. : Alternatively: : D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. But they can allow things explicitly denied by the Torah? If you can engineer heter isqa into something that covers most of the situations where ribbis is needed, they could have engineered and issur. But I also recently encountered while learning Arukh haShulchan something that may be a counter-example. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that there are no shevu'os when the dispute is over qarqa. So, while modeh bemiqtzas (e.g.) about money or metaltelin requires a shevu'ah deOraisa, if it is about real estate there is no shevu'ah deOraisa. However, Chazal still require the nitba to make a shevu'as heises in order to retain his chazaqah on the land. And on Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:16:00AM -0400, R David Riceman replied to the same post: : It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it : is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical : level, however, I don't see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah : prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. I am sure the same was said before heter isqa. Chazal were a bunch of rabbis capable of finding 49 ways to be metaher a sheretz. Our inability to figure out how they would have created a law like eishes yefas to'ar doesn't prove it impossible. For that matter, the gemara apparently concludes that pruzbul was only enacted because shemittah today is derabbanan. Although I think it's left open whether pruzbul would not work when shemittah is deOraisa. Or whether hefqer BD would meant it would work, but they question the hava amina that Hillel would circumvent a deOraisa like that. What kind of "you don't" the gemara is talking about would impact your answer. That said, I like RDR's "more important point". Repeated here, since it's been nearly a month -- an eternity as list-time goes: : But there's a more important point. What's weird about war is that : it's not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between : civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those : different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say "hasatan : mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama" that's partly because the soldiers don't : have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. : But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to : rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person : to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over : his lifetime. : So it makes a lot of sense that k'nagged YhR is specifically mentioned : in the context of milhama. The reason why I said above I am only "almost satistfied" is that it borders on explaining too much. We aren't looking only for a chiluq between EYT and my sample dinim derabbanan. But also between deOraisa and derabbanan. You are left saying there is a whole set of dinim on a tightrope -- they are lifelong challenges and therefore controllable enough for HQBH not to want to compromize for human nature, and yet history evolved the situation to the point where they pose impossible challenges that chazal needed to accomodate. Well, not necessarily "impossible". At least: by Chazal's day these grew into challenges that are so rarely met, the usual outcome is more costly than the din -- such as the poor not being able to get a loan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 14:57:30 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:57:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli In-Reply-To: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119225730.GA28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:37:51AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: : https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html : : Yet R' Ellman would not (at least when I asked him) say that any of : these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food : for thought I like RARakeffetR's mashal (and recall, he is a RIETS RY with a PhD in Jewish History): You can ask a historican how the electric refrigerator was invented, and you will hear about the social forces involved, the wiring of the American home for power, etc... None of which tells you how the refrigerator actually works. (He might even give you the history of the application of thermodynamics and the Carnot cycle without ever explaining that particular bit of science.) Similarly: Knowing that a particular area of halakhah was mined in response to a given situation doesn't change the fact that the halachic principles had to be there and had to be applied. And the knowledge does little to teach you the principles themselves. 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 15:06:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 18:06:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions In-Reply-To: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119230604.GB28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:35:38AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan : aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority : opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach : rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? ... I think the SA tried to reach conclusions. For that matter, he tried to follow majority of his short list of major posqim. I think for him it was just a way of dealing with not being sufficiently convinced; and not having his triumverate answering the question for him. For the MB... Not sure I want to reopen that whole "the MB was written to help posqim, and its 'rulings' are lehalakhah velo lemaaseh" -- not always even followed by the CC himself. (Who was author of most of the book, and editor in chief of the rest.) : Other reason why different authorities might deal : with this issue differently? The AhS has enough confidence in toras imekha that he would use it to say that lemaaseh we pasqened like a minority, or like (what seems to me to be a) dachuq peshat. There are exceptions, where he holds that common practice is just too dachuq, but they're rare. So, for the AhS, being stumped means that not only is there no clear textual winner, there is no clear minhag (accepted practice) either. So holding out in fear of a mi'ut isn't likely. Holding like a mi'ut because the tzibbur already does, much more comomn. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 20 09:08:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181120170828.GA27185@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, ... :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. Actually, it's real, but I think you misunderstood what I meant. (As I said in the previous email.) Relevant is this excerpt from a recent shiur from Gush's Vitual Beis Medrash. Rav Bednarsh gives 2 chiluqim that are orthogonal to the one I mentioned (whether there is an "it" behind teva, or if nature is "merely" a pattern of Divine Action): 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. About fn #4... I spoke to RDBerger about his paper. I can ask a parallel question on RAB's article to introduce the same answer, so I will do so here. RAB writes (below): > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The > Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only > the principle of hashgacha pratit. > Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these > two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more > nuanced. > In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise > of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God > and not to doctors for healing.... ... > For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) > that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on > a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, > to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or > punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in > the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence > and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness... > In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that > his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh > Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and > tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully > on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the > Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order... Okay, so it's much more nuanced, but then what does he mean in the two places we started with? What I pointed out, that the Ramban is denying teva as an it -- that even teva is through the same direct Influence as neis -- adds the same nuance without ignoring those two more famous comments of the Ramban. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Yeshivat Har Etzion PHILOSOPHY > Topics in Hashkafa > Shiur #06: Divine Providence and the Natural Order 1 Rav Assaf Bednarsh Adapted by Leora Bednarsh Should one attempt to provide for one's needs in this world by working through the natural order, or should one do so by keeping mitzvot and trusting in God to provide? Are the events of this world caused by direct Divine Providence or by the natural scientific order? This question has tremendous practical significance and is the subject of much debate in the contemporary Jewish community. This topic is often portrayed as "hishtadlut (effort) vs. bitachon (trust)." ... The Position of the Rambam No Jewish philosopher can entirely deny the doctrine of hashgacha pratit. There are many examples in Tanakh that very clearly indicate that God miraculously takes care of the righteous in this world in accordance with His Divine plan.[1] However, almost all the cases in Tanakh deal with exceptionally righteous and spiritual individuals. That may be because most of Tanakh deals with these great individuals; these are the people we need to learn about in order to learn to be good Jews. The Rambam, however, maintains that this is not coincidence. It is not simply that these happen to be the main characters in Tanakh. According to the Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim III:18), hashgacha pratit is not something that God automatically utilizes in running the world. God relates to us when we relate to Him. When we open the channel, God's bounty flows through that channel. If we don't bother to create those lines of communication, then He does not communicate with us either. Those who have achieved philosophical sophistication, who have studied what the Rambam understands to be the Jewish mystical philosophical tradition and focus their thoughts on God, enjoy the benefits of Divine Providence. According to the Rambam, not all people enjoy equal Divine Providence. Those who are pious and good and religious enjoy more Divine Providence because of their understanding of God, which fuels their piety and goodness. Those who are prophets enjoy a higher level because of their deep understanding of God. Those who are on a very rarified level of philosophical spiritual achievement can be assured that God looks out for them in this world. The wicked and the religiously ignorant, however, have no such promise of Divine Providence. Even regular people who may be reasonably religious and try to think about God quite often still have not achieved that level of understanding at which they can assume that they are beneficiaries of constant direct Divine Providence. For the Rambam, then, most people do not enjoy the benefit of direct Divine Providence all the time. Accordingly, it makes perfect sense that we are expected to work through the natural order. The natural order is the default. When we change the rules by achieving philosophical knowledge of God, our lives begin to be run by the principles of Divine Providence. But much of the time the world is run by the natural order and God does not involve Himself. Thus, we should be expected to provide for ourselves and to achieve whatever goals we feel the need to achieve by means of the natural order. The natural order is the one thing that is guaranteed. God created the world and created the scientific order as the way in which the world will run until God decides to get involved because someone let Him in to his life.[2] And even then, God is only involved partially, to the extent that someone partially perfects themselves and meditates upon God. Of course, this does not mean that God has no part in our lives when we do not enjoy Providence. There is still hashgacha klalit, general Providence. God still arranges the world generally in such a way that our needs are provided for. We say blessings, thanking God, for example, for creating fruits of the tree, but not because He created this particular fruit for me to eat today, rather because He created a wonderful world that provides for much of our needs. It is our job to appreciate that. But when I stub my toe or win the lottery, is that God's direct intervention? According to the Rambam, most of the time it is not. Rather, it is the natural order. The Position of the Ramban It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only the principle of hashgacha pratit. Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more nuanced. In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God and not to doctors for healing. He states that when the masses of the Jews are perfect, their lives will not be run by the natural order, but rather directly by God; He will be their doctor. According to Ramban, that is what the righteous did in the days of Tanakh, during the era of prophecy. Anyone with access to prophecy does not need a doctor, and in case of illness should turn instead to a prophet, who will tell him which of his actions needs to be improved; he will then repent and repair those actions so that God will heal his disease. "What business do doctors have in the house of someone who fulfills the will of God?" asks the Ramban. Although the Rabbis interpreted the verse "ve-rapo yerapeh" (Shemot 21:19) as evidence that the doctor has permission to heal, the Ramban restricts the significance of this inference. If someone asks for help, the doctor should heal the patient - but Chazal never said that the patient should seek medical care, only that the doctor should provide it. The patient should ideally put all his trust in God and not in the natural order. However, if the patient has already put his trust in the natural order, the doctor has no choice but to heal him, because that is the only option left. When someone puts his faith in the natural order, his live is unfortunately run by the natural order. But when someone puts his faith in God, his life is controlled by direct Divine Providence. Similarities Between the Ramban and the Rambam The Ramban here seems to take an anti-Maimonidean stance, focusing on Divine Providence. However, on closer analysis, he does not deny the existence of the natural order. He acknowledges the existence of teva. Of course, he believes that it is far preferable to live by faith in God and not by teva, but once our spiritual level fell and we became accustomed to using medicine and working within the scientific order, God "abandoned us to the happenstance of teva." If we read the Ramban very carefully, we notice that the examples he uses of those who should not seek medical help but rather turn directly to God are limited to a time when the masses of Jews are righteous, during the time of prophecy. The Ramban is referring to people on a very high spiritual level. They enjoyed the benefit of constant Divine Providence and therefore had no business working through the natural order. The implication is that the situation is quite different for regular people in regular times. Even righteous Jew nowadays, when, unfortunately, the masses of Jews are far from perfect and when prophecy has not been restored to us, are not on the same high spiritual level. Therefore, they cannot have a reasonable expectation of constant Divine Providence in their lives, and perhaps they should visit doctors. Although everything that happens in the world is subject to Divine Providence, God has decided to abandon us - regular people in the contemporary era - to the workings of the natural order. We no longer merit constant Divine Providence. This is, in fact, explicitly the opinion of the Ramban in several places. For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness. But Yaakov himself was not sure that he was righteous enough to enjoy Divine Providence, which is why he prepared using natural means to make peace, or if need be, war, with Esav. He made various preparations using the natural order because in his humility, he was not certain that he was on the level to expect Divine Providence. If Yaakov Avinu questioned whether he deserved Divine Providence, the clear implication is that we can certainly not rely on it! In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order. We are instructed to conscript an army and go out and fight in the event of war, not just to sit and pray and wait for God to fight for us. We cannot always expect to be on such a high spiritual level that we enjoy constant Divine Providence. Rather, we must work under the assumption that we may not always be experiencing Divine Providence, and we must therefore work under the natural order. The Ramban tells us that if God wants us to win a war, we will win without an army, and if, God forbid, He wants us to lose a war, no matter how strong our military is, we will lose. But sometimes, when we are neither completely righteous nor completely wicked, God does not want any particular result, because He is not exercising Divine Providence at that point. That is why it is so important that we work through the natural order. The Ramban in this commentary seems to be in line with mainstream religious Zionist ideology. We work through the natural order because not everything always is decreed by God.[4] Differences Between the Ramban and the Rambam As much as the Ramban claims to agree with the Rambam, there is still a significant difference between their philosophies. The Ramban in a number of places, including his commentary to Iyov, tells us that Divine Providence can be either positive or negative. If someone is truly righteous, then God watches and guards him all the time. If someone is evil, God will intervene in the world to punish him. Those in the middle, neither wicked nor righteous, are left to the natural order. The Rambam, on the other hand, holds that Divine Providence can only be positive, not negative. It is purely a function of one's connection to God. Therefore, the more connected one is to God, the more Divine Providence; the more disconnected one is, the less Divine Providence. Punishment only occurs in this world because when God removes His Providence, one is exposed to the many perils of the dangerous world that we inhabit. While the Ramban has a volitional model of Divine Providence, in which God decides to exercise Providence when a person deserves reward or punishment, the Rambam has a more mechanistic model, under which Divine Providence is an automatic result of spiritual achievement. What the Rambam and the Ramban have in common, however, is their belief that while Divine Providence is an ideal to strive for, it is not the default, automatic way in which the world works. God sometimes involves Himself through the principle of hashgacha pratit, but often does not. The natural order is the authentic way in which God created the world to run when He doesn't decide to get involved and change things. For the Ramban and the Rambam, then, the answer to the question of faith (bitachon) versus effort (hishtadlut) is clear. We are expected to take care of providing our needs in this world the best we can using the natural order. None of us are arrogant enough to assume that we are so holy and righteous that we have constant Divine Providence. Of course, we strive to be more holy, spiritual, and righteous. We strive to enjoy more Divine Providence. And, at least according to the Ramban, perhaps our ultimate goal is to reach the highest spiritual levels and abandon the natural order. Nonetheless, in regular life, the Rambam and the Ramban would have us work in the natural order because we can never be certain that anything that happens to us in our lives is the result of God's direct intervention. Our success or lack thereof may be purely a function of the natural order. Therefore, we must take care of ourselves. God is not always taking care of us, as we may not be sufficiently righteous. _______________________ [1] For example, the Exodus and figures such as the Patriarchs, Daniel, and Chananya, Mishael and Azarya. [2] Even in this case, Rambam nowhere states that one who enjoys Divine Providence should not work within the natural order. In the next two shiurim, we will present various explanations of why even one who enjoys Divine Providence might be required to work within the natural order. [3] The Ramban understands God's "knowledge" of Avraham as constant Divine Providence [4] Many attempts have been made to resolve the apparent contradiction between the Ramban's statement in his commentary to Shemot 13 and his sermon Torat Hashem Temima and his formulations in his commentaries to Bereishit 18 and 32 and Iyov 36. It seems likely that the Ramban intended to claim not that everything that happens is a miracle, but that miraculous Providence ultimately controls everything. Since even nature was created by God, Providential intervention can override the laws of nature, but the laws of nature do not restrict Divine Providence. When Providence chooses not to intervene, however, nature still follows its course. For further reading, see the original texts, as well as David Berger, "Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmanides," in Isadore Twersky (ed.), Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuosity (Harvard University Press, 1983), available at https://www.biblicalnaturalhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/MiraclesNahmanides.pdf. From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 06:41:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:41:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yaakov and Esav Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32:8. 8 Ya?akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. In Ya?akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya?akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya?akov?s attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 08:24:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:24:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? Message-ID: One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the ?Medina shel Chessed? is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic issues of this very American holiday... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 22 04:30:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? Message-ID: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is it equivalent of free will? What does it mean to have free will without consequence? How then do we understand the medrash in Breishit that the trees were punished for not following HKB"H's direction? The dogs being rewarded for not barking? 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 zvilampel at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 09:30:07 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:01 PM Micha Berger wrote: > > RMB: > :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. > > ZL: Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no > less > : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of > : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that > : minhag permanent. > > ... > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. Where does Ramban say this? As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent at maaseh breishis. See, for example, on Shmos 6:6. ''The posuk says 'Vay-hiH khein'' because that is the teva that was instilled in them forever...and they will remain with the first teva that was instilled in them at the time of their formation (Vayamdual haTeva haRishon asher hussam bahem bEis yetsirasam). And on Vayikra 26:11, in the passage about refuah, he uses the phrase, VaHashem Heeneecham lemikrei haTivee-im, Hashem leaves them to the natural mikrreim. How is this insisting that, contra Rambam, ''those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH''? Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. RMB: [According to RambaM:] A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a > person, and thus to that > extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva > (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH > delegates his fate. > ZL: You are making a distinction that you attribute to RambaM, between teva and minhago shel olam. Teva is something that a daas-lacking person is left to. Through it, Hashem delegates his fate. Minhag shel olam is something else. I don't follow. Where is such a distinction made? And I thought you maintained that contra RambaN, RambaM does /not/ hold that HQBH delegates the fate of lesser people. Only ''the RambaN talks about nature being a pattern in events... /directly/ caused by HQBH. Is there also a distinction between ''directly causing'' and ''delegating''? Do you mean RambaM holds Hashem HAD delegated their fate (by setting up the mechanisms at Creation)? RMB: > I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to > nature". ... no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on... there is no such > "thing" as nature. It's not a > hypostatis. ZL: Where do you see what you are trying to explain in Ramban? Regarding the shiur by Rav Bednarshom, and the point that 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. The last sentence should be about RambaN, right? And here's something to ponder: As I wrote previously, the Rambam writes that the greatest miracle of all, is nature's responding to man's behavior, favoring good behavior and punishing bad behavior. Granted, favoring good behavior is miraculous. But l-fi Rambam's shittah, what is miraculous about leaving the practitioner of bad behavior to the wiles of nature? Also, regarding: > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. Obviously, this is just the hava amina. The Ramban did not write that ''everything that happens'' is a miracle. His wording is that the whole [teaching of the] Torah [about reard and punishment] is a miracle. Meaning, as the maskana is, that the Torah's system of award and punishment is miraculous. Secondly, the Ramban does not say that everything is a miracle,without causation, except reward and punishment. The causation between behavior and reward and punishment is an explanation of, not in contrast to, his statement that the whole teaching of the Torah is that there are miracules. > > > :ZL: His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a > : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the > forces > : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, > : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no > minhago > : shel olom, no "it" to nature. > > : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand > : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is > : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified > model, > : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. > > : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, > > : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, > note > : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? > > : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and > : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being > in > : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya > : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? > > :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. > > : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given > : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say > : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. > But > : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... > > It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. It is not his peshat in the Rambam. He does not mention Rambam, much less attribute to him, the ''levels'' peshat, neither in his Torah commentary nor in his Milchamos Hashem. If you can find such a passage, please locate it for me. On the contrary, here is how he addresses the question of how there could be days before the fourth day when the sun materialized. He gives two possibilities. And he gives the ''levels'' approach as an /alternative/ explanation to the answer that the sphere, by which time and days are produced, was in operation from the moment of creation.They are two /different/ ways of answering how there could be days one through three before the existence of the stars, although both answers are predicated on the Chazal-based view that everything in the universe and earth was instantly and simultaneously created in its complete form (besides vegetation and Adam and Chava). And if the virtually identical verbiage to that of the Rambam is an indication that Ralbag was intending to give peshat in the Rambam, note that he is explicitly using that verbiage in the answer granting that ''days'' are units of time, in /contrast/ to the notion of ''days'' meaning ''levels''. And also remember, as I have noted before, that Ralbag explicitly says (Torah commentary, on VaYchulu) V-im nim-tsi-u rechokim meod mei-hakavana asher matzanu kahn, kmo shetireh mimah shebier bazeh haRav HaMoreh besifro hanichbad Moreh HaNevuchim, ViHachcham R. Avraham Ibn Ezra.... that his new approach is /very far/ from that of the Rambam. And he repeats this in Sefer Milchemes Hashem, Presentation VI, ?Part II, Chapter 8, Conclusion. Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. This is how > the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian > like R' Yitzchaq Arama. > But you see, you have to resort to secondary sources to support the claims about what Rambam and Ralbag held, whereas we have the first-hand sources in front of us. The fact is that the Ralbag does not attribute the ''levels''approach to the Rambam, and in fact considers the ''levels'' approach as an alternative to what the Rambam wrote.. Abarbanel is known to repeat ideas of his contemporary, R. Y. Arama. He is also known to have a very eclectic style. You are of course correct that in his 9th shayla he attributes the ''levels'' approach to the Rambam. But look how he does it, and explain to me how it makes sense: > The 9th shayla concerns what is mentioned in the Moreh Nevuchim. Rambam > notes that time ?cannot exist without the movement of the celestial > spheres, the sun and moon. However, this raises ?the question as to how > there could be time before the fourth day on which the celestial spheres > and sun were ?created. The Rambam answered this question by asserting that > in fact the spheres and the sun were ?created on the first day. Thus time > existed for the first 3 days in the same manner as it existed on the > ?subsequent days. He explained that in fact everything ? both the Heavens > and the Earth ? were created ?on the first day. Stop here. Do you not see the Abarbanel explaining Rambam as holding that the days of Breishis were units of time, and not ''levels''? Let's continue: The Rambam cited Chazal that the word ?es? indicated that the creation on > the first day ?included everything associated with the Heavens as well as > everything associated with the Earth. He also ?cited the gemora (Chulin > 60a) that everything that was created was created in its final form. He > also cited ?another statement of Chazal that the Heavens and Earth were > created simultaneously. Thus the Rambam ?believed that the work of Creation > happened all on one day and was not divided amongst six days. He ?claimed > that in a single moment of creation everything came into existence. And of course, the Rambam continues (and Ralbag includes it) that whereas all was created ex nihilo from the first instant of creation, following that was a process of separating the components of the universe, forming things, as he says elsewhere in the Moreh, kach mikach. How then does the Abarbanel say in the next breath: > He explained that the reason ?for the Torah stating that there were six > days of Creation was to indicate the different levels of created ?beings > according to their natural hierarchy. Thus the Rambam does not understand > the word day to be a ?temporal day and he doesn?t read Bereishis to be > describing the chronological sequence of creation?. Kasha reisha al sefa! And note that in shayla 5 as well Abarbanel had written: That which the Torah mentioned of the creation of the stars on the fourth day, made HaRav haMoreh answer, as it seems from his words, in that chapter 30 of Part Three, that on the first day the sphere was created with the stars and light. But their actions had affect on the fourth day upon the vegetation.Such is apparent from the words of the Rav...Perhaps RambaN too meant this, since he mentions this approach in the name of yeish meforshim. And if one is to treat this as Abarbanel changing his mind, well then consider another about-face over 80 pages later (p. 85 in our editions) Behold you see that the opinion of the Rav was ...that all that is mentioned regarding the activity of the six days, ?from the creation of the heavens and the earth, and all of the phenomena, and the creation of Adam and ?his wife, up until ?vayechulu? have no allegory whatsoever, for everything was ?literal to him [the Rambam]. Therefore you will see that in this very chapter, no. 30 in the second section, ?in all which the Rav has explicated regarding the activity of the six days, he did not make an allegory or a ?hint at all. Rather, he did the exact opposite, for he made a concerted effort to support the doctrine of ?creation ex nihilo and accepted all of the verses literally?? Obviously, Abarbanel was not consistent as to whether the Rambam understood the creation days to be ''levels'' rather than units of time. So he should not be cited with such certainty that he held so. ?I would also caution against uncritically accepting A?s description of B?s opinion if A goes on to ?lambaste it, as the Abarbanel did with his original reading of the Moreh Nevuchim. ?(The question presents itself, then, how did the Abarbanel?s contemporary, the Akeidas Yitzcahk, ?and the commentary of the ShemTov?who is not regarded as a rishon?as opposed to the ?commentary by Crescas), and the Abarbanel himself in his second take, get from (a) the Rambam?s ?classical rendition of a six-day meta-natural development of potential created on day one, to (b) ?seeing the Rambam as promulgating that ?the six days are a metaphor for six levels in the hierarchy ?of natural objects: light/darkness, water, minerals, flora, fauna, man??? My theory is that the earlier commentators of the Moreh, such as Narboni, greatly influenced by ?the Aristotelian academia of the time, anxiously imposed their radical views on the Rambam. (We ?see that in the Rambam?s own time, he complained of people radicalizing his views?including those ?who as accused him of (or ?complimented? him for) denying techiass ha-meisim). They hijacked the ?Moreh so efficiently that it became popular to think the Rambam thought like Narboni. This ?became the starting point from which later commentaries saw the Moreh (similar to, l?havdil, Rashi?s ?commentary being one?s first impression of what the Chumash says, and one?s natural thinking that ?what Rashi says is necessarily what the Chumash undoubtedly means.)? > In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, > following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, > there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which > processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the > Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of > time. > Not my issue. > > His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before > the sun. > *In the words of Ralbag the **problem is with zeman before the sun. His answer is that the sphere, even without the sun, produces zeman. * The problem that bothered the early ones, with what were day one, day two and day three measured? Behold, the light-bearers were not in existence until day four! [The answer is that even though the light-bearers did not appear until day four], the heavenly sphere was in existence on day one, and each revolution of it formed approximately one day. Abarbanel puts it that the problem is zeman before the sphere, sun and stars. The answer is that they all existed and formed zeman from the first act of creation. ???"? (?????, ??? ?) (?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? (?, ?-?) ...??????, ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? (??? ? ??? ?), ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???, ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?????; ???? ???? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?):... ??????? ??????: ?? ??? ???? ?????, ?????: ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????, ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? (?????? ??, ??). ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????: ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??????????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? (?, ?) ?* ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ???.* ???? ?????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??????,??? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ????, ????? ???? ???? ??? *.??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? .* *??* ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???, ????? ?? ????? ?????? *???? ??????*, ?? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ??? ????? *???? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????*; ??? ????? *??? ????? ???????,* ?? [??"? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????, ?"?] *?**??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????, ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? *? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??. ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???????, ??? ????? ?????. *???? ????? ????? *??? ???? ?????, ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?????. ??? ?? ????????? ??????? ??? ??????: ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?), ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?????. ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? (??? ? ????? ???? ????), ?????: ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??. ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????, ?? ???? ?????? ??, ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???????, ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? > > But the bottom line,to which we both agree, is that traditional Judaism holds that Creation, regardless of our issue about zeman, was not a natural process. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162531 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 23 02:58:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. : : : Where does Ramban say this? ... This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, it directly from G-d. : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag : permanent at maaseh breishis... Which is not in contradicction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain ways. To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel hapo'el, but still thimk you can reach what the rishonim are talking about? :-)BBii! -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 zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 15:37:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 18:37:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those > events > : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. > : > : > : Where does Ramban say this? ... > > This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > from G-d. Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or uses intermediaries. > > : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times > that > : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag > : permanent at maaseh breishis... > > Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern > of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that > behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain > ways. I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures. Yes, Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but they would be in agreement that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM, and just as much not a ??thing?? ?to RambaM as to RambaN. The disagreement would be whether Hashem at Creation set up intermediary steps ?in creating the world?s components and their behaviors. According to both of them, at the end of the Creation period Hashem established what the normal behaviors (patterns) would thereon be, and up to then the nature of the world was not stabilized. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but both agree that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. RambaM cites Chazal that ?Hashem at Creation also imbued in the things of the world the potential for aberrant behaviors ??(miracles) to be triggered when Hashem so decrees. I do not see RambaN disagreeing, but even if he does, I do not see framing it in terms of a dispute over whether nature is a ??thing.?? It would be a dispute over whether the miraculous natures were imbued at Creation or first initiated at their enactment, and in view of the Chazal cited by RambaM, RambaN would have some explaining ?to do. And of course, although the Rambam strongly objects to the idea that Hashem is constantly recreating the world, he also famously states that Hashem is constantly maintaining it, and that if He would remove His maintenance, the world would cease to exist. ? And if one insists on inferring from RambaM?s words an issue of Nature being considered a ????thing??, as opposed to a mere normal pattern of behavior, consider this quote:? http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=38545&st=&pgnum=14&hilite? The One Who created it [the world] made its general properties as a kiyum gadol. ??...This is what it means when it says, ??I know that all that G-d will make, IT will be ?forever.??...The yesodos ... all these are kayamim l-olom. It is impossible to add upon or take away from them, for it says, ??And G-d MADE [things] so that [people] will be in awe before Him, for ...these [things] stand forever. The above are the words of RambaN, in his Drasha on Kohelles. One could argue therefrom that he considers the general properties of the world as ??things?? that are permanent. Or not. > To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. To the Rambam, as well. > > : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to > : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. > Especially > : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. > > You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel > hapo'el, but still think you can reach what the rishonim are talking > about? No. You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? Zvi Lampel -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban Drasha on Kohelles.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 500027 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 25 17:29:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:29:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the Destruction of Sodom? Message-ID: <20181126012932.GA7767@aishdas.org> See https://www.sciencenews.org/article/exploding-meteor-may-have-wiped-out-ancient-dead-sea-communities or . I am including just a teaser. I intentionally ended with the note that the researcher works at a Xian university, as that does speak toward objectivity. We'll see what peer review says of the evidence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Science News Archaeologists at a site in what's now Jordan have found evidence of a cosmic calamity An exploding meteor may have wiped out ancient Dead Sea communities By Bruce Bower 10:00am, November 20, 2018 Preliminary evidence indicates that a low-altitude meteor explosion around 3,700 years ago destroyed cities, villages and farmland north of the Dead Sea (shown in the background above) rendering the region uninhabitable for 600 to 700 years. DENVER -- A superheated blast from the skies obliterated cities and farming settlements north of the Dead Sea around 3,700 years ago, preliminary findings suggest. Radiocarbon dating and unearthed minerals that instantly crystallized at high temperatures indicate that a massive airburst caused by a meteor that exploded in the atmosphere instantaneously destroyed civilization in a 25-kilometer-wide circular plain called Middle Ghor, said archaeologist Phillip Silvia. The event also pushed a bubbling brine of Dead Sea salts over once-fertile farm land, Silvia and his colleagues suspect. People did not return to the region for 600 to 700 years, said Silvia, of Trinity Southwest University in Albuquerque. He reported these findings at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research on November 17... From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:49:35 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:49:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Weight of a Shekel Message-ID: <20181126204934.GA12575@aishdas.org> No, they didn't find a sheqel, they found something just as good -- a beqa from bayis rishon, as in machatzis hasheqel "beqa lagulgoles". Just multiply by 2 to get a sheqel haqodesh. (Ie a beqa is a plain old sheqel.) (There apparently weren't 1/2 sheqel coins during basyis rishon.) See or https://www.timesofisrael.com/straight-from-the-bible-tiny-first-temple-stone-weight-unearthed-in-jerusalem/ The Times of Israel Straight from the Bible: Tiny First Temple stone weight unearthed in Jerusalem By Amanda Borschel-Dan 21 November 2018, 12:57 pm Volunteer at City of David sifting project finds rare `beka' measure, used by pilgrims paying half-shekel tax before ascending to Temple Mount, in dirt from dig near Western Wall [Picture of weight, bearing the word beqa in kesav Ivri in mirror writing. The caption reads:] A First Temple period weight measure called a 'beka' was unearthed in a City of David excavation in the Davidson Archaeological Park and discovered in the wet sifting project in Jerusalem's Tsurim Valley. (Eliyahu Yanai, City of David) An extremely rare, minuscule biblical stone weight inscribed in ancient Hebrew script with the word "beka" was discovered in rubble taken from excavations at the foundations of the Western Wall. Only a handful of similar stone beka weights have been unearthed in Jerusalem, said archaeologist Eli Shukron... Unlike several hundred years later, during this era, there was no half-shekel coin. Pilgrims brought the equivalent weight, a beka, in silver to pay their tax, which would have been measured out on scales in the very spot under the Temple Mount where the tiny stone weight was unearthed. Shukron said in a press release, "When the half-shekel tax was brought to the Temple during the First Temple period, there were no coins, so they used silver ingots. In order to calculate the weight of these silver pieces they would put them on one side of the scales and on the other side they placed the Beka weight. The Beka was equivalent to the half-shekel, which every person from the age of 20 years and up was required to bring to the Temple." According to the release, the biblical shekel weighed 11.33 grams.... To give you an idea of where that stands halachically, the Rambam's (H' Sheqalim 1:2) 384 se'or. A barleycorn is 0.044 and 0.05 gm, so the Rambam's sheqel would be at least 16.9 gm. Rashi (Shemos 21:32) says that a sheqel is half of a the ounce used in Cologne. Which today we would call .5 troy oz, or 15.55gm. The CI holds it's .51 troy oz (15.86 gm). Once again, the evidence about shiurim from Har haBayis is below even the Rambam's shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:26:21 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:26:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly :> from G-d. : Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or : uses intermediaries. Except that he calls it a neis. It can't both be Divine Intervention AND left to metaphysical mechanics. I mentioned that RDBerger et all never go around back to the first Rambans they discuss to explain what they do mean after all. He does deny teva in the famous comment at the end of parashahs Bo (13:16) (where he refers you back to comments on Beresishis 17:1 and Shemos 6:2). For that matter, he even denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. We have to close the circle somehow. Teva = nisim nistarim. Nistar through allowing patterns, minhago shel olam. ... :> Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern :> of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that :> behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain :> ways. : : I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that : it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow : apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the : behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". (I think this description of the Ramban is the belief most of us leave yeshiva day school with.) : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. Physics does not inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His Action to be hidden by routine. : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim in the usual sense. ... :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : : To the Rambam, as well. To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. To the Ramban, a person who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from Him as needed. Tir'u baTov! -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 llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 27 06:18:44 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:18:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why Didn't The Brothers Tell Yaakov "Yosef is alive"? Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 37:35 35 All his sons and daughters arose to console him, but he refused to accept consolation. He said: I shall go to my grave, mourning for my son. Thus his father wept for him. (?His daughters? probably refers to his daughters-inlaw.) All of them ?arose? to console him. They did not ?go? or ?come?; they ?arose? to console him. ?To arise? in order to perform an act implies that the act is born of resolution, an act one must bring oneself to perform. Until this point, they themselves were immersed in grief. No one feels so much grief as do those who must console a mourner. To see one?s aged father inconsolable, viewing every cheerful thought as a sin, would move even a heartless scoundrel to agonized remorse. He would be too distraught to offer consolation, because he would be in need of consolation himself. But why didn?t any of them attempt to sprinkle soothing balm upon the wound? Why didn?t they reveal to him: ?Yosef is alive!?? The answer: because that would have been the greatest cruelty of all. In the minds of parents, a child who was torn by wild beasts is never lost, but a child who is wicked is worse than lost. Therefore, he who would not aggravate the father?s grief a thousandfold would have to remain silent until the day when Yosef would return and the joy of the reunion would mitigate in the father?s mind even the crime that had been committed by his other sons. Had they told Ya?akov at that time the truth about what had been done to Yosef, Ya?akov would have felt as though he had lost not only one son, but ten sons at one time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 06:39:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gradations of Lifnim miShuras haDin Message-ID: <20181128143951.GA12638@aishdas.org> Surprisingly, not a subject I've thought about before. Apparently, there are different kind of lifnim mishuras hadin callings. See Arukh haShulchan CM 222:8. The SA (se'if 2) talks about the case where someone buys something from one of 5 people, doesn't recall which, and each of them are tov'im for payment. The money is held in escroe by BD until the claimants come to agreement or Eliyahu arrives and sorts it out. And if he is a chassid, he should pay each of them, kedei latzeis yedei Shamayim. The AhS adds: And a chassid adif miyarei Shamayim (YS) because a YS does not want to be mevater his own property in a business matter, and a Chassid is mevater. (Shabbos 120b). Presumably a YS is the person concerned latzeis yedei Shamayim (or else I can't understand the AhS). And this goes on to the case of the yoreish of one of the potential sellers, claiming he would be patur even LYS (Sha"kh, Ramban, Ritva.) Whereas the Qetzos says that while he is patur even LYS, chassid, ra'ui lo la'asos kein mimidas chassidus. So, there seems to be two kinds of lifnim mishuras hadin involved here, and there is a nafqa mina lemaaseh: the YS who is concerned LYS, and the chassid who is pursuing his midas chassidus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 11:48:46 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:48:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Baalus and Chameitz (was: help with 2 sugyot) Message-ID: <20181128194846.GA21056@aishdas.org> On 1 May 2013 (v23n74 ) I replied to a question by RAM with (in part): > But I think the key here is the word "property". I suggested in the past > that there is no such thing in halakhah. (With a probable exception of bal > yeira'eh bal yeimatzei.) There is baalus, but that's a different concept. > Returning to bal yeira'eh as an example... A son does not inherit chameitz > from his father who dies while owning it on Pesach. The issuer hanaah > means a lack of baalus. Even though it's the father's in the sense of > being chameitz she'avar alav haPesach (for the part of Pesach the father > was alive to own it). > As is implied in what RAM writes, baalus is more like custodianship than > what we think of when we hear "property". Which is born out in the word > "baalus" as well. Baalus revolves around control and responsibility, > not an abstract principle of how the world is divided up among people. > My previous thoughts on baalus and qinyan, as shaped by prior conversations > here, are at . Well, Arukh haShulchan Yomi adds another data point -- CM 245:10. Someone gives another a gift and the recipient uses a language of bitul (bitul, mevatel, mevuteles hi, tivateil, etc..) to reject the gift after it reached him, if it's metaltelin, the item is hefqer. The AhS notes the connection to bitul chomeitz that renders it hefqeir. However, he says this is no raayah because chameitz on Pesach isn't in his reshus, it's only made "ke'ilu hi birshuso" by bal yeira'eh. And that's why gilui daata is enough to get the chameitz out of his reshus. But (citing the Ran, beginning of Pesachim), something that is mamash his is different. The AhS concludes that bitul only makes the gift hefqer because it's a gift, but if it were actually his nekhasim, it wouldn't be sufficient. (Now that I wrote all that, I seem to recall someone did along the years mention that bitul chameitz only works because we're talking about quasi-baalus, and not real baalus. But I invested too much to what to skip sending this email now. And besides, I added another maqor.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 28 21:29:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 05:29:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. Message-ID: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to both monetary and spiritual liabilities. I was wondering, according to those who said you can waive the spiritual liability, whether that would also work retroactively (e.g. would somebody escape lashes for less than a penny's worth of damage -if the aggrieved party waived the spiritual damages after the fact of the hit) 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 Nov 30 10:19:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links Message-ID: <20181130181913.GA25124@aishdas.org> Einstein and G-d: http://nautil.us/blog/how-einstein-reconciled-religion-to-science Eistein said things about G-d that appear to contradict -- he both speaks of the Designer of existence and belittles the G-d of religion. Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's -- not emunah in a Borei but our standards, but far from atheism in their self-perception. --- Stephen Colbert explains his faith to Dr Neil de Grasse Tyson https://www.facebook.com/michael.bernstein.86/videos/10100134331341237/ He says that his faith doesn't come from a place of evidence, it comes from gratitude. Until they can explain why we exist rather than not exist, we need some basket to put that gratitude in. A little too Gcd of the Gaps. He could have made the same point using a more Non-overlapping Magesteria approach. IOW, he shouldn't be talking about belief until Dr Tyson and others in his profession can explain why we exist. Rather, he should point out they can't -- "why we exist?" isn't even a scientific question. Science doesn't cover all of human experience. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 18:36:04 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 21:36:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:26 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> RMB : This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > :> from G-d. > > : ZL: Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the > : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas > : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at > : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or > : uses intermediaries. > > RMB: Except that he calls it a neis.... ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' from Hashem than RambaM did. denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: > From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, > all our things and everything that happens to us is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago shel olom. It can't both be Divine Intervention > AND left to metaphysical mechanics. > Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine intervention manipulates but does not undo. The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force .'' > And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits > sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." > > Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. > We have to close the circle somehow. > ... According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". ZL: You are basing a lot on the Ramban using the expression ''hakol begeiras Elyon.'' But that expression, as well as ''neis,'' is no indication of disagreeing with the idea of Hashem intervening and conducting a neis nistar working through intermediaries to manipulate but not undo minhago shel olom. Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim has a chapter on this. And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own through the control of the angels over the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force . And behold the control was /from the time of their coming into being until forever more, *a gezeyras Elyon* [another girsa is Elyonim] that He placed in them/.'' The correct translation of ''gezeyras elyon[im] may even be ''a gezeyra about the upper world(s)/beings/forces,'' with elyon not being a reference to Hashem, just as it obviously is not in the first sentence of this passage. The gezeyas Elyon is what He placed into the forces that produce nature, the minhago shel olom. In the passage where Ramban declares that all that occurs to us is neis and not minhago shel olom or teva, he is contrasting our belief that Hashem, through neis nistar, manipulates minhago shel olom according to our deeds, with that of those who hold that nature runs mechanically with no connection to human behavior. Realizing this answers all that you proceeded to write: > > ...ZL: > : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem > : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... > > RMB: You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. ZL: I cited his repeated explanation of vayehi chein, and now his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12. RMB: [Ramban holds, contra RambaM, that] Physics does not > inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His > Action to be hidden by routine. > > ZL: : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that > : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and > : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of > : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. > > RMB: But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras > Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim > are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? > ZL: This is again your unwarranted inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras Elyon. > > ZL: : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you > : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a > : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much > : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... > > RMB: Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other > says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim > in the usual sense. > > ZL: This is again your inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras > Elyon, which I showed is incorrect. Rambam speaks in terms of Seichel > HaPoel setting up the world's machinery of spheres that influence matters > on earth. Ramban speaks in terms of Hashem creating influencing spheres > controlled by angels. Ramban considers Nature no less an ''it'' than > Rambam. Rambam considers Nature no more an ''it'' than Ramban. > > ... > RMB: :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. > : > ZL: : To the Rambam, as well. > > RMB: To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah > necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. > And RambaN (Devarim 18:13) speaks of Hashem redirecting the normal course of the spheres to act in favor of those who draw close to Him through their avodah. (In fact, Rambam in Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end], too, puts it terms of avodah: "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". According to both, Hashem intervenes to manipulate the machinery of minhago shel olom based upon man's closeness to him. > ZL: : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without > : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? > > RMB: The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is > saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, > he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. > > Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is > hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. ZL: I'll concede that point, although I'm still left with the question that the Rambam refers to minhago shel olom oneshim, too, as the greatest of nissim nistarim. How is abandonment to nature a neis? And he also refers to, for example, the Egyptians being punished for volunteering to fulfill the role of persecutors foretold of in the bris bein habesarim. The plagues were not a mere abandonment to nature... Tsaruch iyun.... > To the Ramban, a person > who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from > Him as needed. > ZL: That's an interesting twist on how to look at oneshim as a chessed. > > Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/03/18, 8:45:33 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban on astrology Devarim 18, 9-13.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2384560 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 4 09:31:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:31:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181204173107.GC16262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 09:36:04PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the :> : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas :> : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at :> : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or :> : uses intermediaries. :> RMB: : Except that he calls it a neis.... : So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar.... Different "it". The Ramban calls everything a neis. The fact that that doesn't imply what you would think if you only looked at those 2 comments doesn't change the fact that to the Ramban, teva is a neis. So: The Rambam acknowledges sekhar va'onesh via neis nistar, for those who earn such HP. (Hashgachah = both sekhar va'onesh.) And yet normal teva is the action of the Seikhel haPo'al, a metaphysical automaton "preprogrammed" by the Borei. The Ramban holds that all of teva is neis nistar, whether it's hashgachah (leshitaso: hashgachah = sekhar), onesh, or minhago shel olam. Again, but in significantly different words: To the Rambam, teva follows minhago shel olam because the Seikha haPo'al has a single mission and lack bechirah. According to the Ramban, teva is a word that means the subset of Divine Action that follows minhago shel olam rather than being selected by HP. I believe you agree that rishonim understand the Rambam's position on teva and the Seikhal haPo'al the way I explained it. I am not clear how you can insist they got it wrong. : ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, : > all our things and everything that happens to us : is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the : manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or : non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day : behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and : everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago : shel olom. Right, but that's not HP. According to both Rambam and the Ramban, not everything that happens to every person is HP. And yet they are all neis. You are also incorrectly deducing from the Rambam's talking about that whih happens to us that he means to exclude things that don't impact human life, such as the growth of a tree in the middle of the Amazon where it possibly effects no one. However, he is saying the Torah is founded on knowing how to view what happens to me personally. Not abstract knowledge about how the world works. That tree in the Amazon isn't on topic. ... : ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling : it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' : from Hashem than RambaM did. Even before we get to our point, not really. According to the Rambam, sekhar is a neis nistar. Onesh is almost always abandonment to teva. (Similarly, to the Rambam on Cheileq, gehenom is kareis is a lack of olam haba, and not suffering in olam haba.) Suffering as onesh is usually just what happens to a human being trying to fight what we would call today the law of increasing entropy. (It's easier to break things than make them.) On rare occasions, there is a Makas Bekhoros, but those are nissim geluyim. After all, leshitas haRambam, sin causes a lack of knowledge of the Borei, and thus a disconnection from Him, and thus a lack of hashpa'ah. HP itself is causal, leshitaso. Just as nevu'ah is causal, and it take a neis for Hashem to hide information from a navi who has enough yedi'ah to be connected up to be able to "look" for it. So, they disagree about whether onesh is HP / neis, even before we get started with our dispute. (Something also mentioned in the shiur from Gush I pointed you to.) :> It can't both be Divine Intervention :> AND left to metaphysical mechanics. : Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem : created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar : v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In : contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine : intervention manipulates but does not undo. And to repeat myself, you're nmistaken. The Rambam has a delegate Hashem gave nature to, and when there is a break from minhago shel olam, Hashem (via mal'akhim, beings higher than the Seikhel haPoal) is intervening. The Ramban does not have such a delegate. When there is a break from minhago shel olam, it's because someone earned Hashem making another kind of decision; another priority rose to the top in (kevayakhol) how He Chooses what to Do. Your reasserting otherwise still doesn't explain why you feel the Abarbanel and Narbonni got him wrong about this idea that a separate seikhel was created to do teva, that just runs minhago shel olam. And in fact, further down you stop denying this and instead argue from the Ramban in Devarim that the Ramban also has such sikhliim. I am not clear where exactly you stand. : The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm : of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each : ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago : shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. Runs like a machine, ie following a minhag. Whereas the Rambam gives it an actual metaphysical machine. : To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing : astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created : the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the : spheres. You are literally quoting a Ramban that says that even though there are kokhavim, mazalos, mal'akhim and sarim which has a nefesh, one cannot worship them or use astrology to tell the future (kesoa'avos hagoyim haheim) because they're only responding to His Will. A navi, who is looking at His Will, can know the future. : ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim : controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and : constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the : stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force : .'' Manhig = controller? : And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that : very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own : through the control of the angels over the spheres. Not on its own. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 04:19:47 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 07:19:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 > From: Micha Berger > > Einstein and G-d: > > ...Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's He said so explicitly ''I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... '' New Times, April 25, 1929, in answer to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/04/18, 7:16:09 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Tue Dec 4 08:24:16 2018 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 18:24:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Tuesday evening) begin Prayer for Rain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Tuesday evening), December 4, 2018, corresponding to the evening of 27 Kislev, 5779, the third night of Chanukka. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: https://www.lookstein.org/professional-dev/veten-tal-u-matar/ (Thanks to Russell Levy for suggesting the article.) In unrelated news, here's what keeps me busy: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/ Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky Post-doctoral Fellow Department of Mathematics Ariel University Ariel 4070000, ISRAEL ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Tue Dec 4 11:25:15 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One clear difference between the Rambam and the Ramban is the value of miracles as evidence; see H. Yesodei HaTorah 8:1 vs. Toras HaShem Temimah Ed. Chavel pp. 146, 150, 152, etc. I think the explanation is hinted at in the Ramban in Shoftim you cited. The Rambam holds that miracles are ad hoc, but the Ramban holds that miracles also follow laws and those laws echo creation. David Riceman Sent from my iPad From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 6 05:32:53 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 13:32:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] seuda shlishit Message-ID: <1c08882303fd4627b3659b0785fb9331@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> It is certainly preferable to either eat bread or stop eating before shekia (or close to it - beyond our present scope). If you partake in a full meal but refrain from bread for a certain reason, leniency has strong grounds. If you are picking at food according to your mood, and even more so if you previously fulfilled seuda shlishit, it is difficult to allow eating as night approaches. (Me- Is this generally followed?) 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 Thu Dec 6 14:45:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:45:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Havdalah or Menorah on Motzai Shabbos Which comes first? Message-ID: Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos - Chanuka? Not a recent question, this situation of competing halachic principles has been the basis of the centuries-old debate regarding which mitzvah has priority and should therefore be performed first. In other words, on Motzai Shabbos Chanuka this annual halachic dispute, simmering since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up... Please see https://goo.gl/oV2gpg YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 7 11:21:41 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 19:21:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: Q. I will be traveling to New York from my home in New Jersey for a Chanukah party at my parents? house and won?t be returning home until late at night. I have the following options: I can light at home at 4:00 PM (which is before sunset); I can appoint an agent (shliach) to light in my house for me at the proper time; I can light at my parents? house; or I can light upon returning home late at night when there are no longer any passersby. What should I do? A. The Mechaber rules that if one will not be able to light the Chanukah candles at the prescribed time, he may light them any time after Plag HaMincha (Shulchan Aruch OC 672:1). Plag HaMincha in the winter is approximately an hour before sunset. However, if one must leave immediately thereafter, it may not be advisable to leave candles unattended. The possibility of using an agent is questionable, since Mishnah Berurah (675:9) rules that when an agent lights for him, the person must stand next to the agent and hear him recite the brachos; obviously, this is not feasible in this case. The third possibility, lighting at one?s parents? home, is not acceptable. One must light where he lives (i.e. the place where he eats and sleeps on a regular basis). Since he does not live in his parent?s home but is merely eating a meal there, he may not light there. One should follow the fourth option and light upon returning home. As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. Therefore, one may light even if it is late and there will be no passersby to see the menorah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 8 17:32:58 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 20:32:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49e62b3e-cb2d-9d77-dbff-c94f400def1e@sero.name> > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit > primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising it, if not to the passersby? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 18:33:18 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:33:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: . Someone quoted the OU's Halacha Yomis: > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. R' Zev Sero asked: > What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising > it, if not to the passersby? I don't think the OU meant to suggest that one isn't yotzay if his family doesn't see the neros. When danger caused us to move the menorah indoors, *everyone* lit indoors. No exceptions were made for those who live alone. It seems clear to me that one is yotzay even if he is the only one to see them lit. Come to think of it, one is yotzay Pirsumei Nisa if no one hears him read the Megilla, or if no one sees him drinking Arba Kosos. Why should Ner Chanuka be different? It is true that the Mishne Berura 672:11 says that if everyone at home is already asleep, then he must either wake someone or light without the bracha. But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants to act like that, we don't stop him." Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 12 21:41:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:41:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music and literature: As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the better strategy? 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 Dec 12 21:44:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? 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 Dec 15 19:22:45 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 22:22:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: <4EBAA25A-8790-4673-AAFF-7E2AC74B5C9A@cox.net> With an extremely unusual exception, all professionals will tell you that the first time your husband assaults you must be the last time. Furthermore the law is clear and unequivocal: Any incidence of a domestic crime must be dealt with by arresting the guilty party, be it husband or wife. I can tell you that any call we get involving a domestic always results in an arrest. Dina D'Malchusa Dina This is the law and we are mandated to follow it. I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve your spouse. Mechila or no mechila, the consequences are serious and the law must be followed. Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 16 11:13:33 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot Message-ID: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of chutz l'aretz. Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? Ben From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 16 12:56:05 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 15:56:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? First thought, just to help the ball rolling. Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? So, there are people actually eating challah in the Rambam's world. Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both being deOraisa. (In particular, it can be taken retroactively; you can eat before hafrashah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Dec 17 08:28:25 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:28:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Asara b'Teves Message-ID: The message of this commemoration is that after the destruction, we must trace its sources and mark its stages; we must look backwards to events that are not earth-shattering and perceive how the seeds of the destruction on the Ninth of Av were planted on the Tenth of Teves. The more we study history, the more we learn that we should not concentrate only on the final act itself, but also on all the stages that led up to it. This also applies to the Holocaust which is probably the worst tragedy in Jewish history. Along these lines we also recite Kaddish on the 10th of Tevet for all those whose date of death is unknown, who perished in the Holocaust. Apparently, the tenth of Teves is "the Day of God" about which many prophets spoke ? the tenth day of the tenth month. (The 10th of Teves is the only fast day that can fall on a Friday). The number ten in kabala is related to the sefira of malkhut, and therefore, the very essence of the day is appropriate to the theme of God's kingship. Chazal teach that at midnight a north wind would blow, rousing King David from his sleep to serve his Creator. It is in the middle of the night, specifically in the depths of the darkest part of the night, that the sovereignty of Israel awakens, and the kingship of God is revealed in the world.May the Kingship of the Almighty finally rule all mankind thus fulfilling the vision of the prophets: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall men learn war anymore; for all men, both great and small shall know the Lord.? Amen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 17 09:09:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:09:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 16/12/18 3:56 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that > : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? > > First thought, just to help the ball rolling. > > Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. I assume Sefardim also, though I don't know this for certain. But the SA certainly says to do so, and only the Rema says the minhag is not to. > They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem > with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump > actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? AFAIK it's got nothing to do with chinuch; the reason it's given to ketanim rather than gedolim is because they have never experienced tum'ah that comes from their own bodies. It can also be given to an adult cohen who has been to the mikveh. The Rema says this is not our minhag because since it's not eaten in EY there is no need for it to be eaten in chu"l. Other acharonim suggest that it's because we have no cohanim meyuchasim, so we're not even certain this child is a cohen in the first place, or because we're worried that the child won't be careful with it and it'll get into people's food, or just that if it's not burned immediately it will somehow find its way to someone who shouldn't eat it. > Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both > being deOraisa. Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan. (Nowadays even chalah of EY is midrabanan, but it has an ikkar min hatorah, whereas in chu"l it's entirely midrabanan.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:25:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:25:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181217172541.GA5532@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:09:38PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both : >being deOraisa. : Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan... Sorry, chalah of crops made from chu"l that were brought into EY are indeed deOraisa, and yes those aforementioned qulos still apply. (Similarly, challah from Israeli grain that was needed in chu"l is only chayav miderabbanan.) 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:14:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181217171454.GA25337@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:33:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the : brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the : opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar : Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants : to act like that, we don't stop him." Going back to the SA (OC 677:3) the mechaber says that *yeish omerim* that if you light at home alone after others have lit there without you, you make the berakhos. Interestingly, the se'if opens "yeish omerim", it's the only opinion quoted. The Rama quote the Mordechai that this is because he is obligated to see the neiros, vekhein nohagim. Ateres Zeqeinim ad loc quotes the Maharash: veyeish cholqin. So, if you want to be machmir to light, (he calls it "rotzeh lahchamir") light without a berakhah. The Maharil says that once you light on your own, you showed you didn't want to be yotzei with the earlier lighting, so you weren't. And that's why it's not a berakhah levatalah. The picture I'm trying to show here is that the discussion about the berakhah appears to be because this is after someone else lit for the home. Not because you're alone. And, if I understand the Mordechai correctly, he appears to be saying that whether or not the purpose of the mitzvah is pirsumei nisah, the actual mitzvah includes just seeing the lights. Perhaps because even internalizing the neis I myself already know about intellectually qualifies as "pirsum". But that's not how R' Moshe discusses it. He simply says that pirsum isn't me'aqeiv. 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 09:05:16 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:05:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] lighting the menora Message-ID: As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. My impression is that most modern poskim certainly in EY disagree and that many/most light outdoors for the public -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 18 09:24:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:24:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Comedy -- is it good for the Jews? In-Reply-To: References: <49f57ed6-82ab-b6eb-2210-00930742efaa@sero.name> <20181211154507.GB6212@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181218172413.GB29597@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:02am EST, R Moshe Y. Gluck replied to me on Areivim in a conversation about a stand up comic at a venue that lost their hekhsher over it: : One can argue that comedy, in it of itself, is assur, independent of : subject matter because of Assur L'maalos Piv Schok B'Olam Hazeh (Berachos : 31a). This gemara makes an interesting contrast to the rather famous gemara (Taanis 22a) about Rabbi Beroqa Choza'ah and Elihahu haNavi in the marke of Bei Lefet. Elihahu points out two beduchei as among those there who would merit olam haba, eiuther because they chear up the depressed or bring peace to those arguing. Given the first "i nami" in Taanis, where's the chiluq to be drawn? Another problem I have understandign the gemara in Taanis. The market in question was full of Jews. (Another person Eliyahu pointed out was noted for not dressing like one, but turned out to be employed by the prison system and he protected the women in his jail.) And "kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq". So why are just these people being pointed out as being "bar alma de'asi"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:28:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:28:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. In-Reply-To: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182837.GA18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:29:12AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability : (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to : both monetary and spiritual liabilities... Does it work at all? You can be mochel nezeq when it's mamon, but corporeal? Wouldn't Shim'on be a rasha for lifting his hand to Re'uvein either way? Related: Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? 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 micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:34:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:34:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] culture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181219183447.GB18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:41:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music : and literature: :> As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even :> the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from :> the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness :> of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. : My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the : better strategy? It has to be slower, when you think you haven't yet assimilated culture and you're trying to hold the line, than when you consciously choose to have a strategy with regard to acculturation, and expect the line to move. One will only have unconscious motion, the other will have conscious change as well. So for the masses, it means less assimilation. Then we have to ask if cultural assumilation is a bad thing. Does Hashem not want us to sing our tefillos to the kosher elements of the sound of our era? Is there a Jewish aesthetic to begin with? Way deep wading in this issue. However, for the yechidim who realize it's going on and that everyone is fooling themselves.... I see a big OTD risk as cynicism is bound to creap in, as well as (including?) a loss of respect for any authority figures who are fooled or caught blindfolding others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:20:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:20:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? In-Reply-To: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182054.GA6255@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting : the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), : animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get : no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) This is the end of OC 1:1. (AhS Yomi for 4th. Yes, cycle 2 is starting in just 4+ months! The first Tur for the AhS to write on was CM, which is why you find the haqdamah there. So "beginning" was ambiguous. Or I'm just a nitpicker.) : Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is : it equivalent of free will? .... I took the se'if to mean that angels have no YhR and therefore lack free will. Animals have no *capacity for* knowledge, and therefore couldn't possibly have a YhT, and thus also no bechirah. Only people, caught in tention between YhR and (properly applied?) da'as have bechirah, and that's why only we get both reward and punishment. : The dogs being : rewarded for not barking? There is an interesting implication from the AhS that animals do get sekhar, and angels do get oneshim. Perhaps it makes sense even without presuming they have bechirah if we take a causal approach to sekhar va'onesh. The animal that does the right thing, even through no credit of its own, is still thereby a superior being than before. Especially if it is more likely to repeat behavior done once (or more likely to refrain if refrained once). And similarly in the reverse, for angels that fail. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Dec 19 22:03:14 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 01:03:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: >I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >your spouse. Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? From isaac at balb.in Wed Dec 19 22:57:07 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:57:07 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Re Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2CC046A4-B9E6-4853-A683-179A213256CC@balb.in> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu---theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively more authentic version of the next Baal HaMesora. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Dec 20 08:12:18 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:12:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You are asking a loaded question so I will have to answer it on a few layers. First of all, I?m not sure what YOU mean by a verbal assault. The legal definition of assault varies from state to state but generally: Simple assault is an attempt to do a serious bodily harm to another person, or actually committing an act to put another in fear of serious bodily injury. Simple assault is usually classified as a misdemeanor. So if by verbal assault, a husband or wife (without touching each other), puts the other in fear of being hurt, then it meets the criteria of a crime (misdemeanor) and in most states mandates an arrest. With that scenario, yes, I would say the same for a spouse who verbally assaults the other. What most lay people confuse assault with is a BATTERY which is any unlawful offensive physical contact with another person, with or without his or her consent. ... Unlike the crime of assault, battery requires that actual contact is made, while assault charges can be brought with only the threat of violence. Though it may seem extreme to say that you don?t deserve your spouse if you commit a simple assault or battery, our own sages have said that if your wife burns your food, you have every right to divorce her. I think it boils down to the specifics and whole picture of each case. I believe your question may have meant what if a spouse speaks disparagingly to his/her spouse. In other words, what if a husband demeans his wife and calls her stupid or ugly, etc. My feeling is that you are dealing with the tip of the iceberg and most likely you have a bad marriage and a dysfunctional relationship. > On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: > > >> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >> your spouse. > > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 20 12:31:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:31:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181220203131.GB27441@aishdas.org> On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: :> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who :> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve :> your spouse. : > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? Hezeq and onaas devarim are different issurim. But they both are forms of harm recognized by halakhah. (Maybe I mean all three are recognized: hezeq haguf and hezeq mamon are different things, with different dinim.) And if the ona'as devarim gets to the point of halvanas panim, it's compared to retzichah. BM 58b lumps OD and pinning a nickname on someone together with eishes ish as sins that cause gehennom to be permanent ("sheyordim ve'ein olim") and ein lo cheileq le'olam haba (59a). And of course, "noach lo le'adam shayapil es atzmo lekivshan ha'eish, be'al yalbin penei chaveiro." (Mar Zutra, BM 59a) Which is taking seriously, not exageration, in discussions of yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. So to ammend my first paragraph, verbal abuse is far MORE vilified by the din than hezeq. I would consider answering: lo kol shekein! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 20 21:43:37 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:43:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer Message-ID: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From a write-up on borer and peelers: "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] Me-1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex county, us, world...............) 2.Is a sieve a sophisticated fork??? 3.No doubt that minhag yisrael includes many who do it-it's just not clear to me how that developed (i.e a priori first principles seem to lead to prohibition) - perhaps a good example of mimetic tradition? 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:22:47 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:22:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: <> Indeed I am always bothered by those who claim that they are not influenced at all but outside culture. Even if not directly we are all influenced by outside forces. There is no such thing today as Jewish music since anything the leviim sang has been lost. Living in Israel sefardi music is much different than ashkenazi music simply because Arabic music is different than Hungarian music. Anyone who learns Rambam is influenced at some level by Greek philosophy. Read rishonim on the reasons for dina demalchuta and compare it to the old defenses of the rights of kings - just happen to be identical. Many rishonim were familar with secular philosophy and even the Ramah knew philosophy. In spite of appearances Chatam Sofer had a broad background and spoke German. All of this without referring to RAL who has a spirited defense of much (certainly not all) of modern literature and parts of modern culture. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:30:25 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:30:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports Message-ID: << Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? >> Certainly mechila works on some level. There are stories of RAL in his younger years playing basketball with the students. Once a student complained that it wasn;t fair because they could not block their rebbe. RAL answered that in playing ball not to treat him as a rebbe. Certainly we are talking about minor contact and not severe wounding Kibud Av ve- Em is a step beyond ordinary treatment of others especially causing a loss of blood. From what I have seen the standard psak is that a doctor should preferably not treat a parent for anything requiring incisions or blood. However, for anything serious that the child is better than others than certainly, he is the doctor of choice. I recall that RMF allows cosmetic surgery only foord "god reasons". This incliudes feeling embarrased by one's appearance and also improvements especially for women for shidduch persons. I assume he would not be happy with various facial "improvements" for senior citizens -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Thu Dec 20 17:33:08 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 12:33:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively better version of the next Baal HaMesora. From mcohen at touchlogic.com Fri Dec 21 06:48:04 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:48:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma Message-ID: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means increase. Therefore not 'blessed is the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever' (artscroll) but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his kingdom be increased forever. His source is olas tamid (which I don't have), and iyun tefilah (which I looked up and I cant find this mentioned) Is this the kavanah that you are all having when you say krias shma? mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:10:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:10:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <20181221151048.GA23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 09:48:04AM -0500, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: : R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means : increase. ... : but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his : kingdom be increased forever. I am vague enough on the translation of the English word "blessed" that translating "barukh" for "blessed" is trading one unknown for a bigger one. As for my own kavanah (when I stop to have one): May the public perception (or: reputation) of the significance (or: importance) of His rule-by-public-acclimation be increased eternally without stop. Explanation: Sheim is name, which would be how others perceive something. Hashem's sheim is thus how He seems to people, which could be reputation and/or perception. Kavod shares spelling with kaveid, heaviness. (We'll discuss livers some other time.) And thus we give honor to significant "weighty" matters. Like massive things, we don't trivially push them around. And so I think of kavod as honor more in terms of significant and important than glory. Ein melekh belo am -- unlike a mosheil, what makes a melekh a melekh is the acceptance of the governed. The Gra has a whole piece on Melekh vs Mosheil and "umosheil bagoyim", until the day when "vehayah Hashem leMelekh". "Malkhusekha malkhus kol olamim umemshaletekha bekhol dor vador." Notice in that last pasuq, malkhus is framed in terms of "kol olamim", and here it's "le'olam va'ed". Le'olam -- for as long as there's an olam. Va'ad -- note the shoresh of "ad", until the missing end. There is another kind of Eternity. Hashem Himself is lemaalah min hazman. Not eternal in the sense of existing for an infinite amount of time, but in the sense that the concept of time doesn't apply. However, His Sheim is a product of us relating to Him, and thus within time -- as long as there is an "am" for Hashem to be Melekh of. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Dec 21 07:35:02 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:35:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <892aea1f-7804-ca75-2a17-2b632b2d08f7@sero.name> On 21/12/18 9:48 am, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: > One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod > malchuso lolam vaaed > > How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. > > R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch > means increase. I don't think this is perush hamilim. It's an additional facet that can add to the value of kavana, but is not required. Another facet is that "baruch" can mean to extend, as in "hamavrich es hagefen", so a bracha represents bring the shefa from the higher worlds to this one. An important thought, but one who doesn't have it in mind, or is even entirely unaware of it, has still said shma properly. Also, sheim is not *just* how others see one; ones name is connected directly to ones essence, as we see from the fact that when someone has fainted we use their name to call them back. But it is mostly used for others, just as malchus is how one relates to others, i.e. dibbur, shechina, reflecting what is going on inside one to the outside world, and yet it remains one of the essential attributes of a personality, and thus it is also one of the sefiros which those attributes reflect. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:34:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:34:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer In-Reply-To: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181221153420.GB23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 05:43:37AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From a write-up on borer and peelers: : : > "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are : > "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] : : 1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex : county, us, world...............) I could understand why the peel normally being eaten might mitigate boreir, as there is no pesoles. But how does it change the status of the peeler? In any case, the AhS (OC 391:22, but the discussion starts at se'if 19 ) only talks about peeling lots of (harbeih) garlic or onions, where he accepts the fact that it is boreier, despite being confused about how it even caqn be borer. There is a clear gemara (Beitza 13b) that says that Ravs and Rav Chiyya's wives would peel barley for them on Shabbos. And the AhS wants to know why garlic or onion would be any different. He therefore concludes that the issur isn't peeling, but the separating of the peels once they're mixed into in the heap. He explains the BY's source Y-mi accordingly. I should point out that when I was a child, no one I knew identified peeling as a form of boreir. Seems it may have been beshitah, and not ignorance. The AhS also talks (se'if 9) about non-mixtures, items that are nir'im la'ayin, like clothes, keilim and books. I do not know what he means by keilim, picking out forks from a jumble in the drawer? I bring this up because this issue was also something I didn't hear of until YU. Seems to me boreir grew a lot when the MB became "poseiq acharon" for all y'all. (Minus Sepharadim, of course, who limit boreir to literal okhel, IIUC.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 10:14:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:14:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20181221181420.GA18815@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:33:08PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the : Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, : whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of : Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic : tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- : performing Masoretic acts and decisions... I am not sure we are correctly using the word "mimetic" when discussing the unconscious copying norms and aborbing the culture of such a small "community" as that of posqim. However, if I understand what you mean correctly, I wrote something similar on Torah Musincs, where I tried to nail down what RYBS and RHS mean by the term "Mesorah". Teasers, as they state my point without proving basis: The word "masorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. ... For regular pesak too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from texts. Kara veshanah velo shimeish talmid chacham, harei zeh am ha'aretz.... If he read scripture and studied law, but did not serve a talmid chacham, such a person is an am haaretz (an ignorant peasant). - Sotah 22a ... Similarly, a poseik needs to pick up that feel, and not only the formal rules. He needs the unstructured knowledge of halakhah. Consider this rather poetic description of how the Rav experienced his shiur, entering the dialog of Torah through the ages as he joins his students in the classroom. Notice how he winds up by discussing this experience as "masorah": ... ... In an article in Jewish Action, Rav Schachter provides his definition of the word. He opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. ... The Rav identifies masorah as the ineffable skill to think like a poseik. Masorah is a skill obtained from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in a culture of mimeticism. ... Without masorah, the poseik has no way of determining which solutions to new problems are in concert with the spirit of previous rulings. Halakhah is not frozen; it does not have inertia, but it does have momentum. Apprenticeship, training under a master, transmits the feel for where the halakhah has historically been taken. Following reasoning found in a minority ruling is appropriate only when one is motivated by the Torah's own principles. The person who speaks halakhah as a first language knows when an innovative change is within "poetic license", and when the result simply violates the Torah's "grammar." As R. Yochanan quotes in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah - the apprenticeship of Torah is greater than its study". :-)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 llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 21 11:29:00 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 19:29:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Is_it_forbidden_to_teach_Torah_to_one_w?= =?windows-1252?q?ho_has_not_said_birchas_ha=92Torah=3F?= Message-ID: I wonder how this applies to restaurants. How are they allowed to serve people who do not make brachas before eating? YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Is it forbidden to teach Torah to one who has not said birchas ha?Torah? A. In regards to birchos ha?nehenin (brachos recited on food), there is a concept that one is not permitted to give someone food if the recipient will not recite a bracha. Offering food to one who will not recite a bracha is a violation of ?lifnei iver lo sitain michshol? (enabling one to stumble) (See Shulchan Aruch OC 169:2). However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l (Minchas Shlomo 1:91) writes that this does not apply to teaching Torah to one who did not recite birchas ha?Torah. Birchas ha?Torah is a birchas ha?mitzvah. Though birchos ha?mitzvos are obligatory, we do not find that Chazal forbade the performance of a mitzvah if a bracha is not recited. He notes that not studying Torah (bitul Torah) is a more serious offense than omitting the bracha. If possible, one should instruct those who have come to learn Torah how to recite the bracha, but if this is not practical, one should teach them Torah in any event. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 17:26:16 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:26:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Angels and Requests Message-ID: . In the Friday night poem "Shalom Aleichem", we ask the mal'achim to give us a bracha. We've often mentioned here that some people avoid this poem because it is either similar to avoda zara, or perhaps might actually BE avoda zara. I call your attention to the morning's parsha, Bereshis 48:16, the pasuk "Hamal'ach hagoel osi." Yaakov Avinu refers to a particular mal'ach and asks that this mal'ach should give a bracha to Yosef's sons. At first glance, this seems to be very similar to Shalom Aleichem. How is this justifiable, in the view of those who consider Shalom Aleichem to be problematic? I came up with two possible answers, and I invite the chevra to critique them, and/or suggest other answers. 1) Perhaps the halachos of avoda zara were less restrictive in those pre-Sinai days, and making requests to a mal'ach was okay for Yaakov but not for us. I suppose this is possible, but the centrality of Monotheism to the avos, it would surprise me. 2) I note that in the immediately preceding pasuk, Yaakov addressed Hashem. If so, then maybe Yaakov was not asking the mal'ach directly for a bracha the way we do in Shalom Aleichem. Rather, he was speaking directly to Hashem, asking Hashem that the mal'ach should give the bracha. This would solve the problem of "Who was Yaakov praying to?", but not the problem of "Where do brachos come from?" If the mal'ach is capable of giving a bracha, that too smacks of avoda zara, doesn't it? All comments are welcome. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 03:08:38 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 06:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bircas Kohanim when when the Shaliach Tzibbur is a kohen Message-ID: . On Areivim, R' Sheldon Liberman asked: > I heard over Shabbos that in chutz l'aretz, during the chazzan's > repetition at shacharis, if the chazzan is a kohen, then during > bircas kohanim, there is an opinion that the tzibbur should > answer "Amein" rather than "Kein y'hi ratzon". > > Has anyone heard this? The critical words here are "there is an opinion". It seems reasonable that somewhere in a vast library of seforim, there might be a sefer that suggests such a thing. Whether anyone actually does this is another matter entirely. I don't remember ever hearing anyone actually do this. I'd even argue against it. It makes about as much sense as if one would answer "amen" during the third stanza of "Shalom Aleichem". In both cases we are asking for a bracha, but in neither case have we actually heard any bracha on which to answer "amen". (When we answer "kein yehi ratzon", it means "please give us that bracha" and not "I believe in that bracha which You gave".) Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 26 08:49:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:49:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shul Message-ID: Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points out. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 27 11:49:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:49:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Amoraic statements Message-ID: Anyone know of any writings on how to think about Amoraic statements that are not sourced but very basic (i.e., why weren't they recorded earlier)? Two quick examples: 1.) Shmuel - dina dmalchuta dina (the law of the land controls), 2.) Rav-Tisha achlu dagan vechad achal yerek-mitztarphin.(9 who ate grain and 1 who ate greens combine[for a zimmun of 10]} 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 Dec 27 11:50:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:50:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sukkah Yeshana Message-ID: <0ba366bf435347f8ac060c596a575ca0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The Mishna in Sukkah (9a) discusses Sukkah Yeshana which one would have thought meant an old sukkah (schach) yet the discussion in the gemara indicates that it is an issue of lishma (intent). Why didn't the Mishna use the language of lishma? The gemara then posits a pasuk as the source of Beit Shammai's position, then asks doesn't he need that pasuk for something else, and replies ein hachi name (yes) and so quotes another pasuk instead. What was the point of Ravina/Rav Ashi including the rejected pasuk as part of the record? 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 seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Dec 30 09:44:16 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:44:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, etc. Message-ID: > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on > Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me > Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. > Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points > out. That's not why they talk. They talk because they saw their parents or other adults talk. They learned that talking is perfectly acceptable. The fact that the Shul has not followed the Mishna Berura and appointed people to end the talking merely reinforces the talkers' understanding that talking is OK. It's like asking why people cheat on their taxes. They don't cheat because they're greedy. We're all greedy. But the tax-cheaters don't have a red line. I admit sometimes the davvening is too long for me, and I get restless. But I never talk. And bli neder I won't davven in a shul where there are talkers, even if it's the only shul in town. Ruins it for me. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 18:45:48 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 21:45:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine posted: > Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because > davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there > are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people > get restless. If there were people who can keep quiet during the weekday minyanim, and only talk on Shabbos, then I would consider it to be a reasonable explanation. But in my experience, the same people talk regardless. If someone talks during a weekday maariv, then shaving twenty minutes off of the Shabbos morning won't prevent his restlessness. The authors of the linked article suggested: > Not talking until the conclusion of Chazaras HaShatz, including > the time between when we finish our silent Amidah and we are > waiting for the chazzan, is doable, it is realistic, it is a > fair expectation of those attending and it is the minimum to be > respectful of our friends and neighbors. Sadly, IMO that's not doable, and not realistic. I'd like to think that I'd be satisfied if they'd be quiet merely from when we finish our silent Amidah until the chazan begins. THAT is a minimum for being respectful of our friends and neighbors. They don't even have to be silent for a noticeable improvement. Halevai they would hold it down to a whisper. (And it doesn't count as a whisper if they can be heard 20 feet away.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 03:22:36 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 06:22:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: I should have concluded my previous post with this: Despite my pessimistic tone, I praise those who are working towards a solution. I have seen many corrective attempts fail, but that doesn't mean there's no way to fix it. Talking in shul is a serious problem, and I apologize if my frustration made it sound otherwise. Akiva Miller From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Oct 3 08:32:16 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 11:32:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: <1db301d45b2e$43dda750$cb98f5f0$@com> Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz? (not sepharadim) I was surprised to see it done. Sources? Thanks, 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/ ======= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 2 22:30:47 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 01:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3e882718-3c29-80fa-6211-ff7172a97fba@sero.name> On 30/09/18 14:13, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. I think you meant the Ramban. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 23:18:08 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 09:18:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:23 AM Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. So > go figure out how /he/ understands the idea that 2 were not taught via > Moshe. > According to the Rambam, the first diber _is_ one of the 613, and this gemara is his proof text -- see Sefer Hamitzvot Mitzvot Ase #1. Assuming that "Rambam" is a typo for "Ramban", see his hassaga on the Sefer Hamitzvot. Ramban holds that the second diber includes two of the 613 (don't make idols; don't worship them). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Wed Oct 3 00:23:19 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:23:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:43:14 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine" > From Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra ... >> In 1921 the great bibliographer (and much more) Yitzchak Rivkind >> .... On Simchas Torah they would open the Aron Kodesh >> when saying Aleinu, both at night and during the day, and while singing >> the Niggun of Mussaf of Yom Kippur would bow on the floor exactly like >> we do on Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur. When he asked for the source of >> this Minhag he was told it comes from the Gra... Interesting. The Robshitse Rov had a similar practice, falling on his face during the hakofos. (It is reported that one year, after bowing during hakofos [the first time?], he commented that only he and his son Yaakov [of Melits] understand the secret. After Yom Tov, it became known that R' Yaakov too had participated in this rite.) (Another story tells of how the grandson of the Kosnitse Maggid, R' Elo'ozor, spoke lightly of this minhag [made fun?] to the Robshite Rov's son, R' Eliezer of Dzikhov, whereupon R' Eliezer protested vehemently, saying all his father's customs have a very high source. On his return, R' Elozor's wagon tipped and he was thrown out of his carriage, falling, as we do on Yom Kippur, on his face. He saw this as a retribution for having spoken lightly of the minhag.) From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Oct 3 09:16:33 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:16:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra Message-ID: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 01:17 PM 9/30/2018, R. Zalman Alpert wrote: >The kluiz of the GRaA in Vilna was essentially the only place in Vilna >and all of Lithuania that followed minhage HAgra to the kotzo shel yud >Chaim Grade a lost talmid of the Chazon Ish and a Vilna native mentions >this in his wonderful novels about shil life in Vilna > >Because the Jslm settlement in early 19th cen was started by disciples >of the GRAthe Rivlins,etc these minhogim becamr and remain the standard >for at least the yishuv hayoshen of Jslm and beyond that group > >And thats how we know these customs in realism rather than from seforim >The Litthuanian yrshivas did not follow these customs nor did kohol,and >certainly not the chassidim of Lithuania who after WwI played an impt >role in Jew rel life in greater lita including Vilna My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and are practiced by many there. Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the Torah? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 3 14:51:19 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 17:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For > example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the > Torah? Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim of the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 14:46:37 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:46:37 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >are practiced by many there. >Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >Torah? It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the original Minhag. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 3 15:32:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:32:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading : the Torah? While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does make a similar point. ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. 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 JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 3 15:42:28 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 22:42:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. > _______________________________________________ This is a description of the fact but not an explanation of why this was a halachically acceptable result (ie where is this exception to the minhag hamakom rule) Kt Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 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 Wed Oct 3 15:54:51 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <16705774-1a3c-c42c-0f78-317676dc6114@sero.name> On 03/10/18 17:46, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >> My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >> practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >> find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >> are practiced by many there. > >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >> Torah? > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. That is a different issue, and one that was once controversial and that one can still question. Here the issue is much simpler, because when Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 18:16:02 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:16:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> Message-ID: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. Because if there was, each returnee would have to adopt the Minhag Hamakom the moment he hit an inhabited city. In contrast, there were no religious Jews left in England after the expulsion, so the newcomers can (and should) follow their old minhagim. The same would presumably apply when Jews started coming back to Spain a few decades back, and unlike Moroccans in France a few decades before. But, as I wrote before, it seems that the Minhag is to follow whatever Minhagim you were used to, especially if you have enough landsmen to create a breakaway community. On October 3, 2018 2:51:19 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading >the >> Torah? > >Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim >of >the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they >now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those > >minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed >the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably >French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? > >-- >Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all >zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you >prosper >_______________________________________________ >Avodah mailing list >Avodah at lists.aishdas.org >http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 21:54:40 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 21:54:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 3, 2018 3:32:20 PM PDT, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. What does he hold about Sefardim moving to France or Germany (which had a continuity - Germany going back well, at least a thousand years and France, while it had a break, did have a religious Ashkenazi community before and after the war). On October 3, 2018 3:54:51 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >o Here the issue is much simpler, because when >Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local >minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in >England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed >them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, >there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to >adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 4 06:19:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:19:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. _______________________________________________ The gemara (Bava Metziah 83b) discusses what hours a worker gets paid for based on the Torah "standard." The gemara queries why not just find out what local practice is? The first answer is it's a case of a new city which was nkutai. Rashi defines nkutai as meaning its residents came from multiple other cities, with multiple other practices. Perhaps this is a model for minhag? New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care what we do? 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 Thu Oct 4 10:17:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:17:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181004171737.GA32625@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:19:57PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a : preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard : for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care : what we do? BM 83b is talking about norms for business, which is likely an entirely different use of the word "minhag" than in issur veheter. For example, when we say "minhag mevatel halakhah" in CM discussions, we are relying on the presumption that both parties would take compliance to local business norms for granted, and a deal can have any conditional both parties agree on. In this CM sense of minhag, there is no reason to assume that halakhah would have problems with other norms emerging, since they are based on the agreement of all parties. But that's a whole different topic than Ashk vs Seph differences in the other 3 Turim, which is where we started. That's minhag in the sense of: 1- Rgional pesaq when other regions hold differently (eg bet yosef meat); or 2- Extra-halachic accepted prohibitions or obligations (eg avoiding qitniyos). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 09:16:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:16:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: <20181003205226.GC17060@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181004161626.GF25881@aishdas.org> Moving this from Areivim. On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 4:28pm -0700, Rabbi Meir Rabi wrote on Areivim: : The Beis Hamikdash wasn't inclusive. More than that, (according to some : opinions) there were professions which weren't obligated to do Aliyah : LeRegel because they smelled bad and couldn't be Oleh Regel with everyone. The beraisa (Chullin 4a) says that dog fertilizer gatherers, tanners and copper smiths are "peturin min hare'iyah". The Rambam tells them get get cleaned up and go (Hil' Chagiga 2:2), the Mechaber (Kesef Mishnah ad loc) explaining that we hold like the Rabanan, not that beraisa. But even if we held like that beraisa that's whether they have a petur for not coming, not an issur to come. In fact, inclusivity might be the whole reason /why/ the Rabanan don't hold like the beraisa. But lo ra'isi eino ra'ayah, so to speak, so naniach someone else does take a harder line, what would that mean? Kehunah is not inclusive of all baalei mum. But attending... The BHMQ is inclusive on the basis of things not dependent on the person's own decisions. No one, not even a nakhri child of an eishes ish, is excluded by virtue of who he is. (In the nakhri's case, up to the soreg, but still, that's true of all nakhriim.) You're talking about someone excluded because of what they chose to do. (Again, given said "some opinions".) Admittedly, too many people lack options. But someone who really wants to be oleh regel who is still forced by circumstance to an unpleasant job would choose a different one. Or beg, if they value aliyah laregel more than the protection from sin offered by "yafeh salmud Torah im derekh eretz". My point is, it's a choice, and not the same kind of exclusion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call micha at aishdas.org life which is required to be exchanged for it, http://www.aishdas.org immediately or in the long run. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:46:34 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:46:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <1b84de96-ba9a-be08-b14f-3941c6ca49ec@sero.name> On 03/10/18 21:16, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the > Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. No, there was not. The First and Second Crusades utterly destroyed the communities that had survived the Roman and Arab occupations, and the communities that started resettling EY in the Ramban's day were all immigrants who brought their chu"l minhagim with them, including the minhagim of paskening like the Bavli, keeping two days of Rosh Hashana, and not benching lulav when the first day of Succos falls on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:51:23 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:51:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0f6cfe7e-6504-98a8-c784-c122f84a59ca@sero.name> On 03/10/18 18:32, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? > : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading > : the Torah? > > While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY > community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does > make a similar point. > > ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to > switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. > He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old > minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi > Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 4 12:10:49 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:10:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rabbi wrote: 'When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways.' Agreed. Yerushalayim didn't have continuity as we know via the Ramban finding less than a minyan there when he arrived, but Chevron AFAIK had continuity from Chazal to 1929. I think Teverya did too. The museum of the old yishuv in the Old City refers to the 'mustarvim' as one of the communities in 19th century Jlem, those who were culturally pretty Arab and claimed descent from the pre-crusades community. For more info this wikipaedia page: History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel is well footnoted. So if there's well documented continuous Jewish presence and even communities in EY throughout, how did the SA set minhagim in EY such that ROY held they were obligatory on new arrivals? What happened to pre-existing customs? Or is it that the disruption and wax and wane of communities over EY with continuous small scale aliya meant there was no such such thing as minhag hamakom? Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 14:48:15 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 17:48:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181004214815.GD14160@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:10:49PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not : countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume : such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? I think it has more to do with communication and transportation changes than a change in principle. The new metzi'us is that we're much more aware of what people five towns over are doing. On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 02:51:23PM -0400, Zev Sero replied to my post: : >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to : >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. : >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old : >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi : >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. : But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his : whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all : the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there : were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument : works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? Well, you might have a question about Edot haMizrach, but EY? Didn't you just write about how the Jewish settlement of EY in the 15th cent wasn't all that dense? But I don't think this is relevent, anyway. Let's say they were wrong to take their minhagim with them. Even if the change in minhag was wrong, the normal practice in EY did indeed change. Unlike the situation once that norm was lost and no new consistent minhag emerged (on all but a few issues). So, I could see ROY saying that right or wrong about its establishment, the SA's minhag still stands as the minhag hamaqom. OTOH, invoking the SA means that he is bringing a textual component to the establishment of minhag. IIRC, ROY frames it in terms of the fact that the SA was written in EY, not that the Mechaber got there due to one of the first large yishuv in centuries, nor the yishuv itself. So perhaps we need to know more about ROY's model of minhag before spending so much time on guesses like the one above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 20:13:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 23:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem Message-ID: On Areivim (subject line same as here), several people have bemoaned how difficult it is to use a wheelchair (and many other assistive devices) in the Old City in general, and the Kotel area in particular. In terms of absolute, quantifiable, objective fact, I can't imagine how anyone could dispute that. I am bringing the topic to Avodah in order to discuss what our feelings and attitudes should be towards this situation. Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I often remark that we are fortunate to live in a time when the technology has allowed us such efficient wheelchairs. Our economy has allowed us to make building codes that require ramps and such, which would have been laughably expensive just a few decades back. Ditto for "kneeling buses" and the like. But it seems to me that you don't need technology or wealth to realize that if the shul is built at a median altitude, it will be easier for *everyone*. And yet Chazal thought it is a better idea to make the shul look impressive. Surely I'm missing something here. Can someone please set me straight? Thanks Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 19:04:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 22:04:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim > on chol hamoed in chutz la?aretz? (not sepharadim) > I was surprised to see it done. > Sources? I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 21:10:16 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 00:10:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/18 15:10, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > > Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not > countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to > assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Perhaps the first post-Talmudic book on halacha was a booklet on the differences between minhag EY and minhag Bavel. So the concept of minhag EY goes back to at least the time of the geonim. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 05:01:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:01:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna?s instruction[1] and codified by the Shulchan Aruch,[2] world Jewry started reciting ?Gevuros Geshamim B?Tchiyas HaMeisim?, better known as the formulaic insert ?Mashiv HaRuach U?Morid HaGashem?, in the second bracha of Shemoneh Esrei. This addition, showcasing the Might of G-d by mentioning the fact that He is the only One who has the power and ability to make rain, is considered so imperative that one who forgets to insert it must repeat the whole Shemoneh Esrei.[3] As there are no vowels in the Gemara or Shulchan Aruch, an interesting question arises: what is the proper way to pronounce the Hebrew word for rain (???) in this sentence? Is it Ge shem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel; eh sound) or is it Ga shem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel; uh sound)? Although the word for rain is pronounced Ge shem when saying the word by itself, still, its proper pronunciation might be changed when part of a sentence. Contemporary halachic authorities used various rules of Hebrew Grammar (dikduk) to come up with the proper solution. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 5 05:28:54 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:28:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 8:01 AM >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 >> On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction... With all due respect for the many great g'dolim who weighed in on this issue and came up with explanations about what the proper pronunciation should be, they came late in the game, after grammarians had already started changing the pronunciation. The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 07:37:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 10:37:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:01:40PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 I have yet to see a discussion that starts at the beginning. Bemechilas kevod everyone who holds "gashem", and who am I to argue against the Gra, the Netziv, the CC, R' Aharon Kotler, R YS Elyashiv, or Rav Moshe? But this article gets closer, by mentioning Sepharadim and the Levushei Mordekhai. Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:28:54PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : they came late in the game, after grammarians had already : started changing the pronunciation. : The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the : rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, : Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be : no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. But this doesn't prove that our mesorah was necessarily that there was a significan pause after "umorid hagashem". Yes, the Teimanim say "Jafen" on wine, and yet still say "geshem" here with a segol. Their mesorah is that is is not a pause. But for Ashkenazim, those older manuscripts do not prove whether or not there is a pause, since the diqduq they used would have "geshem" either way. As for Nusach haAri, Lubavitch's Alter Rebbe liked R Wolf Heidenheim's (Ravah's) siddur and diqduq, so his Nusach Ari was one of the early adopters of these language innovations. Interestingly, this means that most Ashkneazim today are davening in a nusach that is primarily a haskalisher attempt to reconstruct an authentic nusach, that is based on some ahistorical assumptions of what "authentic" was, to boot. And R/Dr Mandel is the only person I know who unwound that shift from Mishaic to Biblical Hebrew across all of davening. Unless you're willing to take that drastic step ("sabe'einu mituvakh, vesamcheinu biyshu'asakh"), saying "geshem" when most of your Hebrew is Mishnaic could something different than it did in those manuscripts, depending if a pause was intended. And, depending on whether the phrase might even be an exception to the usual rules of diqduq. (See R Spitz's article.) We simply can't know. R' Spitz concludes: Postscript: This is just one of a number of places where the majority consensus of Poskim maintain that dikduk decides the proper reading of tefillos.[30] Although many Gedolim through the ages spoke about dikduk's importance,[31] unfortunately its study at present is much neglected. In the words of Rabbi Yisroel Reisman in his excellent book Pathways of the Prophets:[32] "The myth of the lack of importance of (at least) a minimal amount of knowledge of dikduk must be dispelled. This is an area where a small amount of time and effort go a long way. Let's do it!" But to some up this post, we also need to know *which* diqduq. To provide the footnotes for that last quote: [30] See at length Rabbi Yisroel Reisman's Pathways of the Prophets, "Rules of Dikduk" starting on pg. 312. [31] For example see the Rambam's Peirush HaMishnayos (Avos Ch. 2, 1), Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim 142, 1), Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah (Ch. 5, 3), Shu"t Chavos Yair (124), Shu"t Sheilas Ya'avetz (vol. 1, 10), and Bnei Yisaschar (Introduction to Igra D'Kallah and Mayon Ganim 13, 6), all cited in the aforementioned chapter. [32] Pathways of the Prophets (pg. 325). L'iluy Nishmas the Rosh HaYeshiva - Rav Chonoh Menachem Mendel ben R' Yechezkel Shraga, Rav Yaakov Yeshaya ben R' Boruch Yehuda, and l'zchus for Shira Yaffa bas Rochel Miriam and her children for a yeshua teikef u'miyad! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Fri Oct 5 07:14:32 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:14:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An interesting discussion on this is given here by Dr Shnayer Lehman https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm YUTorah Online Online study of the Jewish holidays, Parsha, Halakha and Talmud by Yeshiva University www.yutorah.org From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 5 04:54:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 07:54:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When Sefardi and Ashkenazim Meet Message-ID: <56.57.22391.E4157BB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Rabbi Eli Mansour discusses the convergence of Sefardi and Ashkenazi traditions in contemporary Israel. Please see the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgoo.gl%2FWT2Hjq&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C97625655127d4ae2115708d62aad6b61%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636743321668910329&sdata=qGd8srOfQuC0kDFzrWfAVXfNbcQiB%2BvvgPyGWe3HehQ%3D&reserved=0 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 04:45:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:45:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5310ADD1-3CFE-455E-A5FD-9847E3F075C7@sibson.com> > > I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. > > Akiva Miller > > > _______________________________________________ > But do they duchen at shacharit on yom tov? 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 Fri Oct 5 08:00:43 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:00:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> References: , <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 10:37 AM ... > Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal > form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs > "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, > or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei > Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). > The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because > they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And > Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. ... A slight correction to R Micha's post: as far as we can tell, Chazal Hebrew DID have pausal forms. But they were not based on trop, of course, nor even on on the end of a sentence. They are used consistently in a case of parellismus membrorum in L'shon Chazal, and I am pretty sure in some other situations as well, according to the evidence from the oldest mss. with vocalization, such as the famous Kaufmann ms. of the Mishnah. But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: ??? ???? ?????? ?????, ???? ?? ?? ??????? ...? ?????? ????? ???????? ??????, ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? [For those in digest text mode and therefore can't see the Hebrew, this quote begins "LaKeil Barukh, ne'imos..." -micha] To the best of my knowledge, all old nuskah'ot have "yittenu." Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 06:14:47 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 13:14:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3252f45264ff47778db42a4dcee99b7d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I---------------------------------- IMHO Thomas Kuhn?s thoughts on paradigm shift are applicable here. Western liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be (e.g. I might like to do the avodah but I?m not a cohain) So yes, it could really be (but I?m not qualified to say it is) 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 seinfeld at daasbooks.com Fri Oct 5 08:40:01 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:40:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: 7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY: 1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts scientific History, that?s not a kasheh on the Torah, it?s more like a sha?elah - ?Why did HKBH write this? What?s He teaching me here?? 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no significant debate about that. 3. We don?t know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek ? sounds a lot like the descriptions we have of the Big Bang. 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round. They really do look that way. So either HKBH made them looking old for some reason, or they really are old. A person can ignore the question and say, ?It?s enough for me just to believe,? but the Gemara (and plenty of Rishonim and Acharonim) says that we have an obligation to study Nature to the best of our ability. 6. There are plenty of things that the smartest scientists admit they don?t know. For instance, they think that right after the moment of creation (Big Bang), the entire universe inflated instantly, like someone blowing up a balloon. Just to make this clear. There are patterns in the universe that defy logical explanation. In order to explain these patterns, it has been proposed (and accepted by many but not all cosmologists) that from 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second until 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second after the Big Bang, the universe expanded at an exponential rate (in that short moment it got 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and then the expansion slowed down. They have good reasons for believing this theory. It helps explain some of the bizarre things that we see when we look through our telescopes, chiefly, the fact that the universe appears to be the same in all directions. Yet they have no idea what could have caused this inflation. Worse for them, the current rate of expansion has been proven to be accelerating, but again they have no idea what invisible energy source could be causing this. It would be far simpler to say, ?It looks the same in every direction because it was created at the current size; there was no Big Bang and no expansion and no inflation.? But wait, we see that it is indeed currently expanding. Doesn?t that prove the Big Bang? - Expansion doesn?t prove anything. It?s a fact that requires a theory to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously expand. - Maybe this bizarre things accelerating expansion that we see, along with hypothetical inflation, are just the artist?s signature on His artwork? For after all, the only thing that can cause acceleration is more energy. The best rational explanation for this invisible ?dark? energy is that Hashem continues to be mashpia on the world and wants us to know it, without being too obvious. But wait, we also know that the stars are zillions of miles away from us, and given the known speed of light, their starlight should have taken millions or even billions of years to reach us. Doesn?t that prove at least that the universe is mighty old? - No, it doesn?t: see #5 above. 7. Yet to constantly answer, ?Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, ?What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with ?Hashem does it? without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. So what?s the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, or was it just made to look that way? I don?t know, but I?m personally completely comfortable with either answer. Neither answer can (to my understanding) be proven nor disproven. I suspect they are both true. That, as my grandfather z??l would have said, is my 2-bits. Your critical feedback welcome. Good Shabbos Alexander Seinfeld jewishspirituality.net From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 08:25:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:25:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on Marriage Message-ID: The following are excerpts from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 1:28 28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. "????????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ????????????: 28 God blessed both of them, and He made both of them responsible for the fulfillment of mankind?s mission. ??????? refers to marriage, the union of the sexes for production of human fruit ? children. Just as the choice energies and saps of the tree become ?free? in its fruit as an independent germ (see above, v. 11), so the noblest traits of godliness and humaneness of the father and mother unite to produce an independent human germ. ?????? refers to the family. r'vah = to multiply. Begetting children is not sufficient in order for the human species to multiply. Even in the case of many species of animals, increase of the breed is dependent on care of the young; and in the case of the human species, such care is absolutely essential ? even if viewed only from a physical standpoint. A human child has no chance of survival at all, if his parents do not provide him with care from the moment of his birth and do not continually promote his bodily well-being and development. Not the birth, but the care is the true cause of human increase. But r'vah includes more than this. The parents are obligated to reproduce themselves through their children: They must recur in the image of their children; and the children are to resemble their parents ? not only physically, but spiritually and morally. The parents are to plant and nurture in their children the best of their spiritual and moral powers. In short, their duty is to form and educate their children spiritually and morally. Only then will they recur in the image of their children and fulfill the mitzvah of ?????? . ?????????? refers to property (see Commentary, v. 26). Man is commanded to master the earth and subdue it. His task is to acquire the products of the earth and to transform them, so that they become fit for his purposes. Acquisition of property is prerequisite for the tasks of home and society. Property serves as an instrument with which home and society achieve their aims. Thus, the acquisition of property becomes a moral duty. The mitzvah of ??????, however, is written here last, which implies a limitation: There is no moral value to property, unless it is devoted to home and society. It is a person?s duty to acquire material assets, in order to build a home and to further the society. He should not build a home and support the society in order increase his assets and his wealth. The mitzvah of ???????????? is given at once to both sexes; they are to collaborate in harmony so as to fulfill this mission of man. Nevertheless, before establishing his home, man must first acquire material assets, and this duty ? subduing the earth, so as to further man?s aims ? is primarily incumbent only upon the male. For this reason the duty of marriage and of establishing a home is assigned directly only to the man, and only to him is it given as an unconditional duty. To the woman it is given as a conditional duty; it applies to her, only when she joins her husband. (See Yevamos 65b.) These commands place the Divine imprint on every aspect of familyand communal life. The Torah does not recognize the compartmentalization of life into God-oriented or ?religious,? on the one hand, and profane, untouched by things Divine, on the other. God claims all of life for His service and for the fulfillment of man?s mission as adom. This applies, first and foremost, to family and communal life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 11:59:27 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:59:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <20181005185927.GB26105@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 02:46:37PM -0700, RMR wrote: : It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they : vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, : they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. : So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter : Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the : Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the : original Minhag. I think it's more that minhag hamaqom is about the community, not the geography. If so many new people move in that they overhwelm the old community, they also overwhelm the old minhag. However, when Edot haMizrach got to the US in the late 20th century, many of them moved into existing communities and neither drowned out the old minhag nor did they adopt it. I think they should have done the latter, since minhag avos is only a "thing" when there is no minhag hamaqom. (Except in places like Deal, NJ, which is predominantly Syrian) And for many minhagim, the existing community -- from Yekkes to Vizhnitzers -- did have a single practice. This gets me to an issue left unresolved in a previous discussion of minhag hamaqom: Does minhag hamaqom apply piecewise, or only when there are so many practices that are consistent that there is a general feeling of unity of pesaq. For example, we talk about there being a "minhag hamaqom" in EY about things like saying Shir shel Yom after Shacharis even when there is a Mussaf, or Hakafos after Hallel. But the list of things in which the vast majority of the observant communities of Israel agree upon is quite small. Heterogeneity is the norm. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 12:31:12 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:31:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99B66C72-E111-47AA-ABA5-8E2A753AE7A4@opengemara.org> On October 5, 2018 8:40:01 AM PDT, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: >7 things every Jew should know about Ma'aseh Bereishit, even if it was >not taught in BY: >1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras >Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts >scientific History, that's not a kasheh on the Torah, it's more like a >sha'elah -- "Why did HKBH write this? What's He teaching me here?" ... >4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the >descriptions we have of the Big Bang. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work -- according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). >7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit >facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, >"What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem >does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we >would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving >us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how >to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things >work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Oct 6 11:38:57 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 21:38:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:13 PM Mandel, Seth via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have > at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that > "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, > and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, > in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei gever" in birchot hashahar? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 15:42:10 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C9B4494-797A-437D-B042-3D7AAD5FEFBD@opengemara.org> 1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? 2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). 3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 7 05:56:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 08:56:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181007125626.GC4739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 06:22:12PM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they : also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla : for geshem. I think that's the usual. After all, in Tefillas Geshem we don't just continue the list "mashiv haruach umorid hageshem, mekhalkeil chaim bechesed..." The pause before "Livrakhah velo liqlalah" is less of a question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From isaac at balb.in Sun Oct 7 00:22:12 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 18:22:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I say Geshem (as per R' Soloveitchik et al) I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla for geshem. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sun Oct 7 12:30:33 2018 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:30:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] BDE Moras Shulamith Bechhofer Message-ID: Information from RYBG on facebook: Kevurah for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h,will be at Har HaMenuchos. My brother, Horav Yochanan Meir shlita sitting shiva for 2 days from Monday night after the kevura until Wednesday afternoon in Ramat Shlomo, number 37 Shtefenesht Street by the Schaefer family. Shiva for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h will be at my mother's apartment 146 Beach 9th Street, apartment 4D, Far Rockaway, New York. Beginning Monday morning, Shacharis at 7:30 am, Mincha and Maariv at 6:05 pm. Please try to come be menachem avel before 10:00 pm. I will be returning to Monsey for Mincha Gedola on Friday at 1:15 pm, Maariv Motzoei Shabbos an hour after shekiah, and Shacharis on Sunday morning at 7:30 am, at our house, 3 Zabriskie Terrace. Besuros Tovos. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Sun Oct 7 13:03:01 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 20:03:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message Message-ID: I thought Alexander Seinfeld?s post on this subject was very interesting. I would, however, make one small change. Instead of writing ?7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY,? I would say: 7 things I and some other Orthodox Jews believe about ....? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 01:34:52 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:34:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant past. For example, in the recent controversy over Judge Kavanaugh the following appeared in a world street journal article Christine Blasey Ford was believable and sincere when she told her story of being assaulted by a young Brett Kavanaugh. So was Judge Kavanaugh when he categorically denied her claims?and none of her purported eyewitnesses have any memory of the gathering she describes. They can?t both be telling the truth, but it is possible neither is deliberately lying. The article then goes on to describe how one's memory is affected by (unconscious) attempts to heal emotional wounds. This leads to repression of embarrassing memories or memories becomes less clear over time Furthermore, the adolescent brain (9 to 25) is not fully developed. Middle adolescence (14 to 17) is a time when teens have little connection to the past or future and think only of the present. (In Israel at least 14-17 year olds are very conscious of their future and especially army service at 18) ----------------------------- I don't personally agree with all the details of the article but the total impression is that two people in their 50s testifying about an event in their teen years should be taken with a big grain of salt. Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so would probably pass "drishot"; As an aside I am aware of dayanim questioning witnesses. Is their anyting in halacha about the defendant giving his version and being questioned by the dayanim? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Oct 7 19:16:55 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2018 22:16:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi thanks for your comments. >1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? Not necessarily. Meaning, at times it does, but not always in the way that secular people use the term History. So we should not compare the two. I?d rather say, ?It contains historical information? >2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as >the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no >plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and >there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or >you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the >world was created old). We don?t have to make it work. The point is that most people frankly have no clue what cosmology says about origins (other that it?s complicated and somewhat mystical), and they often dismiss Torah because it appears to them so unsophisticated. Peeking at the Rambam gives one a clue that we have a Mesorah of a extremely sophisticated, complicated and mystical Bereishis. >3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So >hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a >source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted >from Gan Eden)? No I don?t. But I believe I saw in Rav Hirsch that Adam was first created outside Gan Eden and only put in there for the test. From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 8 05:24:45 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:24:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46de6a96-5987-0a36-1097-b2c09f3d0ebd@sero.name> On 08/10/18 04:34, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note > that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so > would probably pass "drishot"; She certainly wouldn't. The most glaring problem with her claim was precisely that she could not fulfil the most basic drishot: "when and where did this allegedly happen"? Without being able to specify these it becomes "eidut she'i ata yachol lehazima" -- it's impossible to claim that the accused was elsewhere that day, let alone the witness. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 06:26:27 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:26:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700, Rabbi wrote: The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes > are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that > nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan > Eden)? *Yes, Chazal and the Rishonim all understood that the six day creation process was not a natural one.* ''All of creation was created fully formed''. At *ma?aseh b?reishis* the ox was created not as a calf but as an adult [Rashi in *Rosh Hashanah* 26a s.v. *shor sheh-hu par*]; and Adam was likewise created as an adult standing fully erect, the Talmud reports, within the same 24-hour period. The idea that Creation was anything less than a totally miraculous process, not conducted through natural processes at all, ''accelerated? or otherwise, is rejected by the *Maharal* (*Be?er HaGolah*, p. 83, *Be?er Four*): Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory?not by means of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. The *Rambam* explains in *Moreh Nevuchim *that it is illegitimate to base conclusions about the origin of the world by examining how the world looks now and assuming that the processes that would now produce such results were responsible, because the nature of things at their origin is different. EVERYTHING produced comes into existence from non-existence; even when the substance of ?a thing has been in existence, and has only changed its form, the thing itself, which has gone ?through the process of genesis and development, and has arrived at its final state, has now ?different properties from those which it possessed at the commencement of the transition from ?potentiality to reality, or before that time. Take, for example, the human ovum as contained in the ?female's blood when still included in its vessels: Its nature is different from what it was in the ?moment of conception, when it was met by the semen of the male and began to develop. The ?properties of the semen in that moment were different from the properties of the living being ?after its birth when fully developed. It is therefore quite impossible to infer, from the nature ?anything possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the ?condition of the thing had been at the time this process commenced. Nor does the condition of ?a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and ?attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually ?existing, you will fall into great confusion: You win reject evident truths and admit false ?opinions.? Let us assume, in our above instance, that a man born without defect had after his birth been ?nursed by his mother only a few months; the mother then died, and the father alone brought him ?up in a lonely island, till he grew up, became wise, and acquired knowledge. Suppose this man ?has never seen a woman or any female being: he asks some person how man has come into ?existence, and how he has developed, and receives the following answer: ''Man begins his ?existence in the womb of an individual of his own class, namely, in the womb of a female, which ?has a certain form. While in the womb he is very small; yet he has life, moves, receives ?nourishment, and gradually grows, till he arrives at a certain stage of development. He then ?leaves the womb and continues to grow till he is in the condition in which you see him.'' The ?orphan will naturally ask: ''Did this person, when he lived, moved, and grew in the womb, eat ?and drink, and breathe with his mouth and his nostrils? Did he excrete any substance?'' The ?answer will be, ''No.'' Undoubtedly he will then attempt to refute the statements of that person, ?and to prove their impossibility, by referring to the properties of a fully developed person, in the ?following manner: ? When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and remained alive, able to move?? ? If any one of us would swallow a living bird, the bird would die immediately when it ?reached the stomach, much more so when it came to the lower part of the belly; if we ?should not take food or drink with our mouth, in a few days we should undoubtedly be ?dead! How then can a human being remain alive for months without taking food?? ? If any person would take food and would not be able to excrete it, great pains and death ?would follow in a short time--and yet I am to believe that man has lived for months ?without that function?!? ? Suppose by accident a hole were formed in the belly of a person, it would prove fatal, ?and yet we are to believe that the navel of the fetus has been open?!? ? Why should the fetus not open the eyes, spread forth the bands and stretch out the legs, if, ?as you think, the limbs are all whole and perfect?!? This mode of reasoning would lead to the conclusion that man cannot come into existence and ?develop in the manner described.? We, the community following in the footsteps of Moses and Abraham, believe that the world came into being IN such-and-such a form, and BECAME such-and-such FROM such-and-such (*haya kach mi-kach *), and such WAS CREATED AFTER such. Aristotle comes to uproot our words, bringing proofs against us based upon nature in its stabilized, perfected and active state. As for us, we declare against him that this is legitimate evidence [for determining processes that must have occurred] after nature?s having settled down in its fully developed stage; but in no way does this correspond to something?s characteristics at its being brought into existence, and produced out of absolute non-existence (MN 2:17). Shabbos marks the cessation of a process that was ongoing beforehand. If G-d's method of development of the world was through the same natural laws and processes in effect now, what ceased on the first Shabbos? None of the things mentioned above [the creation of Eve from Adam, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge, the history of the serpent and the events connected therewith] is impossible, because THE LAWS OF NATURE WERE THEN [UNTIL THE END OF THE SIX DAYS] NOT PERMANENTLY FIXED (Ibid. 2:30). The Ralbag uniquely understands specific statements by Chazal to be saying that Hashem created virtually everything simultaneously and instantaneously on the first day, all in their fully developed form (with the exception of the growth of vegetation of the fifth day) and that therefore the ?days? of Creation are ?categories.? This makes the creation process even less natural. It is noteworthy that the approach of the Ralbag is to build the understanding through the teachings of *Chazal*, and not through rejecting them on the basis that they differ with the science of the day. Zvi Lampel > > > > > [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/08/18, 9:21:07 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Oct 8 07:38:02 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 10:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Noach An Interesting Insight Message-ID: Last week God created the world. This week (some 1,656 years later), God destroys the world. Interestingly, the Baal Hatanya (Shneur Zalman of Liadi) writes that the flood has never ended and continues until this very day. We are all subject to the floods in life. We are flooded with all sorts of problems, issues, conflicts, etc. ? some more, some less. The world is still chaotic but when we do our part to minimize our personal floods, we help to minimize the floods of the world. The flood of money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy. Theodore White (American political journalist and historian) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 11:37:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:34:52AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. : Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by : many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant : past. Chaqirah is the ability to answer specific questions about the when and where of the event: 1- Which shemitah cycle 2- Which year in the cycle 3- Which month 4- Day of month 5- Day of week 6- Hour of day 7- Where And the SA discusses what we do now when we don't use 1&2 as the primary means of identifying the year, if the person is off by a day in the month, but has the correct day-of-week so that it's an obvious calendar mistake not error, etc... There is also the regular notion of cross examination, derishah. Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, asked of each eid separately. And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. So let's talk more about dinei mamonos, where neither hasra'ah nor eid echad neeman be'isurim apply. Still, we confabulate memories. Especially emotionally laden ones like something a heated argument is churning over. But can two eidim confabulate identically when they can't hear eachothers' cross-examination? But I would like to really focus on is: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. If so, why would we hold terei kemei'ah? After all, if dozens of people say the same thing, why would we believe two holdouts equally? For that matter, what would eidus be more trustworthy than even "smoking gun" level evidence? I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. But I fear that more than one paragraph on this topic would annoy people who didn't go for the idea in prior iterations. So, unless there is interest expressed, I will stop here. 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 larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Oct 8 14:39:41 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 17:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben Shapiro's take on abortion. YL Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when he speaks and is being interviewed. On Sunday, at the conclusion of the latest edition of The Ben Shapiro Election Special on the Fox News Network, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro used the last segment of the show to mount a powerful assault on abortion that was unlike any seen on a network news show before. Shapiro showed pictures from ultrasounds and illustrations of babies at various stages in utero to support his case, aware that when women see ultrasounds of the babies they are carrying, they are much less likely to consider having an abortion. Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. The later the abortion takes place, the more brutal the procedure, but no matter the brutality of the procedure, it is obvious that abortion is not some mere optional surgery to be performed for convenience. And it?s even more obvious that those who want to protect the lives of the unborn aren?t trying to control women?s bodies. Those who cherish abortion are trying to control and dismember the bodies of the unborn. Think about that next time you see a radical feminist in a Handmaid's Tale outfit suggesting that you?d better respect her right to carve apart an unborn baby in the womb or you?re some sort of fascist. No more euphemisms. See https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F36835%2Fwatch-shapiro-gives-fiery-unprecedented-assault-daily-wire&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=%2Bqenj6TOK0BiMopCLwHGel5WMFGPn5BJJ7Onf2R6yuM%3D&reserved=0 and especially the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Ftime_continue%3D27%26v%3DpoB8aIXI0Yo&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=kLq3f6Bo%2F9X3rP4HXORP3uhB5Wo6hC1ifHM%2BVBGt9j4%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 19:50:38 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:50:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181009025038.GA29143@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 05:39:41PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: :> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of :> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. Well, Rav Moshe holds as much, but most posqim do not. Shapiro is conflating the fact that Yahadus considers abortion a serious avlah with Pro-Life rhetoric that the avlah happens to be retzichah. Halachipidia has the following list (my translitations): What is the Prohibition? 1. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein - abortion is considered murder. However, this murder does not come with a death penalty. There are some cases of murder when the murderer does not get the death penalty. One of these cases is someone who murders one who is terminally ill. [4] 2. Rabbi Issar Unterman - abortion is considered abuzraihu deretzichah akin to murder.[5] 3. It is a violation of the positive commandment of peru urvu Part of the commandment is to allow every potential soul to come into being, and if one does abortion, they cannot do this. [6] 4. Spilling the seed/Onanism. The fetus is more similar to the basic seed than to a human, so destroying the fetus would be like destroying the seed.[7] 5. Aborting the fetus is injuring the mother (Chavalah). Exodus 21 says that if two men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and there is no death, but the fetus is miscarried, then they have to pay a monetary payment. So the fetus is more a part of the mother than a separate life. [8] 6. It is a Rabbinical prohibition. There is no clear prohibition in the Torah, so our only real sources are the rabbinical sources.[9] 7. According to the Zohar, one who kills a fetus is guilty of destroying God's handiwork. [10] it is unclear if this constitutes a different view of the technical prohibition, or if this is just a reasoning explaining the severity of abortion. A punishment unlike that for murder is detailed. Notes: [4] Iggros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat, Part 2, Chapter 69 [5] I.Y. Unterman, Noam VI (1963), 1-11 as cited in David Feldman, Birth Control In Jewish Law [6] Yevamos 63b [7] Talmud Bavli: Niddah 13a; Chavos Yair, Siman 31 [8] Exodus 21:22 [9] Sanhedrin 72; Tzitz Eliezer, Jerusalem, 1963, volume VII, number 48, p. 190. [10] Hok L'Yisrael, Shemot for Monday, Zohar, Shemot 3b Note how most shitos do say the fetus is not a person. #5 in particular is based on the idea that the fetus is an organ of the mother. (Which is also consistent with pen paqua.) No.s 3, 4 and 7 are about stopping the process of later producing a person. Likely #2 (abuzraihu deretzichah) as well, although it could be some other near-retzichah connection. And as for #6, it depends which deOraisa the deRabbanan is supporting. But even so, not retzichah, no human life yet. As the Bach explains the Rambam's position... You can abort a fetus to save the life of the mother a moment before it would have crowned, because it is kerotzeiach -- LIKE a rotzeiach. But it's not actually a rotzeiach, which is why in the same situation but a moment later, once the baby did crown, one could not commit infanticide to save the mother. A fetus before crowning is not subject to the same issur as after. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 9 11:04:42 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:04:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 Message-ID: In June 1990 Light Magazine published an article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer dealing with "his life in perspective; what is Torah Im Derech Eretz? ; his attitude toward modern Hebrew; and his mida of emess and bitachon. The article is at Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 9 15:26:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> References: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181009222604.GA27505@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 02:37:57PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, : asked of each eid separately. : : And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim : had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they : had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. .... REMT, kedarko beqodesh, gently corrected me in private. The eidim testifying need to have witnessed hasra'ah, and didn't have to have given it themselves. Which means that the tail of my post applies to sin/crim as well, not only dinei mamunus (as long as it's not eid echad ne'eman be'isusim). I think what I said about confabulation vs indepent derishah vechaqira of each eid separately, and (more importantly) my argument for not assuming that the neemanus accorded eidus isn't because we necessarily consider it the least fallible both still stand. Chodesh Tov! 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Thu Oct 11 01:20:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:20:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom Message-ID: << But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? >> The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a sefardi community and ROY's claim is that the Ashkenazim should have followed the existing sefardi customs. Obviously the talmidei hagra and the chassidim didn't agree. How far one goes back is part of a responsa by RMF that one who davens "chassidic" can change to Ashkenaz but not the other way since the original minhag was Asjkenaz and changed by the early chassidim. So according to RMF the fact someonepnes great...grandather 10 generations ago davened in nusach Ashkenaz has halachic meaning As to minhag EY and minhag Yerushalayim most date back about 100 years ago and a few to the days of takmidei hagra and the early chassidim. Almost none to earlier than that. The minhag of having a single drummer at a wedding in Jerusalem has mostly been replaced by a single organ player that can simulate a whole orchestra. Others claim that it holds only in the old city or that it was established by the old yishuv some 100 years ago and they are not part of that community One widespread minhag EY from the talmidei hagra and hasidim is not to wear tefillin on chol hamoed. Even in this case I have heard of some olim who put on tefillin after they return from shul. One really ancient minhag in Yerushalayim refers to not leaving a corpse overnight and so having funerals in the middle of the night. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 03:01:59 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:01:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fish With Legs?! In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: In Parshas Noach, we read about how Hashem brought the Great Flood and destroyed all living creatures, save for those inside Noach?s Ark and the fish in the oceans, who were spared as well. It would be fascinating to find out on which side of the Teiva a ?fish with legs? would have been. Would it have been considered a fish or an animal? Far from being a theoretical question, this actually happened when... To find out the full story, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Fish with Legs?!" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 02:58:05 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:58:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach Message-ID: The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both immorality and dishonesty?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 09:49:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011164903.GC19398@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 09:58:05AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach :> It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality :> than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. : : I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both : immorality and dishonesty?" The Meshekh Chomah notes... Pausing here for a shameless plug: I am now giving a quick (15-20 min) talk on Facebook Wed nights 9:30pm EDT. This comment is from that. So, the MC notes... That the dor hamabul sinned both - sexually - ki hishchis kol basar; and - financially - chamas. And he writes about the opening pasuq, based on a Rashi on the Gemara (AZ 6a): tamim -- anav ushefal ruach tzadiq - [bemaasav -gemara] - belo chamas RMShK writes that Noach "bedorosav" -- his 2 doros -- had very different challenges. Living in the pre-flood dor, being a tzadiq bemaasav and not influenced by the general dishonesty and sexual license around him, was the greater challenge. (How often does someone cut ethical corners because "that's how business is done now?") However being tamim in his midos, his anavah, was easy. The culture didn't value his tzidqus. However, in the post-flood dor, everything existed becaus of him. And the people around him had learned from the experience of tending to the animals for a year. Little challenge from peer pressure, but a much bigger challenge keeping his ego in check. This is a point the MC makes on "Malki-Tzedeq melekh Shaleim" -- the year in the midbar was a lesson in sheleimus, and that's his part of the foundation of Y-m. Avrahama added "behar Hashem Yeira'ah" to make Yerushalayim. (And thus the "-ayim", pair, in the name.) See MC Bereishis 22:14. Back to the point, it would seem that chazal attribute both difficulties to Noach's pre-flood life. It too was an "age of both immorality and dishonesty". 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 llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 08:58:19 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:58:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood ? make the ark [to consist] of enclosures for animals ? and cover it inside and out with pitch. In any event, a tavah is shaped like a box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ has no relationship to the one Noach built. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 11 07:06:55 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:06:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/10/18 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole >> Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other >> countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing >> communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and >> not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? > > The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established > community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new > minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a > sefardi?community But this isn't the case. After the crusades destroyed the original EY community with its minhagim, a new community was established by olim, who brought their mihagim with them from chu"l, and by the time the grushei Sefarad arrived there was already an established community. And what about the rest of the Mediterranean, where there were thousand-year-old communities? Leshitaso shouldn't the Sefardim who settled in each of those countries have adopted the local mihagim? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 11 06:10:16 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:10:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices Message-ID: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were an ongoing situation? 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 Thu Oct 11 07:29:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:29:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching Torah to Women Message-ID: Although throughout the ages there were Jewish women who were learned and revered1 the concept of formal education for women is barely a century old.2 Before this time, they would learn whatever was necessary from their parents.3 Girls generally did not go out of the home, and were often illiterate.4 The modern school system teaches many subjects to the girls, including Chumash, Halachah, Navi and Mishnah. Some even teach Gemara.5 Girls learn Chumash in depth with Ramban, and study more halachah than boys in yeshivah.6 The Bais Yaakov movement was spearheaded by Sarah Schenirer with just twenty-five girls in 1917,7 as a reaction to many factors8 which had changed the status quo.9 Since then, hundreds of girls? schools have been created. For more on this topic Click here to download "Teaching Torah to Women" For information about the history of the Bais Yaakov movement see https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note the curriculum of the Bais Yaakov Seminary in Krakow starting on page 77. In particular, Five Books of Moses: This included the study of the Five Books of Moses in the original and in its entirety with the commentary of Rashi and Rabbi Samuel Raphael Hirsch. and German: Instruction in the correct oral and written use of the language. The goal of this course was to provide the teachers with the ability to read by themselves the important religious literature of Hirsch and others which were written in the German language, as well as selected classical works such as the poetry of Schiller, Goethe, Nathan the Wise by Lessing, Zweig, and Beer-Hoffman. Times have indeed changed, have they not! YL study times. of the Five -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 10:04:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:04:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: <20181011170422.GD19398@aishdas.org> I got to the Arukh haShulchan's discussion of Chazal changing the entire definition of qinyan. MideOraisa, paying would be the qinyan. But Chazal were afraid that sellers wouldn't properly safeguard the item between payment and handing it over to the buyer. After all, any loss or damage is the buyers, ownership was already transfered. So, chazal made various qinyanim that demonstrate the buyer taking the item. The Torah gives the halakhah. Chazal realize that given the low state of the people around them, the halakhah would have cons that outweigh the pros. So, they change it. Reminds me of pruzbul or heter isqa, cases where in order to help someone who needs a loan get one, we allow suboptimal loan arrangements. In each case, a different validation for doing so: - Qinyan in general allows custom and agreement by both parties override the default law. - Similarly heter isqa was always technically allowed; our rabbanim just standardized a means of utilizing this alternative financial arrangement. - Pruzbul is violating shemittah derabbanan. So, while the gemara requires the motive of helpoing the poor get loans to even violate the ke'ein deOraisa, tHillel didn't rewrite Torah. But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and limit the damage. So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:01:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:01:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011190137.GG27474@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 03:58:19PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 :> In any event, a tavah is shaped like a :> box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward :> the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut :> through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. : Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ : has no relationship to the one Noach built. True; it's just the reconstruction of some Xians, given the text and the assumption that it was build not to capsize. RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis for Noach et al not to have capsized. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Oct 11 13:34:12 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:34:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Again read RSRH's commentary and you will see how he arrives at his conclusion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:14:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011191454.GA19331@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:13:44PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else : being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. : I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a : location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and : elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities : of young folks. RJR suggests that the advantage to the tzibbur would indeed trump the disadvantage for the individual. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 1:14pm UCT, he wrote: : ... Western : liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish : thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role : and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be... The comment RAM was replying to (I think) was my discussion of the advantage to the majority of the community of being pushed to think about those who need more help. IOW, not accessible shuls for the sake of those who need accessibility, but for the sake of those who need practive remembering as they pursue qedushah they they must consider others. (Especially leshitas RSShkop, where qedushah is /defined/ as commitment "leheitiv im hazulas". Not exclusively so.) I think it's simply that the hill wasn't thought of as a major inconvenience. And perhaps an obstacle likely to keep someone from coming wouldn't be a proper place for your elevated shul. Or, possibly that yes, this halakhah was only speaking "when all else is equal". Tir'u baTov! -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 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 13:10:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:10:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 01:10:16PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan : once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), : which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were : an ongoing situation? I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood of feeling anything. 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 Oct 11 16:42:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 19:42:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 09:38:57PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei : gever" in birchot hashahar? I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing But look at the Kaf haChaim OC 46 s"q 18. So I know they did in 19th cent Baghdad. However, ROY is recorses in Qol Torah vol V pg 20 as promoting gaver and aved. But in the cases we started with -- gefen and geshem. Also, Rav Pa'alim vol II, OC #25. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 12 04:36:37 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 07:36:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. > >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, >including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is >where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the >fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when >you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below >with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis >for Noach et al not to have capsized. First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because HaShem kept it afloat. Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different before the flood than after it. In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the flood were the same as they are today? If they were different before the flood, then your physics analysis does not hold water! >:-} ( have no basis for asserting that the laws of physics were different before the flood, but it is possible in light of the different climatic conditions.) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 12 05:26:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:26:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7285ED0D-3270-486A-9AD2-8DBA569E7AF4@sibson.com> [Micha:] > I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. > Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give > priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning > to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. > But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all > that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can > have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. > Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an > abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood > of feeling The question of relative priorities is always complex. I don't think this question has an algorithmic response Other than if you say all other things are equal, Which of course they never are. Kt Joel Rich From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 12 05:33:15 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:33:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> , <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Transliterations mine, but I tried to be more consistent with RSM's already present transliterations. -micha] From: Micha Berger Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:42 PM > I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing Since my name was mentioned, I think R. Micha was inviting me to add my ha'penny's worth. The Ashkenaz mss. all have gover. As due Yemenite mss. I do not remember what most S'faradi mss. have. One thing that people are only partially aware of, including many rabbonim who decided to comment on grammatical matters without the necessary study, is that L'shon Chazal is a different language than Biblical Hebrew, but that Chazal grew up knowing T'NaKh by heart, and so sprinkled their language with Biblical quotations, just as English writers leaven their language with quotations from Shakespeare or the Bible. Those quotations are in the archaic dialect of English that was spoken in the 16th-17th Century when Shakespeare lived and the King James translation was done. and do not represent the language spoken by a 21st Century writer. Similarly the language of T'filla as composed by Chazal uses their spoken Hebrew, which we call L'shon Chazal, but it is as full of quotations from the T'NaKh as a raisin bun is of raisins. Which makes it often difficult to distinguish what is L'shon Chazal from what is a quotation. I am writing a treatise about this, which God willing I will publish one of these days, which will contain proofs and various strategems to distinguish what is what. But if the language is found in a posuk, you can be sure it is a quotation. And the phrase ????? ??? [mitz'adei gaver] appears twice, once in T'hillim 37 and once in Mishlei 20, once at the beginng of a phrase and once at the end. It seem fair to me to assume that they used the form at the end of a phrase to put in the b'rokho, and so I would argue that the b'rokho is incorporating the language of ?????? ?????????-?????, ??????? ???-??????? ????????? [MeiYY mitz'adei-gover, ve'adam mah yovin darko.] and so it would be "gover," as the mss. I saw have it. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com Fri Oct 12 07:20:01 2018 From: loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com (Looking ForInspiration) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: Hello! This is my first post to aishdas.org, so forgive me and direct me if needed. Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both? Thank you in advance. Mordechai From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 12 08:20:24 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181012152024.GE12524@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 07:36:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: : >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. : >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, : > .... It would be another neis : >for Noach et al not to have capsized. : : First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the : animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen : in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed : have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because : HaShem kept it afloat. Which I noted. However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compell him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about apparence except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. : Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the : flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that : there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a : much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different : before the flood than after it. : In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the : flood were the same as they are today? Saying the world had a different climate doesn't mean the laws of nature changed. It could mean the earth changed. There is no reason to believe science itself changed since; and in fact some reason to believe it hadn't. After all, "mikol melakhto asher bara E-lokim la'asos" was before the first Shabbos. The notion that the universe changed in a new fundamental way since isn't 100% in concert with that. Although I realize "nishtaneh hateva" has numerous explanations, I don't know if any require believing the laws themselves changed. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 12 09:57:31 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:57:31 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Welcome on board! I didn't look up that sugya itself, but it could be that it was a Mishna Rishona Mishna Achrona thing. Like the reason that the Halacha in Machlokes VeAchar Kach Stam is different than in a Stam VeAchar Kach Machlokes. Also, regarding who actually wrote the Mishna - it's a Machlokes Rashi (who said (in Eiruvin, in the Samechs on the sugya of More Halacha Bifnei Rabbo) that the Mishna wasn't written in the Gemara's time) and the Rambam (who said that Rebbi wrote the Mishna). I heard that it boils down to the two Girsas of Rabbi Sherira Gaon's famous letter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 19:31:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 22:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people > on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in > reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in > the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, > halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) I think your cases are great examples of how Hashem deliberately left room for us to "improve" the Torah somewhat, thereby partnering with Him, exactly as you've explained. > And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. > Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is > not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into > account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and > limit the damage. > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted > keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be > when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than > the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged > YhR? Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her (unless he follows the prescribed procedure). That's what is meant by "lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR." The only solution is the one prescribed by the Torah itself; there is nothing for Chazal to add. Alternatively: D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. Chazal can forbid shofar on the years when RH is on Shabbos, but they can't ban it entirely on Yom Tov because of musical instruments being muktzeh. So, given that the Torah DOES allow one to take the Yefas Toar (after following the prescribed procedure), how might you word your proposed d'rabanan? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 12 14:16:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 21:16:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which Actions Have Value Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:16 You shall make a light for the ark and finish it within one cubit of the top, and set the entrance to the ark in its side; you shall make it with lower, second and third stories. God chose one man who was to save himself, his family and the animal world; he would be able to save them and himself ? only if he would do everything just as God had commanded him.?Gadol ha-mitzuveh ve-oseh me-me she-aino metzuveh ve-oseh (Kiddushin 31a) is a fundamental principle in Judaism. Contrary to prevailing opinion, a person?s actions have value only if they constitute the performance of God?s Will. What a person does on the basis of his own judgment, and the like, is of secondary, uncertain importance. During the 120 years that passed between God?s announcement to Noach and the actual onset of the flood, Noach could have done so many things: he could have built a hundred arks, and so forth. Scripture?s sole intent, however, is to say that Noach did exactly as God had commanded him; the rest he left to God. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 14 09:02:01 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 16:02:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] In sight Into Korbanos Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 8:20 20 Then Noach built an altar to God and took of every pure animal and of every pure bird, and offered ascent offerings upon the altar. la Shem; our offerings are directed to the aspect of God?s rule that desires not destruction, but life. '? is the source of all life and of all future existence, and He is ready at all times to grant new life, new vigor, and a new future. Symbolically, one offers his own life in order to win new life from God; one offers oneself up to God in order to be consecrated by God and to be elevated to a holy life on earth. One does not bring an offering to a vengeful, angry, bloodthirsty god. Rather, one who brings an offering devotes to God?s Will every pulsebeat, every nervous impulse, all muscular strength. To make an offering means to win from God eternal life. One does not offer up an animal; one offers up himself through the animal. When a person offers an animal before God and leans his hand upon it; when he slaughters it, collects its blood, dashes its blood upon the altar, and surrenders its head, legs, breast, and carcass to the flames ? in doing so he offers to God his own blood, his own mind, his own muscular strength, and surrenders himself completely to the fire of God?s Will, as set down for Israel in the Torah. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 14 20:08:41 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 23:08:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lech L'cha "Go For It" Message-ID: <406EA56D-CA2C-4FE0-B5F1-5C237B5152BE@cox.net> 12:1 Vayomer HaShem el Avram: "Lech L'cha," etc. The gematria of Lech L'cha is 100. So Avram was being told that life is a compromise: 50/50. And if he lives with give and take (50/50), he ends up with 100%. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 00:53:35 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:53:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: < Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. >> Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. Killing a fetus is not murder and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 01:12:31 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:12:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: << I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. >> First anything I brought from the Kavanaugh case was simply it was that stoty that made me think of the issue. The details of that story are immaterial. The basic question was that recent studies demonstrate false memories and especially from years ago and when the wirnesses may have been teenagers when they are not yer completely developed. On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered neveilah. The Taz doesn't like such a scenarion but many others disagree with him. They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:45:24 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89a90ad8-4240-fb55-2d1d-fba96a91819b@sero.name> On 15/10/18 04:12, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to > death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Mon Oct 15 05:49:36 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <0A43202F-B23C-41DE-A4E7-8002ED599973@tenzerlunin.com> ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses. * * * They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport).? ISTM that there should be a significant difference between executing someone when you have definitive information (I won?t use the word evidence) that he is innocent and eating a piece of meat that, although it in fact came from a non-kosher animal, is treated halachically as kosher. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 07:16:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:16:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015141643.GA20844@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:12:31AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death : even though the facts might not be true. : More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of : modern techniques versus two witnesses I didn't think I was implying that. If there is evidence -- regardless of DNA's own issues -- but not eidim, the facts are not established to the point of chiyuv misah. If there are eidim to convict, but the evidence points otherwise, the dayanim can't close derishah vechaqirah until they resolve the conflict to their own satisfaction. Given the whole bit about "achas leshev'ah / leshiv'im shanah", perhaps their own satisfaction should be to a "beyond reasonable doubt" kind of standard. (Maybe the person had a mum exactly where the knife entered would probably be considered by most of us "beyond unreasonable doubt".) : I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In : particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem : was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it : can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of : the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered : neveilah... The case in the SA that I remember : They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif : and not the metzius. That is a misphrasing. I said that pesaq relies on how we perceive the world -- and in fact this perception is the meaning of the word "metzi'us". (Which, I will note again, comes from "matza", which doesn't imply theoretical objective existence.) The nearest I come to the way you put it would be to say that matters like probability go into how we think about an unobserved unknown. Evidence is a matter of changing the odds, not of establishing definitive metzi'us. ------------------ And my pet theory is an extension of R' Aqiva Eiger's teshuvah (#136) explaining the difference between kol deparish, where rov matters, and qavu'ah. RAE makes is a chiluq between rules of birur when the reality is unknown (kol deparish) and ones where the reality was established but the halakhah is unkown. Treating this as a very broad kelal, eidus changes a kol deparish type question into a qavu'ah. Which is why rov no longer epplies, and terei kemei'ah. Evidence without observation keeps it a kol deparish question, although it does shift the odds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:40:52 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:40:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15/10/18 03:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life.?>> > Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. > Killing a fetus is not murder According to some. > and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. And as Ronald Reagan pointed out, if you're not sure whether something is murder, then committing it is at least reckless endangerment. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 08:50:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:50:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 06:40:52AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is : : With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. Except that the Bach explains that's is NOT what the Rambam holds. Which is why Rotzaiach 1:9 distinguishes between aborting to save the mother before crowning, and not committing infanticide a fraction of a moment later after the baby crowns. If abortion were murder, there would be no shift in priorities between the mother's and baby's lives before and after birth. Or: A "KErodeif" (as the velad isn't doing anything itself to risk the mother) who isn't a full person may be killed, but once born, ein dochin nefesh mipenei nefesh. Rashi (Sanhedrin 72b "yatza rosho") says that the unborn fetus isn't subject to "ein dochin NmPN" because it isn't a nefesh yet. The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 09:01:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:01:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> References: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015160131.GB26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:50:59AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the : contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam : cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? The Arukh laNeir (Sanhedrin 72b) writes that the chiluq is that in the second case we cannot isolate whether the child (once crowned) is the mother's rodeif, or the other way around. The IM (CM 2:69) writes similarly. But neither deal with the Bach's question of how that means "ein dochin" is the principle in particular invoked to explain why we cannot kill the baby after crowning, but not the fetus a moment before. Also, how is it true that we always know before crowning that it's the fetus in the mother's way, but if the head is partly out, we don't? Balebatishe question.... Let's say it's the umbilical cord vs the mother's blood loss -- does that dynamic change with crowning? But in any case, my point was that the Bach means that we cannot say as a certainty that there is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam about whether a velad is a person. Just that some acharonim take him to say so. And once you look at acharonim, variants on the theme that is definitely Rashi's abound. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 06:48:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 09:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: *Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400* *From: Looking ForInspiration >* *To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org * *Subject: * *Hello!* *This is my first post to aishdas.org , so forgive me and direct me **if needed.* *Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that **when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, **it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this **mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author?* *I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, **Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone **can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible **as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it **would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, **the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba **Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of **Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write **the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both?* *Thank you in advance.* *Mordechai* This should be helpful: >From Rambam's Letter to R. Pinchas HaDayyan (In R. Sheilat's edition, Teshuva 140): ...every decision that he [Rebbi Yehuda HaNassi] presented without attaching an author's name originated [not with him, ?but] with other sages. And those other sages as well were not the originators of those decisions, ?but [merely stated how they understood what they] obtained from the mouths of others, and the ?others from still others, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. .. [T]hey ...explicitly stated in so many places, ?Rebbi ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue A, and presented them anonymously; but he ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue B, and presented them anonymously.".This ?openly states that whatever Rebbi endorsed as final halacha, and considered the proper ?practice to follow, he stated without associating anyone?s name with it. And in so many places ?the Gemora says, ?This anonymously-stated halachah is an individual?s opinion [and not the ?majority?s]?--Rabbeynu did not mentioned the names of any of them [--neither that of the ?individual whom the halacha followed, nor that of the majority]. ? ?[Only] when it came to matters that Rebbi did not consider settled, but still debatable, and ?about which he did not lean one way or the other, did he state both opinions in the names of ?their proponents (?R. So-and-so says this, and R. So-and-so says that?) mentioning the names ?of those sages, or of recently living ones, from whom he heard those opinions--but [still] not of ?their mentors or mentors?-mentors' names. For at the time, many people still followed one ?opinion, and many still followed the opposing one. Suffice it to say that he [himself] told us ?explicitly why, in some of the mishnas, he attached names:? And why do we mention the words of Shammai and Hillel only to negate them [by ?adding that the majority of sages disagreed with both and decided differently]??to ?teach the following generations....? ? And why do we mention the dissenting words of ?individuals along with those of the majority...???So that if a Beis Din will agree with the ?individual?s opinion and rely upon it....[R' Yehuda (ben El'ai) added:] And why do we ?mention the words of the individual together with those of the majority only to negate ?them??So that if a person reports receiving a teaching other than that which was ?accepted by the majority....?? ...it was only necessary to mention opposing opinions during those times ?that some practiced one way, and others practiced a different way, when some obtained the ?law according to one sage?s opinion, and some according to another sage?s opinion. End of quote from Teshuva. Regarding stam mishnayos that contradict, each mishna had its own author and, following Rambam, Rebbi placed them in the order he did. One explanation is that he changed his mind, and his pesak is identified by the rules of stam v'acher kach machlokess (machlokess meaning a mishna with an opposing view, not necessarily a mishna contaning two views), and vice versa. However, the majority of Tannaim in Rebbi's day did sometimes differ with him. And in cases where the Beis Din Gadol did not put the issue to a formal vote, later authorities, even Amoraim, did not necessarily follow Rebbi's decision. Regarding the last point, check out Rambam's payrush, followed also by the Rav MiBartenura, on the mishnayos at the beginning of Eidiyos, and see how it differs from that of the Raavad and Tosefos Shantz Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/15/18, 9:02:19 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Sat Oct 13 20:23:41 2018 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 23:23:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Moving this aspect of the discussion over from Areivim. Subject line is mine. -micha] On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM Micha Berger via Areivim wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 01:26:50PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: >: I am surp[rised that you did not suggest that men begin wearing >: tephillen the entire day as was apparently the custom in ancient >: times... > For people who had desk jobs. > Laborers didn't, for pragmatic reasons. And in an agrarian society, that > was most men most of the day, except in the winter. My impression was that the heter to not wear tefillin (issur to wear tefillin) only applied to particular cases, such as one who was carrying a burden (of a particular size or content, i.e., excrement) on their head, but that a normal farmer/craftsman/laborer would generally wear tefillin the entire day. A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did not wear tefillin, but it is critical of this practice, and although the gemara appears to give a justification of such (while still maintaining its objection to the reality), it is not along the white collar/blue collar axis. Josh From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 11:18:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015181859.GE5656@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 11:23:41PM -0400, Joshua Meisner via Avodah wrote: : A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did : not wear tefillin... The context is, any mitzvah, like milah, that people were moseir nefesh for when there was a government deceree is still muchzeqes beyadam. Tefillin was given an example where there never was such a history, and therefore our commitment remains less. It says "merupeh beyadam", not that people weren't wearing them at all, which is what you say here. Nor, more on-target for our discussion, that people were wearing them just for davening instead of all day. Possible referants: Tzeduqim wore their tefillin on the bridge of their noses (bein einekha). So many Jews were nikhshal. Or maybe there were sects who believed like the Qaraim or R that there are no physical objects involved at all to keep the ideas in sight and at hand. But it just struck me -- most likely, that they weren't careful to keep a guf naqi. After all the gemara reads: ... kegon tefillin, adayin hi berufah beyadam. DEamar R' Yanai: tzerichim guf naqi... What's that dalet doing there in "de'amar" if R' Yanai wasn't discussing said ripui? RGS writes : Here's a question for you: Why don't men wear tefillin all day long? The mitzvah is not just during morning services; it is throughout the day (cf. Tur, Orach Chaim 37). So why don't we wear them all day? The answer to this question is historical... There is textual evidence that already in Talmudic times there were many people who did not wear tefillin.... His argument here is the same as yours. ... The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 13a) specifically condemns those who never wear tefillin. This laxity by many on wearing tefillin continued into the Middle Ages. Tosafos (Shabbos 49a sv. ke-Elisha) write that one should not be surprised that at that time people were lax in tefillin, since they were in the times of the Talmud also. This is attested to in many other places, and in the times of the Geonim there are even implications that almost no one in the land of Israel wore tefillin. The Beis Yosef (Even Ha-Ezer 65) quotes the Kol Bo who suggests that in some communities ashes are not placed on a groom's forehead because the community members do not wear tefillin. There was even a responsum by R. Sherira Gaon, copied in many medieval works on halakhah, answering a question about whether it is yuhara (haughty) for a yeshiva student to wear tefillin when no one else does. It seems that in order to defend this practice, some rishonim utilized the idea that one who wears tefillin needs a "guf naki - clean body". The Shibbolei Ha-Leket (Buber ed., p. 382) quotes one view that "guf naki" means that a person is clean of sins.... Sefer Ha-Chinukh (no. 421) states that "guf naki" does not refer to someone who has no sins or impurity, implying that someone else had suggested that it did. The author explicitly condemns those who are strict on the holiness of this mitzvah and thereby deprive the masses of the mitzvah. Rather, "guf naki" refers to the ability to refrain from passing gas and thinking improper thoughts while wearing the tefillin. R. Moshe of Coucy (Semag, mitzvos aseh no. 3) tells of how he would travel around thirteenth-century Europe, preaching to people that they should wear tefillin during the morning prayers. Even if they cannot control themselves all day, people can certainly maintain a guf naki for the prayer services (that is the view of Tosafos [Pesachim 113b sv. ve-ein]; Rosh [Hilkhos Tefillin, no. 28 and Beis Yosef [Orach Chaim 37]; footnote 8 in the Schlesinger edition of Semag assumes the Semag agrees). Evidently, this practice of wearing tefillin only during morning prayer services took hold and the prior practice of widespread abandonment of the mitzvah slowly turned into minimal performance of it during the morning prayers. However, someone who cannot control himself and cannot maintain a guf naki may not wear tefillin. Despite the biblical obligation, someone in a definite situation such as that should not wear tefillin at all (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 38:1). For this reason, the Arukh Ha-Shulchan (Orach Chaim 38:6) rules that those who are not obligated in the mitzvah of tefillin -- such as women -- should never place themselves in even a doubtful position of not maintaining a guf naki. ... 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 Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il Tue Oct 16 00:45:18 2018 From: Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il (Ezra Chwat) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:45:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> References: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <85b0325c428741fcb0a9d98b30ef7206@Ex1.Nli.loc> [Micha] wrote: > Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the > water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the > fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity > is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Great insight, it's pshat in [Beresheet VII: Vateilekh hateivah al penei hamayim] meaning, all of it above surface, as in Gen I 2. Although there are a plenty (majority) sources in [lehon miqra] and [lehon chaza"l] where the meaning clearly infers partial immersion below the water surface. [Doq vetishkach] search and see. In any case this also sheds literary light on the two images presented for [lechem hapanim] (Menahot 94b): [sefinah roqedet] vs [teivah perutzah]. Why these images instead of description? Perhaps theres a message here about [teivat Mosheh] or [teivat Noach] Here's Rashi's drawing (source ) Dr. Ezra Chwat |Manuscript Bibliographer Department of Manuscripts The National Library of Israel, Jerusalem Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, P.O. Box 39105, Jerusalem 9139002 ezra.chwat at nli.org.il | www.nli.org.il From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Tue Oct 16 05:10:21 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:10:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Zev Sero commented: ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway.? What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 16 05:25:28 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:25:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: On 16/10/18 08:10, Joseph Kaplan wrote: > Zev Sero commented On Micha's remarks: >>> it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though >>> the facts might not be true. >> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, >> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. > What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the > value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel > Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Well, we *know* that it is indeed what He wants. That is surely beyond all question. All we can discuss is *why* He wants it, and what lessons we can draw from this counterintuitive fact. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:16:00 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:16:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> > RMB: > > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, > or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes > posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? > Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? It is in general true that the Torah prefers to regulate strong emotions (like greed and lust) rather than to extirpate them. See for example Hagigah 9b ?yaeh aniyusa liyehudaei ??, and yet the Torah doesn?t prohibit wealth (though see Parshas Shoftim 17:16-17), though historically several communities have enacted sumptuary laws. And see H. Deos 1:4-5 about the difference between a tzaddik and a hasid. The Rambam implies (at the end of 1:5) that he prefers tzidkus to hasidus but see H. Deos 6:1 that this applies only in a virtuous society. It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical level, however, I don?t see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. But there?s a more important point. What?s weird about war is that it?s not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say ?hasatan mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama? that?s partly because the soldiers don?t have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over his lifetime. So it makes a lot of sense that k?nagged YhR is specifically mentioned in the context of milhama. David Riceman From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:35:09 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42DB0493-2688-4FB1-B731-24A6D9C76BC7@optimum.net> [Corrected as per a follow-up email. -micha] RMLFI: > I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, > Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone > can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible > as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it > would be much appreciated. If you really mean that read through YL Epstein's "Hakdamah L'Nusach HaMishnah". Albeck wrote a (shorter) "Hakdamah L'Mishnah" and, IIRC, [Epstein also] wrote a "Hakdamah L'Sifrut HaTanaim". There's a mahlokes rishonim whether the mishna is a sefer peak or an encyclopedia of sources. This is related to the machlokes amoraim about whether halacha k'stam mishna. But it is possible for mishnayot with contradictory anonymous conclusions to have been edited by the same person. David Riceman From t613k at aol.com Wed Oct 17 20:57:38 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 23:57:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16685525a33-1ec3-bc74@webjas-vac183.srv.aolmail.net> In a message dated 10/15/2018 ? From: Micha Berger >> However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compel him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about appearance except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. << >>>>> ? ? ? The bottom may have been flat but not the top.? See Ber 6:16 "A window [tzohar] shall you make for the Ark, and to a cubit finish it from above...." (ArtScroll translation) ? I understand this to mean that the sides of the ark, at least the upper level, were slanted so that rain would run off (the reason most roofs of houses are slanted rather than flat).? At the top it only one square cubit wide, where the window (if the tzohar was a window, or possibly an LED light) was set in place. ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 18 03:08:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 06:08:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181018100847.GF26742@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:29:42AM -0400, Toby Katz wrote: : He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on : this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does : not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, : let alone the same as murder... This "let alone" undermines his whole thesis. Few akharonim take the Rambam to mean that abortion is murder, and of those who do, not all hold like their understanding of the Rambam. : We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these : issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians : recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that : Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. Or even to start with the assumption they are similar. It is best to just look up our views, and then see pragmatically which party to work with. Rather than identify with either camp and risk assimilating their values. 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 t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 17 21:29:42 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 00:29:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> ? From: "Prof. Levine" > IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an > abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben > Shapiro's take on abortion. >> Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is >> Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when >> he speaks and is being interviewed. ... >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... Ben Shapiro is a brilliant commentator and makes a powerful case against abortion. He also makes a Kiddush Hashem by publicly identifying as an Orthodox Jew and always wearing a yarmulka. However, I am troubled by this statement of his: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, let alone the same as murder. If a young woman is raped c'v the very best and most prudent thing she should do is take the "morning after pill" which prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum. To many Christians the morning after pill is exactly the same as abortion or infanticide, but the Torah does not view it that way. When a certain couple with whom I am intimately acquainted were undergoing IVF treatment in order to have children (which they ultimately did, B'H), they asked their most serious shailos of a very prominent posek in Baltimore. One shaila was what to do with excess embryos that were created in the lab. An embryo is just a fertilized ovum that has developed into a tiny little ball of cells, could be just eight or sixteen cells at first. When you hear that embryos are created in a lab and sometimes frozen to be thawed and implanted at a later date, please do not imagine that little babies are in the freezer. (Only in Lakewood are young humans put in the freezer.) Since multiple pregnancies are hazardous for the mother and often do not have a good outcome for the babies, as a rule no more than three embryos are implanted in the uterus at one time. In IVF powerful hormones are given which often result in the release of multiple eggs at ovulation, which in turn result in multiple embryos at fertilization. But if you are not going to implant more than three, what do you do with the extras? The posek told the couple that they could do what they wanted -- freeze the extras for a later attempt, or discard them. Catholics would consider the discarding of these little balls to be the same thing as murder, and possibly they would consider putting them in a freezer to be child abuse. We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. I suspect that Ben Shapiro is not aware of a very important distinction. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 05:40:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:40:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" Message-ID: >From https://goo.gl/7m1UWj Halacha L'kovod Shabbos - "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" One is permitted to spray one's hair (e.g. sprinkle or hand-pat water on frizzy hair) on Shabbos as long as it is not very wet, because the Melocho of Melabain (cleaning or scouring) does not apply to the human body. (If the hair gets very wet it may not be squeezed out since hair is subject to the prohibition of S'chita - squeezing). However, the use of hairspray which will stiffen the hair and form a structure may involve the Melocho of Boneh (building). If one sprays the hair first and then styles and shapes it; this would be prohibited on Shabbos because it is similar to Boneh. However, some poskim permit the use of hairspray if one is careful to first style and shape the hair, and then only afterwards add the hairspray. When done in this manner the loose hair is shaped at the time of styling, and does not resemble Boneh because the hair is loose. The subsequent spraying merely acts to retain a pre-existing shape. Once the hair has been sprayed it can no longer be shaped, styled, or touched. {We mentioned previously that the use of hairspray on Shabbos does not involve the Melocho of Zoreh.} Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah 302, Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa 14:50:131, Kitzur Hilchos Shabbos re:Gozez:5:16, Biur Halacha 303:27, Hilchos Shabbos R' Shimon Eider, Minchas Yitzchok 6:26, Sefer 39 Melochos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 19 05:31:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:31:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hirhurei tshuva Message-ID: <7e7b234b4f3d4d51bc22ea4cdc8114d5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The Artscroll Yom Kippur machzor has the following comment (I could not find the GRA's statement in Aderet Eliyahu). "David replies with just two words: "I have sinned to HASHEM." Nathan answers, "[If so] God has removed your sin and you will not die. "The Vilna Gaon notes that according to the Masoretic text there is a space after David's brief confession, even though it is in the middle of a sentence. This implies that David wanted to say more - he felt that he should go into more detail about his sin and the sincerity of his remorse - but was so overcome by remorse that he could not speak. He didn't have to. Nathan broke in to tell him that he had been forgiven - because his confession, brief and incomplete though he thought it to be - was utterly sincere." Me-Do you think this thought coheres with the following insight from R'YBS: "In response to this Divine verdict, R'Yehudah HaNasi cried, marveling at how some individuals merit the World to Come only after a lifetime of effort, while others acquire such reward after only brief effort. The Rav emphasized that the executioner not only earned a share in the World to Come, but achieved the same level as did R'Chananya in this regard. "Why did R'Yehudah HaNasi have such an emotional reaction to the afterlife destiny of the executioner? The answer is that although prior to this incident R'Yehudah HaNasi had certainly understood the redemptive power of teshuvah, he had not previously appreciated the redemptive power of hirhur Tshuva, "awakening" of teshuvah. If teshuvah is indeed a multistep process, involving sin recognition, remorse, and resolve, how can an individual possibly be considered righteous after only a moment's thought? Only through hirhur Tshuva, which is spontaneous, instinctive, and sudden. In one second, an individual can live the jarring experience of awakening from spiritual slumber." 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 Fri Oct 19 07:03:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:03:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Most Profound and Far-Reaching Vision of the Future Ever Permitted a Mortal to Behold or to Utter Message-ID: In his commentary on Bereishis 9:25-27 25 He said: Cursed be Canaan; he shall be a servant of servants to his brothers. 26 And he said: Blessed be God, the God of Shem; may Canaan become their servant. 27 God will open [people?s] emotions to Yefes, but He will dwell in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be a servant to them. RSRH provides deep insights into a number of important topics. He writes 25?27 We have here what may be the most profound and far-reaching vision of the future that God ever permitted a mortal to behold or to utter. The entire history of mankind ? past, present, and future ? is contained in these three verses. and then later on The spirit of Israel does not produce ecstatics who lose their grip on reality and go mad. Judaism yearns for God?s closeness, but requires of man clarity of thought, a composed and sober mind. Ecstatics who ?merge with the divine? lack freedom of choice; they imagine that they themselves do nothing, but that God acts through them. This is not the way to serve God. Our task is to make use of the intellect and the freedom God has given us, in the earthly sphere which He has assigned to us; to serve God faithfully, conscientiously, and with a clear mind. Only thus will we attain the highest perfection a person can reach; only thus will our actions be sanctified, and will we be worthy of God?s closeness. IMO there is so much of import in his commentary on these verses that I have taken the trouble to post it at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/profound_far_reaching_vision.pdf If you take the time to read this, you may well find insight into what we see going on in the world today as well as what has happened in the past and will happen in the future. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 21 07:14:12 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 10:14:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayera "We have to teach empathy as we do literacy." (Bill Drayton) Message-ID: <0D74D2E3-332B-4E5B-9E58-56B4273FC281@cox.net> 1) The following is a beautiful reflection of Jewish sensitivity. The original source of the story is not known. See Bamberger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 1939), p. 209, note 17/ "Once, Abraham's love of strangers clashed with his zeal for God. He invited a wayfarer to his home and, finding the wayfarer praying to his idol, chased him away. God reprimanded Abraham severely: 'I have borne with him these many years although he rebelled against Me, and you cannot bear with him one night?!' Abraham had realized his sin and did not rest until he had brought the stranger back.? (Benjamin Franklin composed his "Parable against Persecution" on this very theme). 2) The Sidrah opens by saying that God appeared to Abraham [Gen. 18:1], but when Abraham applies the vision to his own world he suddenly sees three men standing before him [Gen. 18:2]. Abraham is the religious man par excellence for he sees God in the human situation. Franz Rosenzweig Based on the puotation in On Jewish Learning, ed. Nahum Glatzer (New York: Schocken, 1955), p. 124 3) 18:2 "And he lifted up his eyes and he saw, and, behold, three people....." Who were these three people? Michael, Gabriel, and Rafael. Michael came to inform Sarah that she would bear a child; Rafael, to heal Abraham; and Gabriel, to overturn Sodom. (Bava Metzia 86b) 4) The sin of Sodom consisted not only in what the people did but in what they failed to do. Thus, no one raised a voice in protest when the crowd molested Lot's guests. Failure to protest is to participate in the sins of a community. (Gen. R. 50:9) This is reminiscent many years ago of Kitty Genovese, a woman in Queens, N.Y., who was screaming for help at the top of her lungs in a major apartment complex, and not one person lifted a finger or even phoned the police. This woman was killed due to the negligence of every person aware of her screams. Are we raising our voice in protest when we witness people being hurt? "The dew of compassion is a tear." Lord Byron (1788-1824) One of the greatest British poets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 21 16:38:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 19:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:18:17AM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : I don't understand why it would need such long : deliberation or a long teshuvah to demonstrate what every school : child knows, that a mumar remains a Jew. You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein's "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity". (Reprinted in Leaves of Faith. ch 3 pp 57-84) http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage (When I hit that URL, the article was available on Google Books in its entirety.) It isn't as open-and-shut that "Yisrael, af al pi shechat'ah, Yisra'el hu" is as universal or as much as a given as most of us were taught in school. We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the qiddushin are chal. But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking Hoacheia 17a. Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim even though their conversation had been accepted for generations before then. RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. Including, RAL writes, Brother Daniel or any other meshumad applying for citizenship under the Law of Return. 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 rabbi at opengemara.org Mon Oct 22 02:45:07 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:45:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> References: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 21, 2018 4:38:17 PM PDT, Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein... > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage ... > We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to > practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the > qiddushin are chal. > But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a > non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, > Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking > Hoacheia 17a. > Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim ... I didn't learn that sugya in a while, but I was under the impression that it's a machlokes Rishonim how to learn the Aseres Hashevatim (I think it's the Meiri there). Some learn that they were a horaas shaah. Others learn like you wrote, that one who is a min is considered completely not a Jew. The thing is that the Halacha doesn't follow those Rishonim, as we're still Choshesh for the Kiddushin of a Min (who does give up their Jewish identity). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Oct 23 23:02:52 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:02:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters Message-ID: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim B:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to harvest because? they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. The Radbaz explains that since the workers aren't experts, they will either give too much pe'ah or too little.? Meaning, the issue is technical, not that they aren't chayav to give and therefore they can't do it. What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or twice with them. Ben From eliturkel at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 07:51:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:51:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: << RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. >> RAL is the most persuasive essentially after several generations. It is hard to believe that someone who converted to Xtianity in the middle ages would have descendants who are Jewish through the mothers when all connection to the Jewish world is lost. I once read that there are 80 million descendants today from the Jews in Spain that left Judaism. While we only count those through the maternal side this would still give a lot of "halachic" Jews for people who might be strong anti-semites today. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 25 06:33:46 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:33:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: Message-ID: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we say lo palginon (we don't split)? 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 Oct 26 11:06:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:06:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026180609.GA18376@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:40:01AM -0400, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no : significant debate about that. Quibble: +/- 168 years during Galus Bavel, and perhaps other issues. Also, the Seder Olam, R' Yossi bar Chalafta (acc. to Yavamos 82b & Niddah 46b), is only one tanna among many. For that matter, he is "only" the primary author, as it quotes people who lived later than RYbH. Of course there are machloqesin about many of his positions. (Our calendar is Sefer Olam chronology with a different year 0. Seder Olam numbers the year of Adam's creation as 0, and we use year 1 for the week before Adam, so that our numbers are SO + 2. But the same age.) But in a much smaller scale than you intended to, there are numerous debates. I have a pet theory that these factors are the reason why shetaros, and in particular gittin, explain the year is only as "beminyan she'anu monim kan ba'ir Ploni-ville..." But in any case, since lemaaseh no din relies on the year, pesaq doesn't apply, and machloqesin neither have to be nor even can be resolved. : 3. We don't know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam : HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a : day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. The Ramban is clear -- a yom was 24 hours on a hypothetical clock, the way we measure time now. R' Dessler explains the Ramban as equally saying that a yom was 1,000 years. Which wouldn't be long enough to help, but it gets weirder -- not just any 1,000 years, but a millennium of the 6,000 of world history. According to REED, the Ramban correctly holds that time is non-linear. (Michtav meiEliyahu vol II pp 150-154, Yemei Bereishis veYemai Olam, I paraphrase it paragraph by paragraph at ) R' Dessler writes that the arrow of time and the whole concept of a time-line is specific to how human beings perceive reality, and even that only as people have done so /after/ the cheit. Which gives him the room to say that the scientific age of the universe is not so much wrong as choosing a less than optimal way of viewing a problem that doesn't admit any one answer. The age of the universe is 6 millenia or so plus 6 days as seen from the perspective the Torah advises us to adopt. But that doesn't make some other answer less correct, or less useful for some other purpose. : 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the : descriptions we have of the Big Bang. : 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny : that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round.... Well, the Ramban on bara mentions hyle, which is the Greek for chomer in chomer vertzurah (which they called hylomorphism). So Hashem first made substance without form. Or maybe, less hard to imagine, the current substance, but in forms that no longer exist. Now, Quantum Mechanics is nothing at all like hylomorphism, but... According to Big Bang theory, in the first fractions of a second after yeish mei'ayin, things were so hot that individual particals had no identity. What now appears to be four kinds of particles, for kinds of fields, mediating forces was just one mush, not so mention the particles we think of as matted. As things cooled, the symmetry split again and again until the types of particles and forces we know today differentiated. Does sound like chomer beli tzurah. : - Expansion doesn't prove anything. It's a fact that requires a theory : to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made : the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously : expand. How do we explain "Shakai"? That He said "dai" and the expansion ended, no? : 7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit : facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, : "What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem : does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, : we would be much poorer... But there is no way to disprove "the universe is young and Hashem had His Reasons for doing it that way", reasons we can't identify. We might want answers that feel less facile, but that doesn't make it false. Might just be human hubris, to need a universe we can understand. That is different than what you're talking about, which is more similar to separating a scientific study of cause with a Torah study of purpose. But it does raise the question of whether "a bit facile" is a meaningful RELIGIOUS problem. You want to know the science, fine. But life's values doesn't rest on it. Nor should you assume science can't his a wall. : So what's the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, : or was it just made to look that way? REED says both. Because, in his typical Kantian perspective, he has science address the world as humans perceive it, believing the world as it exists "out there" is actually unknowable. And so, the world before eitz hadaas and observation by human consciousness of our sort is amenable to different descriptions. Each capturing a different shadow of the basic unknowable. On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. That natural is just a term we use to describe the patterns by which Hashem usually acts. It is all "by Himself". >From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> + When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. :-)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 From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:41:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:41:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters In-Reply-To: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> References: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181026184149.GC20611@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:02:52AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim [2]:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to : harvest because they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. ... : What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here : and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or : twice with them. I assume you're llimiting your question to pei'ah. Because leqet requires getting out of a habit when you're in the middle of gathering. And for the same reason, why not worry about shikhechah? I would think that even with instructions, it's leqet and shikechah that's hard to get used to and get right. :-)BBii! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:36:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:36:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026183619.GB20611@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:20:01AM -0400, Looking ForInspiration via Avodah wrote: : Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that : when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, : it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this : mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? It didn't. The mishnah took a 3 generation process: R' Aqiva, R Meir and Rebbe. Stam mishnah is usually like R Meir, although the gemara at times proves a different maqor, not even the final redactor. (Stam Sifra keRabbi Yehudah, even though the Sifra is not by Rebbe, but by his student, Rav.) You have statements like on RH 19b, where you're told the mishnah is not in accord with R" Yehudah haNasi. So the notion that the opinion of the mishnah is necessarily the opnion of the redactor is not a given. Nor is the stam mishnah always R' Meir. Therefor conflicting opinions isn't proof of multiple redactors. (Although,as I wrote, redaction was one school, not one person.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:05:56 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:05:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20181028150556.GB10183@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:10:21PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : Zev Sero commented: :> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, :> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. : What, if anything, does this teach us -- about Halacha or morality or : the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Perhaps it tells us that more die when the appeals process is endless? And thus, once the case is closed, it's closed. And we trust G-d to insure that any miscarriage of justice in the case is just in the broader context. Just thinking out loud to keep the topic going... It needs more discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 28 05:04:29 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:04:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:19:23 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:19:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf : The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of them a couple of decades ago. Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an artificial evolution of halakh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 10:09:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 13:09:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: At 11:19 AM 10/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: Please see >http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. > >And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >them a couple of decades ago. > >Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an >artificial evolution of halakh. I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that RYBS said this. In any event see http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf From there The findings in this article seem to confirm the judgment of some scholars that the rabbinic sources cited by R. Epstein should not be taken as accurate and that they require independent confirmation from the original sources.61 Certainly the inconsistencies found in MB cast serious doubt as to its value as a completely accurate historical account. We will never know what lies behind the puzzling inaccuracies in R. Epstein's oeuvre, nor is it for us to speculate. R. Menachem Kasher, after setting severe strictures about the reliability of R. Epstein's citations, nevertheless expresses a charitable understanding of the circumstances that may have brought this about. Noting R. Epstein's statement in MB that he lived a "life of suffering" (hayyei tsa)ar), R. Kasher writes that R. Epstein was a "great man" (adam gadol) whose )) is "a monumental work" (avoda anakit), and he attributes the many inaccuracies in the work to R. Epstein's difficult and inordinately busy life which did not permit him to check his sources as carefully as he should have. One old lesson emerges reinforced from all this-a lesson for researchers in any field, especially the field of Torah scholarship. Primary material must be carefully examined, and if only secondary sources are available, their veracity must be meticulously ascertained. Rayna Batya seems to have been an extraordinary woman, but the inaccuracies in R Epstein's telling of her story cloud our ability to know her and her absorbing story. We close this article, which is written in sadness rather than glee, by noting one final irony. When Mesorah Publications published a translation of R. Epstein's MB, tided My Uncle the Netziv, it deleted certain key words.64 The passage in which we learned of Rayna Batya's scholar- ship was one of the changed passages. The original passage, for example, mentioned the venous books she used and included, among others, Mishnayot and books of aggada. In the English translation, these books were deleted from the list, causing much indignation in the scholarly world at this attempt to revise history. How ironic it is that this effort to "sanitize" R. Epstein's reputation should have inadvertency hit upon the truth: that the story of Rayna Batya lie many other elements in MB and Torah Temima are in fact in need of serious revision. _________________________________ In light of all this can we really be sure that the Netziv read newspapers on Shabbos? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:25:15 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 12:09 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the > accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that > RYBS said this. > > In any event see > http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition article would Certainly qualify. HM From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 14:35:04 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 17:35:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 05:25 PM 10/28/2018, Harry Maryles wrote: >FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical >of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to >R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition >article would Certainly qualify. IIRC Rabbi Meir Fund is the one who told me that RYBS said that there are many inaccuracies in the writings of the Torah Temima. Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be well documented. YL From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:49:03 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:49:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <5E34DB8F-9432-4A3B-BD90-808E37069230@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be > `well documented. I glanced at it. But I did not read it. All I was doing was saying what my rebbi told me personally HM From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 19:06:13 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 22:06:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage > ... > RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends > up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who > reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who > goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed > not be Jews. One must be wary of the phrase "would indeed not be Jews". As RAL reiterates there, over and over, "Jew" can mean different things in different contexts. For example, Please see what he wrote there on pages 66-67, distinguishing between "shem Yisrael" and "kedushat Yisrael": > If we ask, in purely descriptive terms, whether anyone born of > Jewish parents is a Jew, the answer must be yes. As an epithet, > the term "Jew" remains applicable to any individual who was > ever endowed with Jewish status - even to a mechumad. Hence, he > is obligated to pursue a Torah life, and should he decide to > return, he would perhaps require no new conversion.[38] > However, if we ask whether a meshumad has anything of a Jewish > personality and character, and whether, therefore, he continues > to be endowed with the personal status of a Jew, the answer is > a ringing no. He remains a Jew without Jewishness. What he > retains is simply the descriptive epithet: shem Yisrael. Of > kedushat Yisrael, however - of the sacredness of the Jewish > personality, that which essentially constitutes being a Jew - he > is bereft. > [38] The first point, that the obligation remains, is certain. > The second, that reentry would not necessitate gerut, is open > to question. One might argue that even for one who is endowed > with shem Yisrael, the recovery of kedushat Yisrael requires > gerut. It may also be contended that gerut would not be required, > but only because the return to the fold would retroactively > cancel the earlier renunciation. My point is that - according to RAL - even the very most extreme meshumad, who severs his connection to the Jewish people so completely that he has totally lost his kedushat Yisrael, still has shem Yisrael, and IS STILL OBLIGATED IN MITZVOS. This is a critical distinction. To refer to such a person as a non-Jew would easily mislead people to think that he is now relieved of his Jewish obligations. It would be most tragic if the meshumad himself was led to such a conclusion, for it would divest him of the last shred of motivation to return. He would think of himself as an ordinary outsider, for whom gerut is totally optional. (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say about the next generation. Suppose we are talking of a woman meshumedet, who still has shem Yisrael, but abandoned her kedushat Yisrael. Do her children have shem Yisrael or not? It has always been my presumption that her children (and the children of her daughters, etc etc ad infinitum) would be obligated in mitzvos, but this article makes me wonder about that. To phrase it in more technical terms: For a newborn to have shem Yisrael, does it suffice that his mother has shem Yisrael, or must she also have kedushat Yisrael?) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:03:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181029190301.GE13649@aishdas.org> So, here are the three shitos RALichtenstein discusses about how to resolve the apparently conflicting gemaros. 1- The Rashba (Yavemos 22a) takes the case of the marriage of a backslid geir (Yevamos 67b) as primary. And the gemara about Kusim does not mean that Chazal reject their attempt at conversion. Rather kol demeqadeish al daas chakhamim meqadeish gives Chazal the power to deny the validity of their attempts to marry (other) Jews. Variant on this theme: 1b- The Ittur (quf, Qiddishin 78a) says that R' Yehudai Gaon says that Chakhamim DO allow their marriage to a Jew, and that the statement is about stam yeinam, shechitah, and other laws that are limited to maaminim. Th SA (YD 159:3) similarly says that we may not pay a Kusi ribis, but we may charge him. 2- HaGahos Mordekhai (Yevamos 107) holds that the person is literally not a Jew -- but. Because we cannot know the extent of someone's apostacy, we aren't mindreaders, for something as major as eishes ish, we recognize lechumerah his marriage to a Jewish woman. 3- R' Chaim Solovei[t]chik notes that the Rambam WRT seider nashim (Ishus 4:15, Issurei Bi'ah 13:17) as following Yevamos, like #1. And yet WRT taharah, Peirush haMIshnayos (Nidda 7:4) says a Kusi's body is not metamei tum'as ohalim, because nakhriim don't. R' Chaim says that Yevamos refers to a geir who returned to his old practices, in RAL's terms "an apostacy of action". But the Kusim and the 10 Shevatim not only changed behavior, but also ceased identifying as Jews. The opinion I mentioned earlier as R' Aharon's was his following his wife's ancestor. The quote RAM provides from Leaves of Faith pp 66-67 I saw more as a subject - object distinction. In his own eyes, he has the din of a Jew. But in the eyes of how others are supposed to relate to him, he does not. And it's the latter -- how are we to classify others -- that was under discussion. To quote RAM on another point: : (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on : the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say : about the next generation... RAL writes a little later: > It might be be argued that it only applies to a mass secession, whereby > not only an individual but his whole social context becomes uprooted. Or > one might contend that only the children, born in complete ignorance of > their origins, are affected, whereas the apostate, paradoxically, might > remain a Jew. 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 emteitz at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 09:17:40 2018 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:17:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: RMicha Berger wrote: >>And yet, the Netziv spen[t] Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >>One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >>the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >>them a couple of decades ago. To which RDYitzchok Levine responded: >I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the >accurateness of his writings. Even granting RDYL's source, there is quite a difference between accuracy in the quoting of sources and accuracy in conveying an eyewitness account. The former would attribute carelessness and imprecision to R. Boruch Epstein; the latter would accuse him of being an intentional liar. Even granting the inaccuracy of his writing, it has no bearing whatever on the accuracy of what he attests to having seen. However, even if the N'tziv did read the newspapers, it is may have no relevance to the current discussion. As RMB cited, it was the haskala press. The Netziv may have been reading it for the purpose of "v'da ma shetashiv," which I believe would render his reading permissible on Shabbos. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:54:42 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:54:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: In-Reply-To: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181029195442.GF13649@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 01:33:46PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for : accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not : guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but : have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we : say lo palginon (we don't split)? QLbdRM applies to chaivei misos shogegin. Because it's shoegeig, BD doesn't kill him, but because he violated a law that carries dinei nefashos, he is off the hook for paying a plaintiff as well. Although in the case of shogegin, the Maharshal says he is chayav to pay midinei Shamayim, even if the court can't force him to pay, and the Qetzos questions this. REWasserman (Qoveitz Shiurim 93) says there are two issues -- which crime to try and which punishment to give. Because in the case of shogegin, there is only the first -- we try for the worse aveirah, but HQBH still holds him accountable for the onesh of the lesser one, since that's the only onesh he is up for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 18:40:39 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 12:40:39 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Toivelling a flower vase more used for food Message-ID: Is the classification of Kelie SeUdah determined by the manufacturer or the user? The Gemara (AZ 75b) rejects the proposition that scissors acquired from a G require Tevillah, only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. The reason we may have thought scissors do require Tevillah - since once Kashered, all food taste is gone, it's like a new device. In fact that's how the Gemara knows that new utensils do require Tevilla. Now, if new devices require Tevillah then it's got nothing to do with the food of the G. In that case scissors should also require. The Gemara rejects that because only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. Meaning it's got something to do with food, at least in the potential. The Ritva however, is troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food of a G. He explains that nevertheless, since they will be used eventually for food they have some connection to food, therefore even new utensils of a G require Tevillah, and he adds, because they're going to a sacred (kosher or Jewish?) use. But why was he troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food? Could this mean that if the G never intend to use it for food, but as a flower vase for example, but the Y chooses to use it for food, that it does not require Tevillah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 30 09:04:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:04:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Freshly Brewed Coffee- on Shabbos? Message-ID: >From the article at http://cor.ca/view-891-freshly-brewed-coffeeon-shabboshtml.html It is well known that there are various grades of roast of coffee beans, from light roast to dark roast. When does a coffee bean become fully roasted to the extent that halacha would allow for it to be cooked on Shabbos? Poskim have expressed doubt as to whether roasted coffee beans have the status of a food that is baked or roasted.8 Due to this doubt, we are not prepared to provide the heter to use microground coffee on Shabbos, even in a kli shlishi.9 ee the above URL for much more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Oct 29 14:12:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 21:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: Pasuk 24:4 in Bereishis says 4 But you shall go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son, for Yitzchak. RSRH comments: Eliezer is to be guided by two considerations: First, l'vni; she should be worthy of being the wife of my son; she should justify my hope that she will become my daughter even as he is my son. This is the general requirement regarding her character. But two people can each be of the most excellent character and still be incompatible. Hence, l'Yitzchak; Eliezer should make sure that the woman is compatible with Yitzchak's individual character. Avraham rejected the daughters of Canaan, preferring an Aramean woman for his son. Let us bear in mind, though, that the Arameans, too, were idolaters. Thus, the reason for Avraham's decision was not the idolatry of the Canaanites, but their moral degeneracy. Idolatry is basically an intellectual error, and that can be corrected. Moral degeneracy, however, takes hold of the whole individual, heart and soul. Hence, even a man such as Avraham could not hope to find among the Canaanites a modest, morally pure woman as a wife for his son, a woman who would bring with her a nobility of spirit and the purity of morality, as a pearl for his home. [Email #2. -micha] Someone who is a rabbi with broad based knowledge sent me the following in response to my earlier message with this subject line. It is amazing how RSRH always can find something so very thoughtful and true. The Rambam alludes at the same matter: that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo, and so he will lose his Chelemer in the Olam HaBo, while it is very possibly that he might do t'shuvo for hillul Shabbos, even if only on his deathbed. RSRH was indeed the kind of very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations. YL From t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 31 00:16:31 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 03:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> From: "Prof. Levine" >: Please see >: http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. My father asked me not to read novels on Shabbos. He didn't say anything to me about reading non-fiction. I was a teenager at the time. I said he asked me, not he told me. I understood that novels were not Shabbosdig. Secular novels, that is. There were almost no Jewish novels back then. It is possible that he phrased it as a request rather than halachic statement because he did not want to impose on me some stricture that might turn me off. Possibly we are now discussing chinuch advice for parents of teenage daughters rather than hilchos Shabbos. From: Micha Berger > And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. > One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from > the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of > them a couple of decades ago. > Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an > artificial evolution of halakha. Not Friday night and not maskilishe papers. I have a copy of the letter that was sent out by the Lakewood Cheder School, recalling the book <> which it had sent out as a fundraiser. The letter does not say what is wrong with the book. All it says is, <> There seems to be a little dig there at the Torah Temima, R' Baruch Epstein, who was the Netziv's nephew and also a ben bayis in the Netziv's home and of course a talmid of the Netziv in the Volozhin yeshiva. But apparently because he thought his uncle was human, a very great man but still human, he somehow didn't <> know his uncle. After the death of his first wife, the Netziv married the sister of the Torah Temima (yes, married his niece), thereupon becoming not only the uncle but also the brother-in-law of the TT. Who nevertheless never really knew his uncle/brother-in-law, according to Lakewood. My father (R' Nachman Bulman) wrote a haskama for the book My Uncle the Netziv, which is a translation (by Moshe Dombey) of parts of the TT's memoirs, called in Hebrew <> The book came out in 1988. To quote part of my father's letter, which is the first page of the book: > The experience of Torah life derives first and foremost from Torah > learning. But the impact of Torah learning is immeasurably richer when > the lives of living Sifrei Torah, of Torah Sages, become educative models > for our people. Further, such lives are vital links in the chain of Jewish > historical knowledge. Mekor Baruch is a matchless compendium of biography, > memoirs, and lore....A glowing portrayal of Volozhin and its last central > figure, the venerable Netziv, is a major part of the work.... I ran into a friend of mine in Brooklyn shortly after Lakewood recalled the book, and he asked me, <> At that point I had no idea who the Netziv was and had never heard of the book or of the Lakewood recall, but I knew my father. <> was my instant reply. I called my father up and asked him for the lowdown. He said that some people in Lakewood were upset because the TT said his uncle read newspapers, but it was because Lakewood was unfamiliar with the papers mentioned in the book. My father actually laughed out loud as he told me this. <> (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was amused by this, too. <>) I will quote a couple of paragraphs from My Uncle the Netziv, to give the flavor of the book and of the humanity, the depth and breadth of the Netziv's personality. He used to say that he considered the newspapers like greetings from the entire world and therefore waited expectantly for their arrival. [They were weeklies that arrived on Friday.] He would not look at the paper Friday night as that time was set aside for reviewing [his Torah learning]. He would save his perusal of the paper for Shabbos morning [after kiddush]. It upset him greatly when one newspaper slandered another....My uncle's wrath was particularly provoked by his favorite papers--the Magid and Levanon--who could not seem to talk about each other with any sense of dignity and derech eretz....The owner of the Levanon, Yechiel Brill, had unilaterally decided that his paper would be the sole voice of the rabbinical community and Torah outlook on all the issues of the day....to his great chagrin, he found out that many rabbonim and members of the Torah community were also avid readers of his arch rival paper, the Magid... The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe newspapers! I recently heard, by the way, that My Uncle the Netziv is once again being sold openly in Lakewood seforim stores (apparently it has been reprinted) and no one remembers that old controversy anymore. They will sell you the book without putting it in a plain brown wrapper, and I wouldn't be surprised if some people read the book on Shabbos. -Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From micha at aishdas.org Thu Nov 1 10:11:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:11:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181101171103.GI32359@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:16:31AM -0400, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the : book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to : learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was : amused by this, too. <>) Also, Zionism. The Netziv supported Chovevei Tziyon. I enjoy pointing out to people that although Zionism was a hotly contested issue in 19th cent Eastern Europe, it was not a communal division line. And so the Netziv's yeshiva had no problem having R' Chaim Brisker as its segan RY. (We really don't see Zionism opening up as a community-defining matter until sometime during or shortly after WWI. The Agudah's first attempt to have a Kenesiah Gedolah was interrupted by that war. Many rabbanim were stranded on the way to it. Including RAYKook, who spent WWI in Switzerland and then England. On their second and successful attempt, in 1923, being a Zionist made you ineligable for membership in the Agudah, and RAYK wasn't invited.) : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic ways.) Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Nov 1 04:37:27 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:37:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: ?that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo,? This is, indeed an intelligent and worthwhile statement. Yet it also is, as I see it, basic common sense that does not require a ?very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations.? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Nov 2 06:29:57 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:29:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Between Eating Meat and Milk Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I know that there are various customs as to how long one must wait between meat and milk. Is waiting between meat and milk a Rabbinic obligation or is it a custom? A. The Gemara (Chullin 105a) states in the name of Rav Chisda that one who eats meat is forbidden to eat cheese afterwards, but one who eats cheese may eat meat. Mar Ukva qualifies that when he would eat meat, he would not eat cheese until the next meal. There is disagreement among Rishonim as to how to understand the ruling of Mar Ukva. * Rambam held that Mar Ukva was teaching us that one must wait approximately 6 hours, the length of time between meals. Shulchan Aruch follows the opinion of Rambam although he states precisely 6 hours. * Tosfos understood that Mar Ukva meant that once one eats meat, it is forbidden to eat cheese until the meal is concluded by reciting Birkas Hamazon. In addition, the mouth must be cleaned. The Rama follows the opinion of Tosfos, but writes that there is a minhag to wait one hour and that the custom of those who are careful is to wait 6 hours. Interestingly, the common German custom is to wait 3 hours. So while all agree that there is a definite Rabbinic obligation to wait between eating meat and milk, there are different opinions as to how long one must wait. For Sefardim who follow the ruling of Shulchan Aruch, waiting 6 hours is an absolute obligation. For Ashkenazim, who follow the ruling of the Rama, the obligation ends once one cleans out one?s mouth and recites a bracha acharona. Waiting one hour, three hours, or six hours are different customs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Nov 4 06:33:48 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 14:33:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Asking a Non-Jew to Perform Melacha Part 1 Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Amira%20l'Akum%20101.pdf The author is Rabbi Shmuel Stein, originally from Brooklyn, is a talmid of Mesivta and Yeshiva Torah Temimah, Yeshivas Yagdil Torah in Eretz Yisroel and Bais Medrash Govoha. Rabbi Stein teaches the popular Wednesday evening In Hilchos Shabbos Shiur and writes a review sheet which is disseminated each week before Shabbos. He organizes the Kollel?s youth programs including Masmidei Erev and Miami Masmidim program. Rabbi Stein is the new resource director at Yeshiva Elementary school and teaches at Mechina of South Florida. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Nov 4 21:03:58 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 07:03:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: [Micha wrote:] > On 11/1/2018 7:11 PM, [RnTK] via Avodah wrote: >: The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the >: Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe >: newspapers!> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos Haskalishe newspaper. > About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist > papers. I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content is like. If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content In addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based content. I don't think of these papers as being Torah publications, rather they are party newspapers that include some Torah". I would ask a different question though: What constitutes a Torah publication? Does it have to deal with parshat shavua, Gemara, mussar, exclusively? Would reading about an opinion piece, written by a rabbi, on world affairs constitute Torah? Rav Kook regularly wrote news columns. What about a mixture of Torah and news? How much of each? Is the content of each article reviewed to make sure that it doesn't violate the laws of lashon ha-rah? From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 09:22:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 17:22:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 25:27 27 When the lads grew up, Esav was a man who understood hunting, a man of the field, and Ya?akov was a totally dedicated man, living in tents. Our Sages never hesitate to point out to us the errors and shortcomings, both great and small, of our forefathers, and precisely thus they make Torah great and glorious, heightening its instructiveness for us (see Commentary above, 12:10). On our verse, too, an observation made by our Sages indicates that the sharp contrast between the two grandsons of Avraham was caused not only by their natural tendencies, but also by mistakes in their upbringing (Bereshis Rabbah 63:10). As long as they were little, no one paid attention to the differences in their hidden natures (see v. 24); they were given the same upbringing and the same education. Their parents overlooked the cardinal principle of education: 'chanoch lanar al pi darco, ?Bring up each child in accordance with his own way? (Mishlei 22:6). Each child should be guided in accordance with the path intended especially for him, the path that suits the qualities and tendencies latent in the depths of his personality, and thus he should be educated, both as a man and as a Jew. The great Jewish task is basically one, but the ways of its fulfillment are manifold and diverse, as human character traits and paths of life are manifold and diverse. Precisely for this reason, each child must be brought up al pi darco; educate him to the one great goal, according to his own unique way, in keeping with his potential. To attempt to educate a Ya?akov and an Esav together in the same classroom, in the same routines and in the same manner, to raise both of them for a life of study and contemplation, will inevitably mean to ruin one of the two. A Ya?akov will draw from the well of wisdom with ever-increasing interest and desire, whereas an Esav will hardly be able to wait for the day when he can throw away the old books and, together with them, a great life-mission, of which he was taught in a one-sided manner, totally unappealing to his nature. For much more on this topic see Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 12:49:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 15:49:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah Message-ID: <20181105204918.GA15965@aishdas.org> The AhS discusses length a few times, but I just passed CM 218:1. It ends: And know that according to the measure in our country of Russia, every 4 amos in the gemara is 3 arshin of ours, which is 7 regel ["fut"] which is one sazhen. And every tefach is 2 vieshoks. Well, there is the translations from wikipedia's page on "Obsolete Russian Units of Measurement" >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete_Russian_units_of_measurement>. 1 fut = 30.48 cm (= 1' British Empirial) = 3/7 arshin 1 arshin = 71.12cm = 2-1/3' 1 sachen = 3 arshin = 2.1336m = 7' So, 4 amos = 3 arshin 1 ammah = 3/4 arshin = 3/4 * 2-1/3 ft = 1.75' = 21" 1 vershok = 1/16 of an arshin = 4.445cm = 1-3/4" Meaning a tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 ammah) Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). Given the round numbers the AhS is working with -- 3/4 of a local unit of measure -- RMF and the AhS could differ only by rounding tolerance. 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 llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 13:16:27 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 21:16:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? Message-ID: RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf For more on this see https://www.ajol.info/index.php/samj/article/viewFile/157422/147034 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 13:35:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 16:35:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181105213511.GA31108@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:16:27PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See : http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf There was a 1979 paper by [Dr?] Philip Lanzkowsky in the American Academy of Pediatrics Journal on the topic. The AAP Journal even cites RSRH! Abstract: Polycythmia as a result of twin-to-twin transfusion in monozygotic twins has only been recognized as a clinical entity in the last few decades. The first recorded case of polycythemia in the newborn due to twin-to-twin transfusion, however, was reported in the Bible: "And when her (Rebekah) days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first came forth ruddy, all over like a hairy mantle; and they called his name Esau...". Genesis XXV, 24-26. A ruddy newborn twin is a clear description of polycythemia in the newborn presumably due to twin-to-twin transfusion. According to Hirsch,[1] despite the contrastrating differences between Esau and Jacob, they were identical twins with complete exterior similarity. Twin-to-twin transfusion occurs in 15% of identical twins. One may further speculate that because of the marked intellectual and emotional differences between Esau and his brother Jacob, that Esau's intellectual restrictions might very well have been evidence of brain damage due to cerebral sludging as a result of polycythemia or kernicterus due to uncorrected hyperbilirubinemia pursuant to polycythemia. "... nothing is new under the sun.... It has already been in the ages before us."[2] The article itself is behind a paywall, though. The problem is that Rabbeinu Chananel quotes R Yosi that Yaaqov was conceived first. And R' Yosi is an amora. As my kids and I each learned in our respective parashah classes in elementary school, Yaaqov was allegedly really the bechor, because the pebble that comes out of the vessel last was the one put into the vessel first. It's the one nearest the exit, after all. I say allegedly, because bekhorah doesn't really go to the second twin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Nov 5 13:36:32 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 16:36:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] RYS and His Son Going to College (was Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: <38.4E.22391.2E7B0EB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:17 PM 11/5/2018, R Micha wrote: >HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, >they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch >Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in >math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it >happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. >And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic >ways.) He did not agree with nor approve of his son's decision to get a college education. >> From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 1 pages 313 - 314. >>R. Israel, however, was deeply distressed that his son had >>abandoned the study of Torah, since the son had excelled so well in >>it in his youth. The father derived no comfort at all from the >>son's remarkable achievements in the world of science, and cut off >>his support during all the son's student years. R. Israel exerted >>every effort to restore his son to Torah study. When Hamaggid >>reported in 1865, that "Mr. Lipkin was on his way to Koenigsberg to >>engage in advanced research, "the editor added that this was the >>son of R. Israel of Salant, and that he was "a pride to his saintly >>father, the Gaon, as well, may he live, who did not prevent the son >>from attending lectures at university, and so to integrate Torah >>and science, for the greater glory of the sons of our people." A >>few weeks later the same periodical (No. 11) carried a letter over >>the signature of R. Israel with these remarks: "Since Truth is the >>lamp at the feet of the righteousness that goes about on earth, I >>find it my duty publicly to proclaim that no glory accrues to me, >>as the slip of your pen would seem to indicate, in respect of my >>son. On the contrary, to me this is a 'bitterness of the spirit'. >>My heart grieves at the path which my son has wanted to set for >>himself. Whoever loves his soul and has the power to persuade him, >>to turn his desire not to run counter to my will and wishes, will >>do a great favor to one as depressed in spirit as I am today". >>Nor was there any contradiction between R. Israel's personal >>attitude and his simultaneous efforts to spread Judaism in academic >>circles. There was nothing in his views to prevent him from trying >>to infiltrate Torah inside the walls of the university and to >>influence students. Furthermore, he employed every means at his >>disposal to guard his son against straying from Judaism. He >>journeyed specially to St. Petersburg to extract a three-fold >>promise: that his son would observe Shabbat, refrain from eating >>trefah food, and not shave. [27] He would say that were he able to >>disguise himself as a woman, he would go to work in the restaurant >>patronized by his son, so as to supervise the kashrut. He also >>requested R. Isaac Blazer, then rabbi in St. Petersburg, by mail, >>to keep an eye on the son. [28] In this way, it is said, the son >>remained a loyal Jew. >>[27.] As related by Rabbi A. D. Berkovsky. Presumably this was the >>journey to St. Petersburg undertaken that year, 1872, as mentioned >>above, in connection with his political activities. R. Naftali >>Amsterdam is reputed to have related that, when R. Israel was in >>St. Petersburg, several of the university professors remarked to >>the son that they would want to see what made his father so great. >>The son suggested that they ask his father the most difficult >>question in geometry they could propound. They submitted a problem >>which had engaged their minds at that time. R. Israel studied it >>for a few minutes, and solved it to the astonishment of all the >>specialists in the field (told by R. Abraham Braude). >>[28.] R. Israel's last letter to R. Isaac Blazer concerning his >>son's conduct elicited the reply that the son had not tasted >>gentile baked bread for the past three months R. Israel understood >>this to imply that his son had been dead for three months, since no >>other bread was available in the capital. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t613k at aol.com Mon Nov 5 19:18:40 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:18:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> From: Micha Berger : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! [--old TK] HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. ? ?>>>> ? You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? When we speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a secular intellectual and academic movement and of? people who were not religious and who were often virulently anti-religious.? Wissenschaft des Judentums types. There definitely were secular, anti-religious journals being published in Europe in the 19th century, some in Hebrew, others in European languages.? These were not the journals that the Netziv was reading and discussing with his talmidim on Shabbos morning after kiddush. ? You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. ? The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were definitely Orthodox.? However, the use of words like modern, worldly, charedi, Orthodox and Zionist is anachronistic.? Those terms weren't used in the 19th century as they are today.? Nineteenth century Europe was not 21st century America.? Yechiel Brill, the editor and publisher of the Levanon, was a <> only in the loosest sense of having worldly interests and being a little bit on the modern side of the frum spectrum, but he was anti-Haskalah and anti-Reform.?? ? I don't know why you want to paint the Netziv as an avid consumer of secular newspapers.? That is just not accurate. ? Now, Ben Waxman wrote: ? >> I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content >>is like. >>If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah >>publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their >>content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all >>write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content. In >>addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based >>articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. >>So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, >>he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based >>content. Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view.? The letters to the editor could be long, weighty essays themselves.? You can't really compare them to Hamodia or Yated.? They were more like an Orthodox version of today's _Commentary_ magazine, but with more flame-throwing. ? The main thing they had in common with today's charedi newspapers is that they did not carry pictures of women.? But then again, they did not carry pictures of men, either. No pictures of anything!? Just pages and pages of words.? ?:) ? Ah, I remind myself of that song from <>?? ? Words Words Words I'm so sick of words I get words all day through First from him, now from you Is that all you blighters can do ? All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the far side of the moon. ? ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 23:28:59 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 09:28:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles Message-ID: This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgluck at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 6 05:10:10 2018 From: mgluck at mail.gmail.com (Moshe Y. Gluck) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 08:10:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sent: November 6, 2018 5:37 AM Cc: marty.bluke at gmail.com This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and obligatory on both parents? KT MYG Sent via the BlackBerry Hub for Android From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:35:51 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:35:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday, November 6, 2018, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not > mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and > obligatory on both parents? > > I didn?t understand this point either as this is not an inyan of chinuch but pikuach nefesh which would apply to the mother also. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:07:42 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:07:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Toby Katz via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive > today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with > access to old library archives. > > > All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the > far side of the moon. > This is not quite true: together with lots of other Hebrew journals, they are all available online at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/JPress/English/Pages/default.aspx I doubt if that site gets as many hits as the New York Times, so basically you are right, but at least anyone who cares can judge for themselves what these newspapers were like -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Nov 6 10:59:09 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 20:59:09 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <5b8a21c0-a020-2f8a-c85c-af2e6568db4e@zahav.net.il> If no one has seen them, how do you know what was in them? You did a research paper? Ben On 11/6/2018 5:18 AM, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one > alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic > researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies > and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's > intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the > issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 6 12:04:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:04:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181106200428.GC28629@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 10:18:40PM -0500, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : From: Micha Berger :> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... :> Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of :> whose paper.) : You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way. When we : speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a : secular intellectual and academic movement and of people who were not : religious and who were often virulently anti-religious. Wissenschaft des : Judentums type... This is revisionist. When Beruriah David's PhD paper talks about the Maharatz Chajes as a Masekil, she was indeed talking about Wissenschaft types, but certainly not unobservant, never mind "virulantly anti-religious". In any case, the modern parallel to what we're talkiong about is if one of today's "yeshivish" rashei yeshivah, who happens to also be a Zionist, read a newspaper -- not a Torah magazine like JO -- put out by a LWMO "Academic Orthodox" type institution. : You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were : pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to : Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. I think you misunderstand the history. This is Chovevei Tzion, the people who brought you Achad haAm. These were Orthodox Jews who aligned with Secular Zionism. The people who founded Petach Tiqva in 1882. Bilu was also well on its way by the Netzi's hayday. But that has little to do with haMad. : The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, : moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were : definitely Orthodox. Nope. This is also revisionist. At least "moderate chareidi" is. : Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one : alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers : with access to old library archives.... Or Google. http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=tab&tab=browse&pub=MGD&_ga=2.44647777.412515131.1541534577-590544565.1541534577#panel=browse 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Nov 7 07:15:12 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:15:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0e8301d476ac$adf40550$09dc0ff0$@com> > Meaning a AhS tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 > ammah) > Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an > ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). You meant to say: RMF (IM OC 1:136) tefach is 3.54" (9cm) and ammah 21-1/4" (53.98cm). [Yes, I typoed -- 3 and 4 are adjacent keys. Which is how the error didn't reach my times-6 result for the ammah. -micha] From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 7 07:16:46 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:16:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1a5d3f60-a1f2-d250-1c3d-fc81959fdb40@sero.name> On 6/11/18 8:10 am, Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm > not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek > and obligatory on both parents? My guess is that these decisions are usually left to the mother, and the anti-vaxx nonsense has spread mostly among women, so he's now telling the men that it's their duty to insist on vaccinating the children even if their wives are opposed. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 7 11:25:01 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:25:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn Message-ID: I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" be to daven first, then learn? 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 Tue Nov 13 10:06:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181113180654.GA7634@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 07:25:01PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven : (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning : starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" : be to daven first, then learn? Perhaps it's because of Berakhos 31a: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven neither from din, nor from devar halakhah, ela mitokh halakhah pesukah. And what is halakhah besukah like? Abayei said, like what Rabbi Zeira said. ... and then quoting a settled halakhah that Rabbi Zeira said once. ("benos Yisrael hichmiru al atzman...") Rava said, like that which Rav Hoshia said.. But I think you get the idea. So, maybe people assume 1,600+ year-old discussions in the gemara qualify. I don't think that's shitas Rashi, though. Rashi ('halakhah pesuqah") says the gemara is worried about topics that a person would continue thinking about during davening. (The Be'er Heitev holds like Rashi.) But in any case, looking a little more meta: The gemara's assumption is that one is supposed to learn before davening, and the gemara then discusses what it is one should be learning. Later on in the sugya: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven from within sorrow, nor laziness, nor silliness, nor chatter, nor qalus rosh, nor devarim beteilim ela mitokh simchah shel mitzvah. Perhaps the learning is indeed seen as a prep for davening. (In addition to talmud Torah.) See OC 93. In the SA, that second TR is in se'if 2, and the first, in se'if 3. Se'if 4 amos, "Ha'oseiq betzorkhei tzibur ke'oseiq baTorah", because there is similar simchah shel mitzvah. 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 zvilampel at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 13 17:07:16 2018 From: zvilampel at mail.gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:07:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:13 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality > : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means > : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are > : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem > : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature* Just to be clear, that was a quote of the Maharal. > While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your usage. > the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent. Rambam teaches that during maaseh breishis, Hashem put the normal properties and behaviors into the natures of the things He created and formed. He also instilled in them the potential for certain aberrational behaviors, to be actualized upon certain conditions, such as the staff turning into a serpent. But such changes open can only last temporarily. But then there is the constant reaction of natural events to mankind's good and evil deeds, which is a neis nistar. This, Rambam explains, is nevertheless the greatest miracle of all: > "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with > loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a > continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of > metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". > (Rambam's Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end]) This view as well is shared by the Ramban. And this is his point in the passages in which he is mistakenly understood to be saying that "there is no 'it' to nature." As an example, in Toras Hashem Temimah, he cites the Rambam approvingly and says, "Most people think that the Alm-ighty does not constantly enact miracles, that the world proceeds in its way, and many of the chachamim think so, too, but the Rav (Rambam) curses them....All our affairs are entirely miracles, there is no nature and way that the world proceeds, for behold the promises of the Torah are all absolute miracles ...The fact of "And I shall give your rains in their time [if you keep the mitzvos]," Hashem will open for you his good treasure-house, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its time an d to bless...is the same as the plague of the firstborn, the dever and arov, and the drowning of the Egyptians in the sea...the only difference is that between the hidden and the open...." So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago shel olom, no "it" to nature. > From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? >Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? >See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam. The Ralbag demonstrates he was well acquainted with the Rambam's writings on the subject, and he himself states that none of his fellow rishonim before him "realized" that this was what Chazal were saying. The two issues raised in this post, the issue of time with the issue of miracles and ha-olom beMinhago noheig, actually tie together. Rambam in the above mentioned payrush on Avos famously maintains that it was on erev Shabbos that Hashem instilled potential aberrational behavior in the nature of the 10 things listed. However, the potentials for aberrational behaviors were instilled in the natures of all other creations ON THE DAY THE TORAH INDICATES. E.g. one example he gives is that the nature of water to split was instilled on day 2. So he is understanding the days as units of time, in which there were days 1-7 and a 6th day bein ha-shemoshos. If one were to attempt imposing the concept of "step of logic" on the use of the word "day" in this passage, the passage would not make sense. Moreh Nevuchim 2:30 does not differ. In MN 2:30, Rambam emphasizes that time itself is something Hashem created. It is a result of the turning of the sphere, which itself is something that was created. Thus, creation did not happen after a certain amount of time, because time could not exist before creation. This is the meaning of his saying that creation, the initial creation ex nihilo, happened "outside of time." (See Abarbanel ?(p. 8, left-hand column, middle), Crescas and Ephodi. Shemtov does attribute the "levels" peshat to Rambam.) But then he poses a question: If the sphere and heavenly bodies were first created the fourth day, how were the first three days measured? He is obviously assuming, in his question, that the creation days of the Torah are units of time. The question is how could there be a first, second and third day, if the thing that produces time, the revolving sphere, did not exist until day four. The question includes the assumption that each day of maaseh breishis witnessed a new creation ex nihilo of the rakia, the vegetation, the creatures, etc., so the heavenly bodies that determine units of time did not exist until the 4th day. He answers that day does not mean a unit of time, but a step of logic. No, wait, he doesn't. He answers that Chazal teach that despite the impression one may get from the pesukim, there was not a new creation ex nihilo each of the 6 days. There was one creation ex nihilo of everything, and then a "revealing"/separation/extraction of each component. What occurred on day 4 with the heavenly bodies responsible for time was not their creation. Their creation and behavior of determining time began at the instant of creation ex nihilo. He cites the Chazal comparing the process over the six creation days to that of various types of seeds. Even though they were all planted one day, each one sprouts later, on a different day. Repeat: later, on different days. The question of how there was time and days 1, 2, and 3 before day 4 is answered with the principle that the heavenly bodies responsible for time existed from the moment of creation. Nothing in the Rambam's words (either here or in his treatment in the first chelek of word meanings) about days meaning levels. "The particle "ess" in the phrase "ess ha-shamayim ve-ess ha-aretz ("the heavens and the earth") signifies "together with." Our Sages have explained the word in the same sense in many instances. Accordingly, they assume that God created, with the heavens, everything that the heavens contain, and with the earth, everything the earth includes. They further say that the simultaneous Creation of the heavens and the earth is implied in the words, "I call unto them, they stand up together" (Tehillim 48). Consequently, all things were created together, but revealed (nisgalu) / were separated from each other (nivdelu) one by one (rishon rishon). Our Sages illustrated this by the following simile: We sow various seeds at the same time; some spring forth after one day, some after two, and some after three days, although all have been sown at the same time. This outlook, which is undoubtedly the correct one, solves the problem of... how the first day, the second day and the third day were determined.... This is explicit in the words of our Sages in Bereshis Rabba. They said, regarding the light the Torah says was created on the first day. They said it as follows: These [lights of the luminaries mentioned in the Creation of the fourth day] are the very same lights that were created on the first day, but were not hung in their places until the fourth day. Behold, they explicitly stated this idea." All this would be an awful way to express the simple idea that by "day" the Torah means not a unit of time but a logical step. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 14 09:01:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:01:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Did you intentionally reply off-list? Or should I copy your email and this one onto Avodah? On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, : Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your : usage. A lot resided in the word "hypostasis", and a reason why I couldn't find a more apt word among normal English ones. :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. But it's minhago shel olam. Not an "it". The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH. It is this direct causality that people mistake for his saying there is no teva. According to the Rambam, nature is the product of the Seikhel haPo'al, which is acted upon by mal'akhim, which, if you chase the chain of causality up to the start, is a product of hashgachah kelalis and Divine Da'as. But there is an "it" there. Teva is a metaphysical object, not a pattern. See Moreh 2:11-12 (ch. 10 may be a useful prelude.) (Nevu'ah is also mediated through the Seikhel haPo'al [2:35], but that's a different subject.) A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a person, and thus to that extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH delegates his fate. I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to nature". But you apparently took me to mean there is no nature. Rather than no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on. That's what I was talking about, and most of your reply doesn't actually address the chiluq I'm making. : So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. No, but he does mean there is no such "thing" as nature. It's not a hypostatis. : His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago : shel olom, no "it" to nature. : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. See also the Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. The Abarbanel specifically endorces the Ralbag's "yesod" in understanding the Rambam. https://www.sefaria.org/Abarbanel_on_Torah%2C_Genesis.1.1.10 This is how the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian like R' Yitzchaq Arama. RYBS too, Mainodies between Philosophy & Halakhah, pg 187. In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of time. His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before the sun. And it's not a problem we modern people would face, anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 14 21:37:51 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:37:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli Message-ID: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html Me-Yet R' Ellman would not ( at least when I asked him) say that any of these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food for thought 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 Nov 14 21:35:38 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:35:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions Message-ID: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? Do we see this same propensity in prior authorities who were not writing codes in this manner? Other reason why different authorities might deal with this issue differently? 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 Nov 15 10:52:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:52:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> References: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20181115185222.GA28484@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 10:31:20PM -0400, R Akiva Miller replied to my post: :> So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted :> keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be :> when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than :> the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged :> YhR? : Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal : encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to : the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate : the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the : fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But that's the converse of my question. I didn't ask why Chazal found the taqanos they did. Or in the case of ribbis, engineered a solution using a pre-existing loophole. I asked why the RBSO didn't. If Chazal knew that people couldn't keep up the moral standard, obviously the Author of the deOraisos did too. And therefore, why didn't He allow ribbis for the same "lo diberah Torah ela keneged YhR" reasons as eishes yefas to'ar. Once we have G-d making compramizes for EYT, why did He leave ribbis to Chazal? Why did Hashem make it that money is qoneh? He knew better than chazal that it would create situations where a seller is still holding something he no longer owns, and sometimes that will mean carelessness in how the item is guarded. Why did Chazal need to invoke hefqer BD hefqer and totally rewrite how sale works? (That said, I am almost satisfied with RDR's answer, below.) : But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. : The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her : (unless he follows the prescribed procedure)... Today's militaries assume otherwise. Avoiding ribis is less of a problem when "money" is primarily a metal or contract to swap, only a half-step beyond barter. One is "only" losing opportunity cost. But once we got prime rates etc... so that there is a difference between present and future value of money can be done in some settings, avoiding ribbis became something not enough lenders could afford, and the poor suffered. Eishes yefas to'ar is similarly situational. Whether it is "unwinnable" at best depends on the kind of war one is fighting. Maybe when fighting barbarian tribes. But not as a general rule. : Alternatively: : D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. But they can allow things explicitly denied by the Torah? If you can engineer heter isqa into something that covers most of the situations where ribbis is needed, they could have engineered and issur. But I also recently encountered while learning Arukh haShulchan something that may be a counter-example. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that there are no shevu'os when the dispute is over qarqa. So, while modeh bemiqtzas (e.g.) about money or metaltelin requires a shevu'ah deOraisa, if it is about real estate there is no shevu'ah deOraisa. However, Chazal still require the nitba to make a shevu'as heises in order to retain his chazaqah on the land. And on Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:16:00AM -0400, R David Riceman replied to the same post: : It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it : is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical : level, however, I don't see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah : prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. I am sure the same was said before heter isqa. Chazal were a bunch of rabbis capable of finding 49 ways to be metaher a sheretz. Our inability to figure out how they would have created a law like eishes yefas to'ar doesn't prove it impossible. For that matter, the gemara apparently concludes that pruzbul was only enacted because shemittah today is derabbanan. Although I think it's left open whether pruzbul would not work when shemittah is deOraisa. Or whether hefqer BD would meant it would work, but they question the hava amina that Hillel would circumvent a deOraisa like that. What kind of "you don't" the gemara is talking about would impact your answer. That said, I like RDR's "more important point". Repeated here, since it's been nearly a month -- an eternity as list-time goes: : But there's a more important point. What's weird about war is that : it's not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between : civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those : different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say "hasatan : mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama" that's partly because the soldiers don't : have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. : But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to : rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person : to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over : his lifetime. : So it makes a lot of sense that k'nagged YhR is specifically mentioned : in the context of milhama. The reason why I said above I am only "almost satistfied" is that it borders on explaining too much. We aren't looking only for a chiluq between EYT and my sample dinim derabbanan. But also between deOraisa and derabbanan. You are left saying there is a whole set of dinim on a tightrope -- they are lifelong challenges and therefore controllable enough for HQBH not to want to compromize for human nature, and yet history evolved the situation to the point where they pose impossible challenges that chazal needed to accomodate. Well, not necessarily "impossible". At least: by Chazal's day these grew into challenges that are so rarely met, the usual outcome is more costly than the din -- such as the poor not being able to get a loan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 14:57:30 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:57:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli In-Reply-To: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119225730.GA28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:37:51AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: : https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html : : Yet R' Ellman would not (at least when I asked him) say that any of : these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food : for thought I like RARakeffetR's mashal (and recall, he is a RIETS RY with a PhD in Jewish History): You can ask a historican how the electric refrigerator was invented, and you will hear about the social forces involved, the wiring of the American home for power, etc... None of which tells you how the refrigerator actually works. (He might even give you the history of the application of thermodynamics and the Carnot cycle without ever explaining that particular bit of science.) Similarly: Knowing that a particular area of halakhah was mined in response to a given situation doesn't change the fact that the halachic principles had to be there and had to be applied. And the knowledge does little to teach you the principles themselves. 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 15:06:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 18:06:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions In-Reply-To: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119230604.GB28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:35:38AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan : aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority : opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach : rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? ... I think the SA tried to reach conclusions. For that matter, he tried to follow majority of his short list of major posqim. I think for him it was just a way of dealing with not being sufficiently convinced; and not having his triumverate answering the question for him. For the MB... Not sure I want to reopen that whole "the MB was written to help posqim, and its 'rulings' are lehalakhah velo lemaaseh" -- not always even followed by the CC himself. (Who was author of most of the book, and editor in chief of the rest.) : Other reason why different authorities might deal : with this issue differently? The AhS has enough confidence in toras imekha that he would use it to say that lemaaseh we pasqened like a minority, or like (what seems to me to be a) dachuq peshat. There are exceptions, where he holds that common practice is just too dachuq, but they're rare. So, for the AhS, being stumped means that not only is there no clear textual winner, there is no clear minhag (accepted practice) either. So holding out in fear of a mi'ut isn't likely. Holding like a mi'ut because the tzibbur already does, much more comomn. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 20 09:08:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181120170828.GA27185@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, ... :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. Actually, it's real, but I think you misunderstood what I meant. (As I said in the previous email.) Relevant is this excerpt from a recent shiur from Gush's Vitual Beis Medrash. Rav Bednarsh gives 2 chiluqim that are orthogonal to the one I mentioned (whether there is an "it" behind teva, or if nature is "merely" a pattern of Divine Action): 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. About fn #4... I spoke to RDBerger about his paper. I can ask a parallel question on RAB's article to introduce the same answer, so I will do so here. RAB writes (below): > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The > Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only > the principle of hashgacha pratit. > Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these > two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more > nuanced. > In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise > of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God > and not to doctors for healing.... ... > For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) > that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on > a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, > to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or > punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in > the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence > and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness... > In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that > his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh > Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and > tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully > on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the > Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order... Okay, so it's much more nuanced, but then what does he mean in the two places we started with? What I pointed out, that the Ramban is denying teva as an it -- that even teva is through the same direct Influence as neis -- adds the same nuance without ignoring those two more famous comments of the Ramban. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Yeshivat Har Etzion PHILOSOPHY > Topics in Hashkafa > Shiur #06: Divine Providence and the Natural Order 1 Rav Assaf Bednarsh Adapted by Leora Bednarsh Should one attempt to provide for one's needs in this world by working through the natural order, or should one do so by keeping mitzvot and trusting in God to provide? Are the events of this world caused by direct Divine Providence or by the natural scientific order? This question has tremendous practical significance and is the subject of much debate in the contemporary Jewish community. This topic is often portrayed as "hishtadlut (effort) vs. bitachon (trust)." ... The Position of the Rambam No Jewish philosopher can entirely deny the doctrine of hashgacha pratit. There are many examples in Tanakh that very clearly indicate that God miraculously takes care of the righteous in this world in accordance with His Divine plan.[1] However, almost all the cases in Tanakh deal with exceptionally righteous and spiritual individuals. That may be because most of Tanakh deals with these great individuals; these are the people we need to learn about in order to learn to be good Jews. The Rambam, however, maintains that this is not coincidence. It is not simply that these happen to be the main characters in Tanakh. According to the Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim III:18), hashgacha pratit is not something that God automatically utilizes in running the world. God relates to us when we relate to Him. When we open the channel, God's bounty flows through that channel. If we don't bother to create those lines of communication, then He does not communicate with us either. Those who have achieved philosophical sophistication, who have studied what the Rambam understands to be the Jewish mystical philosophical tradition and focus their thoughts on God, enjoy the benefits of Divine Providence. According to the Rambam, not all people enjoy equal Divine Providence. Those who are pious and good and religious enjoy more Divine Providence because of their understanding of God, which fuels their piety and goodness. Those who are prophets enjoy a higher level because of their deep understanding of God. Those who are on a very rarified level of philosophical spiritual achievement can be assured that God looks out for them in this world. The wicked and the religiously ignorant, however, have no such promise of Divine Providence. Even regular people who may be reasonably religious and try to think about God quite often still have not achieved that level of understanding at which they can assume that they are beneficiaries of constant direct Divine Providence. For the Rambam, then, most people do not enjoy the benefit of direct Divine Providence all the time. Accordingly, it makes perfect sense that we are expected to work through the natural order. The natural order is the default. When we change the rules by achieving philosophical knowledge of God, our lives begin to be run by the principles of Divine Providence. But much of the time the world is run by the natural order and God does not involve Himself. Thus, we should be expected to provide for ourselves and to achieve whatever goals we feel the need to achieve by means of the natural order. The natural order is the one thing that is guaranteed. God created the world and created the scientific order as the way in which the world will run until God decides to get involved because someone let Him in to his life.[2] And even then, God is only involved partially, to the extent that someone partially perfects themselves and meditates upon God. Of course, this does not mean that God has no part in our lives when we do not enjoy Providence. There is still hashgacha klalit, general Providence. God still arranges the world generally in such a way that our needs are provided for. We say blessings, thanking God, for example, for creating fruits of the tree, but not because He created this particular fruit for me to eat today, rather because He created a wonderful world that provides for much of our needs. It is our job to appreciate that. But when I stub my toe or win the lottery, is that God's direct intervention? According to the Rambam, most of the time it is not. Rather, it is the natural order. The Position of the Ramban It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only the principle of hashgacha pratit. Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more nuanced. In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God and not to doctors for healing. He states that when the masses of the Jews are perfect, their lives will not be run by the natural order, but rather directly by God; He will be their doctor. According to Ramban, that is what the righteous did in the days of Tanakh, during the era of prophecy. Anyone with access to prophecy does not need a doctor, and in case of illness should turn instead to a prophet, who will tell him which of his actions needs to be improved; he will then repent and repair those actions so that God will heal his disease. "What business do doctors have in the house of someone who fulfills the will of God?" asks the Ramban. Although the Rabbis interpreted the verse "ve-rapo yerapeh" (Shemot 21:19) as evidence that the doctor has permission to heal, the Ramban restricts the significance of this inference. If someone asks for help, the doctor should heal the patient - but Chazal never said that the patient should seek medical care, only that the doctor should provide it. The patient should ideally put all his trust in God and not in the natural order. However, if the patient has already put his trust in the natural order, the doctor has no choice but to heal him, because that is the only option left. When someone puts his faith in the natural order, his live is unfortunately run by the natural order. But when someone puts his faith in God, his life is controlled by direct Divine Providence. Similarities Between the Ramban and the Rambam The Ramban here seems to take an anti-Maimonidean stance, focusing on Divine Providence. However, on closer analysis, he does not deny the existence of the natural order. He acknowledges the existence of teva. Of course, he believes that it is far preferable to live by faith in God and not by teva, but once our spiritual level fell and we became accustomed to using medicine and working within the scientific order, God "abandoned us to the happenstance of teva." If we read the Ramban very carefully, we notice that the examples he uses of those who should not seek medical help but rather turn directly to God are limited to a time when the masses of Jews are righteous, during the time of prophecy. The Ramban is referring to people on a very high spiritual level. They enjoyed the benefit of constant Divine Providence and therefore had no business working through the natural order. The implication is that the situation is quite different for regular people in regular times. Even righteous Jew nowadays, when, unfortunately, the masses of Jews are far from perfect and when prophecy has not been restored to us, are not on the same high spiritual level. Therefore, they cannot have a reasonable expectation of constant Divine Providence in their lives, and perhaps they should visit doctors. Although everything that happens in the world is subject to Divine Providence, God has decided to abandon us - regular people in the contemporary era - to the workings of the natural order. We no longer merit constant Divine Providence. This is, in fact, explicitly the opinion of the Ramban in several places. For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness. But Yaakov himself was not sure that he was righteous enough to enjoy Divine Providence, which is why he prepared using natural means to make peace, or if need be, war, with Esav. He made various preparations using the natural order because in his humility, he was not certain that he was on the level to expect Divine Providence. If Yaakov Avinu questioned whether he deserved Divine Providence, the clear implication is that we can certainly not rely on it! In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order. We are instructed to conscript an army and go out and fight in the event of war, not just to sit and pray and wait for God to fight for us. We cannot always expect to be on such a high spiritual level that we enjoy constant Divine Providence. Rather, we must work under the assumption that we may not always be experiencing Divine Providence, and we must therefore work under the natural order. The Ramban tells us that if God wants us to win a war, we will win without an army, and if, God forbid, He wants us to lose a war, no matter how strong our military is, we will lose. But sometimes, when we are neither completely righteous nor completely wicked, God does not want any particular result, because He is not exercising Divine Providence at that point. That is why it is so important that we work through the natural order. The Ramban in this commentary seems to be in line with mainstream religious Zionist ideology. We work through the natural order because not everything always is decreed by God.[4] Differences Between the Ramban and the Rambam As much as the Ramban claims to agree with the Rambam, there is still a significant difference between their philosophies. The Ramban in a number of places, including his commentary to Iyov, tells us that Divine Providence can be either positive or negative. If someone is truly righteous, then God watches and guards him all the time. If someone is evil, God will intervene in the world to punish him. Those in the middle, neither wicked nor righteous, are left to the natural order. The Rambam, on the other hand, holds that Divine Providence can only be positive, not negative. It is purely a function of one's connection to God. Therefore, the more connected one is to God, the more Divine Providence; the more disconnected one is, the less Divine Providence. Punishment only occurs in this world because when God removes His Providence, one is exposed to the many perils of the dangerous world that we inhabit. While the Ramban has a volitional model of Divine Providence, in which God decides to exercise Providence when a person deserves reward or punishment, the Rambam has a more mechanistic model, under which Divine Providence is an automatic result of spiritual achievement. What the Rambam and the Ramban have in common, however, is their belief that while Divine Providence is an ideal to strive for, it is not the default, automatic way in which the world works. God sometimes involves Himself through the principle of hashgacha pratit, but often does not. The natural order is the authentic way in which God created the world to run when He doesn't decide to get involved and change things. For the Ramban and the Rambam, then, the answer to the question of faith (bitachon) versus effort (hishtadlut) is clear. We are expected to take care of providing our needs in this world the best we can using the natural order. None of us are arrogant enough to assume that we are so holy and righteous that we have constant Divine Providence. Of course, we strive to be more holy, spiritual, and righteous. We strive to enjoy more Divine Providence. And, at least according to the Ramban, perhaps our ultimate goal is to reach the highest spiritual levels and abandon the natural order. Nonetheless, in regular life, the Rambam and the Ramban would have us work in the natural order because we can never be certain that anything that happens to us in our lives is the result of God's direct intervention. Our success or lack thereof may be purely a function of the natural order. Therefore, we must take care of ourselves. God is not always taking care of us, as we may not be sufficiently righteous. _______________________ [1] For example, the Exodus and figures such as the Patriarchs, Daniel, and Chananya, Mishael and Azarya. [2] Even in this case, Rambam nowhere states that one who enjoys Divine Providence should not work within the natural order. In the next two shiurim, we will present various explanations of why even one who enjoys Divine Providence might be required to work within the natural order. [3] The Ramban understands God's "knowledge" of Avraham as constant Divine Providence [4] Many attempts have been made to resolve the apparent contradiction between the Ramban's statement in his commentary to Shemot 13 and his sermon Torat Hashem Temima and his formulations in his commentaries to Bereishit 18 and 32 and Iyov 36. It seems likely that the Ramban intended to claim not that everything that happens is a miracle, but that miraculous Providence ultimately controls everything. Since even nature was created by God, Providential intervention can override the laws of nature, but the laws of nature do not restrict Divine Providence. When Providence chooses not to intervene, however, nature still follows its course. For further reading, see the original texts, as well as David Berger, "Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmanides," in Isadore Twersky (ed.), Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuosity (Harvard University Press, 1983), available at https://www.biblicalnaturalhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/MiraclesNahmanides.pdf. From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 06:41:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:41:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yaakov and Esav Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32:8. 8 Ya?akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. In Ya?akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya?akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya?akov?s attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 08:24:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:24:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? Message-ID: One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the ?Medina shel Chessed? is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic issues of this very American holiday... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 22 04:30:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? Message-ID: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is it equivalent of free will? What does it mean to have free will without consequence? How then do we understand the medrash in Breishit that the trees were punished for not following HKB"H's direction? The dogs being rewarded for not barking? 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 zvilampel at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 09:30:07 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:01 PM Micha Berger wrote: > > RMB: > :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. > > ZL: Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no > less > : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of > : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that > : minhag permanent. > > ... > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. Where does Ramban say this? As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent at maaseh breishis. See, for example, on Shmos 6:6. ''The posuk says 'Vay-hiH khein'' because that is the teva that was instilled in them forever...and they will remain with the first teva that was instilled in them at the time of their formation (Vayamdual haTeva haRishon asher hussam bahem bEis yetsirasam). And on Vayikra 26:11, in the passage about refuah, he uses the phrase, VaHashem Heeneecham lemikrei haTivee-im, Hashem leaves them to the natural mikrreim. How is this insisting that, contra Rambam, ''those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH''? Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. RMB: [According to RambaM:] A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a > person, and thus to that > extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva > (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH > delegates his fate. > ZL: You are making a distinction that you attribute to RambaM, between teva and minhago shel olam. Teva is something that a daas-lacking person is left to. Through it, Hashem delegates his fate. Minhag shel olam is something else. I don't follow. Where is such a distinction made? And I thought you maintained that contra RambaN, RambaM does /not/ hold that HQBH delegates the fate of lesser people. Only ''the RambaN talks about nature being a pattern in events... /directly/ caused by HQBH. Is there also a distinction between ''directly causing'' and ''delegating''? Do you mean RambaM holds Hashem HAD delegated their fate (by setting up the mechanisms at Creation)? RMB: > I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to > nature". ... no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on... there is no such > "thing" as nature. It's not a > hypostatis. ZL: Where do you see what you are trying to explain in Ramban? Regarding the shiur by Rav Bednarshom, and the point that 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. The last sentence should be about RambaN, right? And here's something to ponder: As I wrote previously, the Rambam writes that the greatest miracle of all, is nature's responding to man's behavior, favoring good behavior and punishing bad behavior. Granted, favoring good behavior is miraculous. But l-fi Rambam's shittah, what is miraculous about leaving the practitioner of bad behavior to the wiles of nature? Also, regarding: > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. Obviously, this is just the hava amina. The Ramban did not write that ''everything that happens'' is a miracle. His wording is that the whole [teaching of the] Torah [about reard and punishment] is a miracle. Meaning, as the maskana is, that the Torah's system of award and punishment is miraculous. Secondly, the Ramban does not say that everything is a miracle,without causation, except reward and punishment. The causation between behavior and reward and punishment is an explanation of, not in contrast to, his statement that the whole teaching of the Torah is that there are miracules. > > > :ZL: His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a > : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the > forces > : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, > : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no > minhago > : shel olom, no "it" to nature. > > : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand > : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is > : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified > model, > : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. > > : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, > > : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, > note > : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? > > : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and > : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being > in > : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya > : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? > > :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. > > : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given > : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say > : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. > But > : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... > > It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. It is not his peshat in the Rambam. He does not mention Rambam, much less attribute to him, the ''levels'' peshat, neither in his Torah commentary nor in his Milchamos Hashem. If you can find such a passage, please locate it for me. On the contrary, here is how he addresses the question of how there could be days before the fourth day when the sun materialized. He gives two possibilities. And he gives the ''levels'' approach as an /alternative/ explanation to the answer that the sphere, by which time and days are produced, was in operation from the moment of creation.They are two /different/ ways of answering how there could be days one through three before the existence of the stars, although both answers are predicated on the Chazal-based view that everything in the universe and earth was instantly and simultaneously created in its complete form (besides vegetation and Adam and Chava). And if the virtually identical verbiage to that of the Rambam is an indication that Ralbag was intending to give peshat in the Rambam, note that he is explicitly using that verbiage in the answer granting that ''days'' are units of time, in /contrast/ to the notion of ''days'' meaning ''levels''. And also remember, as I have noted before, that Ralbag explicitly says (Torah commentary, on VaYchulu) V-im nim-tsi-u rechokim meod mei-hakavana asher matzanu kahn, kmo shetireh mimah shebier bazeh haRav HaMoreh besifro hanichbad Moreh HaNevuchim, ViHachcham R. Avraham Ibn Ezra.... that his new approach is /very far/ from that of the Rambam. And he repeats this in Sefer Milchemes Hashem, Presentation VI, ?Part II, Chapter 8, Conclusion. Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. This is how > the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian > like R' Yitzchaq Arama. > But you see, you have to resort to secondary sources to support the claims about what Rambam and Ralbag held, whereas we have the first-hand sources in front of us. The fact is that the Ralbag does not attribute the ''levels''approach to the Rambam, and in fact considers the ''levels'' approach as an alternative to what the Rambam wrote.. Abarbanel is known to repeat ideas of his contemporary, R. Y. Arama. He is also known to have a very eclectic style. You are of course correct that in his 9th shayla he attributes the ''levels'' approach to the Rambam. But look how he does it, and explain to me how it makes sense: > The 9th shayla concerns what is mentioned in the Moreh Nevuchim. Rambam > notes that time ?cannot exist without the movement of the celestial > spheres, the sun and moon. However, this raises ?the question as to how > there could be time before the fourth day on which the celestial spheres > and sun were ?created. The Rambam answered this question by asserting that > in fact the spheres and the sun were ?created on the first day. Thus time > existed for the first 3 days in the same manner as it existed on the > ?subsequent days. He explained that in fact everything ? both the Heavens > and the Earth ? were created ?on the first day. Stop here. Do you not see the Abarbanel explaining Rambam as holding that the days of Breishis were units of time, and not ''levels''? Let's continue: The Rambam cited Chazal that the word ?es? indicated that the creation on > the first day ?included everything associated with the Heavens as well as > everything associated with the Earth. He also ?cited the gemora (Chulin > 60a) that everything that was created was created in its final form. He > also cited ?another statement of Chazal that the Heavens and Earth were > created simultaneously. Thus the Rambam ?believed that the work of Creation > happened all on one day and was not divided amongst six days. He ?claimed > that in a single moment of creation everything came into existence. And of course, the Rambam continues (and Ralbag includes it) that whereas all was created ex nihilo from the first instant of creation, following that was a process of separating the components of the universe, forming things, as he says elsewhere in the Moreh, kach mikach. How then does the Abarbanel say in the next breath: > He explained that the reason ?for the Torah stating that there were six > days of Creation was to indicate the different levels of created ?beings > according to their natural hierarchy. Thus the Rambam does not understand > the word day to be a ?temporal day and he doesn?t read Bereishis to be > describing the chronological sequence of creation?. Kasha reisha al sefa! And note that in shayla 5 as well Abarbanel had written: That which the Torah mentioned of the creation of the stars on the fourth day, made HaRav haMoreh answer, as it seems from his words, in that chapter 30 of Part Three, that on the first day the sphere was created with the stars and light. But their actions had affect on the fourth day upon the vegetation.Such is apparent from the words of the Rav...Perhaps RambaN too meant this, since he mentions this approach in the name of yeish meforshim. And if one is to treat this as Abarbanel changing his mind, well then consider another about-face over 80 pages later (p. 85 in our editions) Behold you see that the opinion of the Rav was ...that all that is mentioned regarding the activity of the six days, ?from the creation of the heavens and the earth, and all of the phenomena, and the creation of Adam and ?his wife, up until ?vayechulu? have no allegory whatsoever, for everything was ?literal to him [the Rambam]. Therefore you will see that in this very chapter, no. 30 in the second section, ?in all which the Rav has explicated regarding the activity of the six days, he did not make an allegory or a ?hint at all. Rather, he did the exact opposite, for he made a concerted effort to support the doctrine of ?creation ex nihilo and accepted all of the verses literally?? Obviously, Abarbanel was not consistent as to whether the Rambam understood the creation days to be ''levels'' rather than units of time. So he should not be cited with such certainty that he held so. ?I would also caution against uncritically accepting A?s description of B?s opinion if A goes on to ?lambaste it, as the Abarbanel did with his original reading of the Moreh Nevuchim. ?(The question presents itself, then, how did the Abarbanel?s contemporary, the Akeidas Yitzcahk, ?and the commentary of the ShemTov?who is not regarded as a rishon?as opposed to the ?commentary by Crescas), and the Abarbanel himself in his second take, get from (a) the Rambam?s ?classical rendition of a six-day meta-natural development of potential created on day one, to (b) ?seeing the Rambam as promulgating that ?the six days are a metaphor for six levels in the hierarchy ?of natural objects: light/darkness, water, minerals, flora, fauna, man??? My theory is that the earlier commentators of the Moreh, such as Narboni, greatly influenced by ?the Aristotelian academia of the time, anxiously imposed their radical views on the Rambam. (We ?see that in the Rambam?s own time, he complained of people radicalizing his views?including those ?who as accused him of (or ?complimented? him for) denying techiass ha-meisim). They hijacked the ?Moreh so efficiently that it became popular to think the Rambam thought like Narboni. This ?became the starting point from which later commentaries saw the Moreh (similar to, l?havdil, Rashi?s ?commentary being one?s first impression of what the Chumash says, and one?s natural thinking that ?what Rashi says is necessarily what the Chumash undoubtedly means.)? > In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, > following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, > there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which > processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the > Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of > time. > Not my issue. > > His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before > the sun. > *In the words of Ralbag the **problem is with zeman before the sun. His answer is that the sphere, even without the sun, produces zeman. * The problem that bothered the early ones, with what were day one, day two and day three measured? Behold, the light-bearers were not in existence until day four! [The answer is that even though the light-bearers did not appear until day four], the heavenly sphere was in existence on day one, and each revolution of it formed approximately one day. Abarbanel puts it that the problem is zeman before the sphere, sun and stars. The answer is that they all existed and formed zeman from the first act of creation. ???"? (?????, ??? ?) (?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? (?, ?-?) ...??????, ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? (??? ? ??? ?), ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???, ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?????; ???? ???? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?):... ??????? ??????: ?? ??? ???? ?????, ?????: ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????, ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? (?????? ??, ??). ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????: ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??????????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? (?, ?) ?* ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ???.* ???? ?????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??????,??? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ????, ????? ???? ???? ??? *.??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? .* *??* ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???, ????? ?? ????? ?????? *???? ??????*, ?? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ??? ????? *???? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????*; ??? ????? *??? ????? ???????,* ?? [??"? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????, ?"?] *?**??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????, ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? *? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??. ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???????, ??? ????? ?????. *???? ????? ????? *??? ???? ?????, ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?????. ??? ?? ????????? ??????? ??? ??????: ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?), ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?????. ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? (??? ? ????? ???? ????), ?????: ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??. ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????, ?? ???? ?????? ??, ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???????, ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? > > But the bottom line,to which we both agree, is that traditional Judaism holds that Creation, regardless of our issue about zeman, was not a natural process. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162531 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 23 02:58:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. : : : Where does Ramban say this? ... This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, it directly from G-d. : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag : permanent at maaseh breishis... Which is not in contradicction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain ways. To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel hapo'el, but still thimk you can reach what the rishonim are talking about? :-)BBii! -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 zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 15:37:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 18:37:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those > events > : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. > : > : > : Where does Ramban say this? ... > > This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > from G-d. Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or uses intermediaries. > > : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times > that > : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag > : permanent at maaseh breishis... > > Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern > of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that > behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain > ways. I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures. Yes, Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but they would be in agreement that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM, and just as much not a ??thing?? ?to RambaM as to RambaN. The disagreement would be whether Hashem at Creation set up intermediary steps ?in creating the world?s components and their behaviors. According to both of them, at the end of the Creation period Hashem established what the normal behaviors (patterns) would thereon be, and up to then the nature of the world was not stabilized. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but both agree that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. RambaM cites Chazal that ?Hashem at Creation also imbued in the things of the world the potential for aberrant behaviors ??(miracles) to be triggered when Hashem so decrees. I do not see RambaN disagreeing, but even if he does, I do not see framing it in terms of a dispute over whether nature is a ??thing.?? It would be a dispute over whether the miraculous natures were imbued at Creation or first initiated at their enactment, and in view of the Chazal cited by RambaM, RambaN would have some explaining ?to do. And of course, although the Rambam strongly objects to the idea that Hashem is constantly recreating the world, he also famously states that Hashem is constantly maintaining it, and that if He would remove His maintenance, the world would cease to exist. ? And if one insists on inferring from RambaM?s words an issue of Nature being considered a ????thing??, as opposed to a mere normal pattern of behavior, consider this quote:? http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=38545&st=&pgnum=14&hilite? The One Who created it [the world] made its general properties as a kiyum gadol. ??...This is what it means when it says, ??I know that all that G-d will make, IT will be ?forever.??...The yesodos ... all these are kayamim l-olom. It is impossible to add upon or take away from them, for it says, ??And G-d MADE [things] so that [people] will be in awe before Him, for ...these [things] stand forever. The above are the words of RambaN, in his Drasha on Kohelles. One could argue therefrom that he considers the general properties of the world as ??things?? that are permanent. Or not. > To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. To the Rambam, as well. > > : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to > : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. > Especially > : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. > > You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel > hapo'el, but still think you can reach what the rishonim are talking > about? No. You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? Zvi Lampel -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban Drasha on Kohelles.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 500027 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 25 17:29:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:29:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the Destruction of Sodom? Message-ID: <20181126012932.GA7767@aishdas.org> See https://www.sciencenews.org/article/exploding-meteor-may-have-wiped-out-ancient-dead-sea-communities or . I am including just a teaser. I intentionally ended with the note that the researcher works at a Xian university, as that does speak toward objectivity. We'll see what peer review says of the evidence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Science News Archaeologists at a site in what's now Jordan have found evidence of a cosmic calamity An exploding meteor may have wiped out ancient Dead Sea communities By Bruce Bower 10:00am, November 20, 2018 Preliminary evidence indicates that a low-altitude meteor explosion around 3,700 years ago destroyed cities, villages and farmland north of the Dead Sea (shown in the background above) rendering the region uninhabitable for 600 to 700 years. DENVER -- A superheated blast from the skies obliterated cities and farming settlements north of the Dead Sea around 3,700 years ago, preliminary findings suggest. Radiocarbon dating and unearthed minerals that instantly crystallized at high temperatures indicate that a massive airburst caused by a meteor that exploded in the atmosphere instantaneously destroyed civilization in a 25-kilometer-wide circular plain called Middle Ghor, said archaeologist Phillip Silvia. The event also pushed a bubbling brine of Dead Sea salts over once-fertile farm land, Silvia and his colleagues suspect. People did not return to the region for 600 to 700 years, said Silvia, of Trinity Southwest University in Albuquerque. He reported these findings at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research on November 17... From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:49:35 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:49:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Weight of a Shekel Message-ID: <20181126204934.GA12575@aishdas.org> No, they didn't find a sheqel, they found something just as good -- a beqa from bayis rishon, as in machatzis hasheqel "beqa lagulgoles". Just multiply by 2 to get a sheqel haqodesh. (Ie a beqa is a plain old sheqel.) (There apparently weren't 1/2 sheqel coins during basyis rishon.) See or https://www.timesofisrael.com/straight-from-the-bible-tiny-first-temple-stone-weight-unearthed-in-jerusalem/ The Times of Israel Straight from the Bible: Tiny First Temple stone weight unearthed in Jerusalem By Amanda Borschel-Dan 21 November 2018, 12:57 pm Volunteer at City of David sifting project finds rare `beka' measure, used by pilgrims paying half-shekel tax before ascending to Temple Mount, in dirt from dig near Western Wall [Picture of weight, bearing the word beqa in kesav Ivri in mirror writing. The caption reads:] A First Temple period weight measure called a 'beka' was unearthed in a City of David excavation in the Davidson Archaeological Park and discovered in the wet sifting project in Jerusalem's Tsurim Valley. (Eliyahu Yanai, City of David) An extremely rare, minuscule biblical stone weight inscribed in ancient Hebrew script with the word "beka" was discovered in rubble taken from excavations at the foundations of the Western Wall. Only a handful of similar stone beka weights have been unearthed in Jerusalem, said archaeologist Eli Shukron... Unlike several hundred years later, during this era, there was no half-shekel coin. Pilgrims brought the equivalent weight, a beka, in silver to pay their tax, which would have been measured out on scales in the very spot under the Temple Mount where the tiny stone weight was unearthed. Shukron said in a press release, "When the half-shekel tax was brought to the Temple during the First Temple period, there were no coins, so they used silver ingots. In order to calculate the weight of these silver pieces they would put them on one side of the scales and on the other side they placed the Beka weight. The Beka was equivalent to the half-shekel, which every person from the age of 20 years and up was required to bring to the Temple." According to the release, the biblical shekel weighed 11.33 grams.... To give you an idea of where that stands halachically, the Rambam's (H' Sheqalim 1:2) 384 se'or. A barleycorn is 0.044 and 0.05 gm, so the Rambam's sheqel would be at least 16.9 gm. Rashi (Shemos 21:32) says that a sheqel is half of a the ounce used in Cologne. Which today we would call .5 troy oz, or 15.55gm. The CI holds it's .51 troy oz (15.86 gm). Once again, the evidence about shiurim from Har haBayis is below even the Rambam's shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:26:21 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:26:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly :> from G-d. : Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or : uses intermediaries. Except that he calls it a neis. It can't both be Divine Intervention AND left to metaphysical mechanics. I mentioned that RDBerger et all never go around back to the first Rambans they discuss to explain what they do mean after all. He does deny teva in the famous comment at the end of parashahs Bo (13:16) (where he refers you back to comments on Beresishis 17:1 and Shemos 6:2). For that matter, he even denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. We have to close the circle somehow. Teva = nisim nistarim. Nistar through allowing patterns, minhago shel olam. ... :> Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern :> of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that :> behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain :> ways. : : I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that : it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow : apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the : behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". (I think this description of the Ramban is the belief most of us leave yeshiva day school with.) : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. Physics does not inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His Action to be hidden by routine. : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim in the usual sense. ... :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : : To the Rambam, as well. To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. To the Ramban, a person who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from Him as needed. Tir'u baTov! -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 llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 27 06:18:44 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:18:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why Didn't The Brothers Tell Yaakov "Yosef is alive"? Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 37:35 35 All his sons and daughters arose to console him, but he refused to accept consolation. He said: I shall go to my grave, mourning for my son. Thus his father wept for him. (?His daughters? probably refers to his daughters-inlaw.) All of them ?arose? to console him. They did not ?go? or ?come?; they ?arose? to console him. ?To arise? in order to perform an act implies that the act is born of resolution, an act one must bring oneself to perform. Until this point, they themselves were immersed in grief. No one feels so much grief as do those who must console a mourner. To see one?s aged father inconsolable, viewing every cheerful thought as a sin, would move even a heartless scoundrel to agonized remorse. He would be too distraught to offer consolation, because he would be in need of consolation himself. But why didn?t any of them attempt to sprinkle soothing balm upon the wound? Why didn?t they reveal to him: ?Yosef is alive!?? The answer: because that would have been the greatest cruelty of all. In the minds of parents, a child who was torn by wild beasts is never lost, but a child who is wicked is worse than lost. Therefore, he who would not aggravate the father?s grief a thousandfold would have to remain silent until the day when Yosef would return and the joy of the reunion would mitigate in the father?s mind even the crime that had been committed by his other sons. Had they told Ya?akov at that time the truth about what had been done to Yosef, Ya?akov would have felt as though he had lost not only one son, but ten sons at one time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 06:39:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gradations of Lifnim miShuras haDin Message-ID: <20181128143951.GA12638@aishdas.org> Surprisingly, not a subject I've thought about before. Apparently, there are different kind of lifnim mishuras hadin callings. See Arukh haShulchan CM 222:8. The SA (se'if 2) talks about the case where someone buys something from one of 5 people, doesn't recall which, and each of them are tov'im for payment. The money is held in escroe by BD until the claimants come to agreement or Eliyahu arrives and sorts it out. And if he is a chassid, he should pay each of them, kedei latzeis yedei Shamayim. The AhS adds: And a chassid adif miyarei Shamayim (YS) because a YS does not want to be mevater his own property in a business matter, and a Chassid is mevater. (Shabbos 120b). Presumably a YS is the person concerned latzeis yedei Shamayim (or else I can't understand the AhS). And this goes on to the case of the yoreish of one of the potential sellers, claiming he would be patur even LYS (Sha"kh, Ramban, Ritva.) Whereas the Qetzos says that while he is patur even LYS, chassid, ra'ui lo la'asos kein mimidas chassidus. So, there seems to be two kinds of lifnim mishuras hadin involved here, and there is a nafqa mina lemaaseh: the YS who is concerned LYS, and the chassid who is pursuing his midas chassidus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 11:48:46 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:48:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Baalus and Chameitz (was: help with 2 sugyot) Message-ID: <20181128194846.GA21056@aishdas.org> On 1 May 2013 (v23n74 ) I replied to a question by RAM with (in part): > But I think the key here is the word "property". I suggested in the past > that there is no such thing in halakhah. (With a probable exception of bal > yeira'eh bal yeimatzei.) There is baalus, but that's a different concept. > Returning to bal yeira'eh as an example... A son does not inherit chameitz > from his father who dies while owning it on Pesach. The issuer hanaah > means a lack of baalus. Even though it's the father's in the sense of > being chameitz she'avar alav haPesach (for the part of Pesach the father > was alive to own it). > As is implied in what RAM writes, baalus is more like custodianship than > what we think of when we hear "property". Which is born out in the word > "baalus" as well. Baalus revolves around control and responsibility, > not an abstract principle of how the world is divided up among people. > My previous thoughts on baalus and qinyan, as shaped by prior conversations > here, are at . Well, Arukh haShulchan Yomi adds another data point -- CM 245:10. Someone gives another a gift and the recipient uses a language of bitul (bitul, mevatel, mevuteles hi, tivateil, etc..) to reject the gift after it reached him, if it's metaltelin, the item is hefqer. The AhS notes the connection to bitul chomeitz that renders it hefqeir. However, he says this is no raayah because chameitz on Pesach isn't in his reshus, it's only made "ke'ilu hi birshuso" by bal yeira'eh. And that's why gilui daata is enough to get the chameitz out of his reshus. But (citing the Ran, beginning of Pesachim), something that is mamash his is different. The AhS concludes that bitul only makes the gift hefqer because it's a gift, but if it were actually his nekhasim, it wouldn't be sufficient. (Now that I wrote all that, I seem to recall someone did along the years mention that bitul chameitz only works because we're talking about quasi-baalus, and not real baalus. But I invested too much to what to skip sending this email now. And besides, I added another maqor.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 28 21:29:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 05:29:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. Message-ID: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to both monetary and spiritual liabilities. I was wondering, according to those who said you can waive the spiritual liability, whether that would also work retroactively (e.g. would somebody escape lashes for less than a penny's worth of damage -if the aggrieved party waived the spiritual damages after the fact of the hit) 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 Nov 30 10:19:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links Message-ID: <20181130181913.GA25124@aishdas.org> Einstein and G-d: http://nautil.us/blog/how-einstein-reconciled-religion-to-science Eistein said things about G-d that appear to contradict -- he both speaks of the Designer of existence and belittles the G-d of religion. Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's -- not emunah in a Borei but our standards, but far from atheism in their self-perception. --- Stephen Colbert explains his faith to Dr Neil de Grasse Tyson https://www.facebook.com/michael.bernstein.86/videos/10100134331341237/ He says that his faith doesn't come from a place of evidence, it comes from gratitude. Until they can explain why we exist rather than not exist, we need some basket to put that gratitude in. A little too Gcd of the Gaps. He could have made the same point using a more Non-overlapping Magesteria approach. IOW, he shouldn't be talking about belief until Dr Tyson and others in his profession can explain why we exist. Rather, he should point out they can't -- "why we exist?" isn't even a scientific question. Science doesn't cover all of human experience. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 18:36:04 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 21:36:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:26 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> RMB : This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > :> from G-d. > > : ZL: Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the > : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas > : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at > : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or > : uses intermediaries. > > RMB: Except that he calls it a neis.... ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' from Hashem than RambaM did. denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: > From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, > all our things and everything that happens to us is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago shel olom. It can't both be Divine Intervention > AND left to metaphysical mechanics. > Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine intervention manipulates but does not undo. The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force .'' > And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits > sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." > > Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. > We have to close the circle somehow. > ... According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". ZL: You are basing a lot on the Ramban using the expression ''hakol begeiras Elyon.'' But that expression, as well as ''neis,'' is no indication of disagreeing with the idea of Hashem intervening and conducting a neis nistar working through intermediaries to manipulate but not undo minhago shel olom. Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim has a chapter on this. And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own through the control of the angels over the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force . And behold the control was /from the time of their coming into being until forever more, *a gezeyras Elyon* [another girsa is Elyonim] that He placed in them/.'' The correct translation of ''gezeyras elyon[im] may even be ''a gezeyra about the upper world(s)/beings/forces,'' with elyon not being a reference to Hashem, just as it obviously is not in the first sentence of this passage. The gezeyas Elyon is what He placed into the forces that produce nature, the minhago shel olom. In the passage where Ramban declares that all that occurs to us is neis and not minhago shel olom or teva, he is contrasting our belief that Hashem, through neis nistar, manipulates minhago shel olom according to our deeds, with that of those who hold that nature runs mechanically with no connection to human behavior. Realizing this answers all that you proceeded to write: > > ...ZL: > : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem > : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... > > RMB: You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. ZL: I cited his repeated explanation of vayehi chein, and now his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12. RMB: [Ramban holds, contra RambaM, that] Physics does not > inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His > Action to be hidden by routine. > > ZL: : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that > : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and > : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of > : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. > > RMB: But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras > Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim > are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? > ZL: This is again your unwarranted inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras Elyon. > > ZL: : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you > : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a > : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much > : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... > > RMB: Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other > says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim > in the usual sense. > > ZL: This is again your inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras > Elyon, which I showed is incorrect. Rambam speaks in terms of Seichel > HaPoel setting up the world's machinery of spheres that influence matters > on earth. Ramban speaks in terms of Hashem creating influencing spheres > controlled by angels. Ramban considers Nature no less an ''it'' than > Rambam. Rambam considers Nature no more an ''it'' than Ramban. > > ... > RMB: :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. > : > ZL: : To the Rambam, as well. > > RMB: To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah > necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. > And RambaN (Devarim 18:13) speaks of Hashem redirecting the normal course of the spheres to act in favor of those who draw close to Him through their avodah. (In fact, Rambam in Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end], too, puts it terms of avodah: "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". According to both, Hashem intervenes to manipulate the machinery of minhago shel olom based upon man's closeness to him. > ZL: : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without > : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? > > RMB: The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is > saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, > he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. > > Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is > hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. ZL: I'll concede that point, although I'm still left with the question that the Rambam refers to minhago shel olom oneshim, too, as the greatest of nissim nistarim. How is abandonment to nature a neis? And he also refers to, for example, the Egyptians being punished for volunteering to fulfill the role of persecutors foretold of in the bris bein habesarim. The plagues were not a mere abandonment to nature... Tsaruch iyun.... > To the Ramban, a person > who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from > Him as needed. > ZL: That's an interesting twist on how to look at oneshim as a chessed. > > Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/03/18, 8:45:33 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban on astrology Devarim 18, 9-13.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2384560 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 4 09:31:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:31:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181204173107.GC16262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 09:36:04PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the :> : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas :> : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at :> : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or :> : uses intermediaries. :> RMB: : Except that he calls it a neis.... : So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar.... Different "it". The Ramban calls everything a neis. The fact that that doesn't imply what you would think if you only looked at those 2 comments doesn't change the fact that to the Ramban, teva is a neis. So: The Rambam acknowledges sekhar va'onesh via neis nistar, for those who earn such HP. (Hashgachah = both sekhar va'onesh.) And yet normal teva is the action of the Seikhel haPo'al, a metaphysical automaton "preprogrammed" by the Borei. The Ramban holds that all of teva is neis nistar, whether it's hashgachah (leshitaso: hashgachah = sekhar), onesh, or minhago shel olam. Again, but in significantly different words: To the Rambam, teva follows minhago shel olam because the Seikha haPo'al has a single mission and lack bechirah. According to the Ramban, teva is a word that means the subset of Divine Action that follows minhago shel olam rather than being selected by HP. I believe you agree that rishonim understand the Rambam's position on teva and the Seikhal haPo'al the way I explained it. I am not clear how you can insist they got it wrong. : ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, : > all our things and everything that happens to us : is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the : manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or : non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day : behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and : everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago : shel olom. Right, but that's not HP. According to both Rambam and the Ramban, not everything that happens to every person is HP. And yet they are all neis. You are also incorrectly deducing from the Rambam's talking about that whih happens to us that he means to exclude things that don't impact human life, such as the growth of a tree in the middle of the Amazon where it possibly effects no one. However, he is saying the Torah is founded on knowing how to view what happens to me personally. Not abstract knowledge about how the world works. That tree in the Amazon isn't on topic. ... : ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling : it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' : from Hashem than RambaM did. Even before we get to our point, not really. According to the Rambam, sekhar is a neis nistar. Onesh is almost always abandonment to teva. (Similarly, to the Rambam on Cheileq, gehenom is kareis is a lack of olam haba, and not suffering in olam haba.) Suffering as onesh is usually just what happens to a human being trying to fight what we would call today the law of increasing entropy. (It's easier to break things than make them.) On rare occasions, there is a Makas Bekhoros, but those are nissim geluyim. After all, leshitas haRambam, sin causes a lack of knowledge of the Borei, and thus a disconnection from Him, and thus a lack of hashpa'ah. HP itself is causal, leshitaso. Just as nevu'ah is causal, and it take a neis for Hashem to hide information from a navi who has enough yedi'ah to be connected up to be able to "look" for it. So, they disagree about whether onesh is HP / neis, even before we get started with our dispute. (Something also mentioned in the shiur from Gush I pointed you to.) :> It can't both be Divine Intervention :> AND left to metaphysical mechanics. : Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem : created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar : v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In : contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine : intervention manipulates but does not undo. And to repeat myself, you're nmistaken. The Rambam has a delegate Hashem gave nature to, and when there is a break from minhago shel olam, Hashem (via mal'akhim, beings higher than the Seikhel haPoal) is intervening. The Ramban does not have such a delegate. When there is a break from minhago shel olam, it's because someone earned Hashem making another kind of decision; another priority rose to the top in (kevayakhol) how He Chooses what to Do. Your reasserting otherwise still doesn't explain why you feel the Abarbanel and Narbonni got him wrong about this idea that a separate seikhel was created to do teva, that just runs minhago shel olam. And in fact, further down you stop denying this and instead argue from the Ramban in Devarim that the Ramban also has such sikhliim. I am not clear where exactly you stand. : The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm : of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each : ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago : shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. Runs like a machine, ie following a minhag. Whereas the Rambam gives it an actual metaphysical machine. : To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing : astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created : the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the : spheres. You are literally quoting a Ramban that says that even though there are kokhavim, mazalos, mal'akhim and sarim which has a nefesh, one cannot worship them or use astrology to tell the future (kesoa'avos hagoyim haheim) because they're only responding to His Will. A navi, who is looking at His Will, can know the future. : ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim : controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and : constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the : stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force : .'' Manhig = controller? : And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that : very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own : through the control of the angels over the spheres. Not on its own. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 04:19:47 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 07:19:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 > From: Micha Berger > > Einstein and G-d: > > ...Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's He said so explicitly ''I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... '' New Times, April 25, 1929, in answer to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/04/18, 7:16:09 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Tue Dec 4 08:24:16 2018 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 18:24:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Tuesday evening) begin Prayer for Rain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Tuesday evening), December 4, 2018, corresponding to the evening of 27 Kislev, 5779, the third night of Chanukka. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: https://www.lookstein.org/professional-dev/veten-tal-u-matar/ (Thanks to Russell Levy for suggesting the article.) In unrelated news, here's what keeps me busy: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/ Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky Post-doctoral Fellow Department of Mathematics Ariel University Ariel 4070000, ISRAEL ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Tue Dec 4 11:25:15 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One clear difference between the Rambam and the Ramban is the value of miracles as evidence; see H. Yesodei HaTorah 8:1 vs. Toras HaShem Temimah Ed. Chavel pp. 146, 150, 152, etc. I think the explanation is hinted at in the Ramban in Shoftim you cited. The Rambam holds that miracles are ad hoc, but the Ramban holds that miracles also follow laws and those laws echo creation. David Riceman Sent from my iPad From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 6 05:32:53 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 13:32:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] seuda shlishit Message-ID: <1c08882303fd4627b3659b0785fb9331@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> It is certainly preferable to either eat bread or stop eating before shekia (or close to it - beyond our present scope). If you partake in a full meal but refrain from bread for a certain reason, leniency has strong grounds. If you are picking at food according to your mood, and even more so if you previously fulfilled seuda shlishit, it is difficult to allow eating as night approaches. (Me- Is this generally followed?) 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 Thu Dec 6 14:45:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:45:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Havdalah or Menorah on Motzai Shabbos Which comes first? Message-ID: Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos - Chanuka? Not a recent question, this situation of competing halachic principles has been the basis of the centuries-old debate regarding which mitzvah has priority and should therefore be performed first. In other words, on Motzai Shabbos Chanuka this annual halachic dispute, simmering since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up... Please see https://goo.gl/oV2gpg YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 7 11:21:41 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 19:21:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: Q. I will be traveling to New York from my home in New Jersey for a Chanukah party at my parents? house and won?t be returning home until late at night. I have the following options: I can light at home at 4:00 PM (which is before sunset); I can appoint an agent (shliach) to light in my house for me at the proper time; I can light at my parents? house; or I can light upon returning home late at night when there are no longer any passersby. What should I do? A. The Mechaber rules that if one will not be able to light the Chanukah candles at the prescribed time, he may light them any time after Plag HaMincha (Shulchan Aruch OC 672:1). Plag HaMincha in the winter is approximately an hour before sunset. However, if one must leave immediately thereafter, it may not be advisable to leave candles unattended. The possibility of using an agent is questionable, since Mishnah Berurah (675:9) rules that when an agent lights for him, the person must stand next to the agent and hear him recite the brachos; obviously, this is not feasible in this case. The third possibility, lighting at one?s parents? home, is not acceptable. One must light where he lives (i.e. the place where he eats and sleeps on a regular basis). Since he does not live in his parent?s home but is merely eating a meal there, he may not light there. One should follow the fourth option and light upon returning home. As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. Therefore, one may light even if it is late and there will be no passersby to see the menorah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 8 17:32:58 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 20:32:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49e62b3e-cb2d-9d77-dbff-c94f400def1e@sero.name> > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit > primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising it, if not to the passersby? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 18:33:18 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:33:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: . Someone quoted the OU's Halacha Yomis: > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. R' Zev Sero asked: > What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising > it, if not to the passersby? I don't think the OU meant to suggest that one isn't yotzay if his family doesn't see the neros. When danger caused us to move the menorah indoors, *everyone* lit indoors. No exceptions were made for those who live alone. It seems clear to me that one is yotzay even if he is the only one to see them lit. Come to think of it, one is yotzay Pirsumei Nisa if no one hears him read the Megilla, or if no one sees him drinking Arba Kosos. Why should Ner Chanuka be different? It is true that the Mishne Berura 672:11 says that if everyone at home is already asleep, then he must either wake someone or light without the bracha. But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants to act like that, we don't stop him." Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 12 21:41:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:41:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music and literature: As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the better strategy? 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 Dec 12 21:44:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? 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 Dec 15 19:22:45 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 22:22:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: <4EBAA25A-8790-4673-AAFF-7E2AC74B5C9A@cox.net> With an extremely unusual exception, all professionals will tell you that the first time your husband assaults you must be the last time. Furthermore the law is clear and unequivocal: Any incidence of a domestic crime must be dealt with by arresting the guilty party, be it husband or wife. I can tell you that any call we get involving a domestic always results in an arrest. Dina D'Malchusa Dina This is the law and we are mandated to follow it. I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve your spouse. Mechila or no mechila, the consequences are serious and the law must be followed. Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 16 11:13:33 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot Message-ID: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of chutz l'aretz. Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? Ben From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 16 12:56:05 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 15:56:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? First thought, just to help the ball rolling. Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? So, there are people actually eating challah in the Rambam's world. Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both being deOraisa. (In particular, it can be taken retroactively; you can eat before hafrashah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Dec 17 08:28:25 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:28:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Asara b'Teves Message-ID: The message of this commemoration is that after the destruction, we must trace its sources and mark its stages; we must look backwards to events that are not earth-shattering and perceive how the seeds of the destruction on the Ninth of Av were planted on the Tenth of Teves. The more we study history, the more we learn that we should not concentrate only on the final act itself, but also on all the stages that led up to it. This also applies to the Holocaust which is probably the worst tragedy in Jewish history. Along these lines we also recite Kaddish on the 10th of Tevet for all those whose date of death is unknown, who perished in the Holocaust. Apparently, the tenth of Teves is "the Day of God" about which many prophets spoke ? the tenth day of the tenth month. (The 10th of Teves is the only fast day that can fall on a Friday). The number ten in kabala is related to the sefira of malkhut, and therefore, the very essence of the day is appropriate to the theme of God's kingship. Chazal teach that at midnight a north wind would blow, rousing King David from his sleep to serve his Creator. It is in the middle of the night, specifically in the depths of the darkest part of the night, that the sovereignty of Israel awakens, and the kingship of God is revealed in the world.May the Kingship of the Almighty finally rule all mankind thus fulfilling the vision of the prophets: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall men learn war anymore; for all men, both great and small shall know the Lord.? Amen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 17 09:09:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:09:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 16/12/18 3:56 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that > : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? > > First thought, just to help the ball rolling. > > Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. I assume Sefardim also, though I don't know this for certain. But the SA certainly says to do so, and only the Rema says the minhag is not to. > They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem > with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump > actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? AFAIK it's got nothing to do with chinuch; the reason it's given to ketanim rather than gedolim is because they have never experienced tum'ah that comes from their own bodies. It can also be given to an adult cohen who has been to the mikveh. The Rema says this is not our minhag because since it's not eaten in EY there is no need for it to be eaten in chu"l. Other acharonim suggest that it's because we have no cohanim meyuchasim, so we're not even certain this child is a cohen in the first place, or because we're worried that the child won't be careful with it and it'll get into people's food, or just that if it's not burned immediately it will somehow find its way to someone who shouldn't eat it. > Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both > being deOraisa. Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan. (Nowadays even chalah of EY is midrabanan, but it has an ikkar min hatorah, whereas in chu"l it's entirely midrabanan.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:25:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:25:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181217172541.GA5532@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:09:38PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both : >being deOraisa. : Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan... Sorry, chalah of crops made from chu"l that were brought into EY are indeed deOraisa, and yes those aforementioned qulos still apply. (Similarly, challah from Israeli grain that was needed in chu"l is only chayav miderabbanan.) 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:14:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181217171454.GA25337@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:33:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the : brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the : opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar : Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants : to act like that, we don't stop him." Going back to the SA (OC 677:3) the mechaber says that *yeish omerim* that if you light at home alone after others have lit there without you, you make the berakhos. Interestingly, the se'if opens "yeish omerim", it's the only opinion quoted. The Rama quote the Mordechai that this is because he is obligated to see the neiros, vekhein nohagim. Ateres Zeqeinim ad loc quotes the Maharash: veyeish cholqin. So, if you want to be machmir to light, (he calls it "rotzeh lahchamir") light without a berakhah. The Maharil says that once you light on your own, you showed you didn't want to be yotzei with the earlier lighting, so you weren't. And that's why it's not a berakhah levatalah. The picture I'm trying to show here is that the discussion about the berakhah appears to be because this is after someone else lit for the home. Not because you're alone. And, if I understand the Mordechai correctly, he appears to be saying that whether or not the purpose of the mitzvah is pirsumei nisah, the actual mitzvah includes just seeing the lights. Perhaps because even internalizing the neis I myself already know about intellectually qualifies as "pirsum". But that's not how R' Moshe discusses it. He simply says that pirsum isn't me'aqeiv. 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 09:05:16 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:05:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] lighting the menora Message-ID: As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. My impression is that most modern poskim certainly in EY disagree and that many/most light outdoors for the public -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 18 09:24:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:24:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Comedy -- is it good for the Jews? In-Reply-To: References: <49f57ed6-82ab-b6eb-2210-00930742efaa@sero.name> <20181211154507.GB6212@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181218172413.GB29597@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:02am EST, R Moshe Y. Gluck replied to me on Areivim in a conversation about a stand up comic at a venue that lost their hekhsher over it: : One can argue that comedy, in it of itself, is assur, independent of : subject matter because of Assur L'maalos Piv Schok B'Olam Hazeh (Berachos : 31a). This gemara makes an interesting contrast to the rather famous gemara (Taanis 22a) about Rabbi Beroqa Choza'ah and Elihahu haNavi in the marke of Bei Lefet. Elihahu points out two beduchei as among those there who would merit olam haba, eiuther because they chear up the depressed or bring peace to those arguing. Given the first "i nami" in Taanis, where's the chiluq to be drawn? Another problem I have understandign the gemara in Taanis. The market in question was full of Jews. (Another person Eliyahu pointed out was noted for not dressing like one, but turned out to be employed by the prison system and he protected the women in his jail.) And "kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq". So why are just these people being pointed out as being "bar alma de'asi"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:28:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:28:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. In-Reply-To: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182837.GA18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:29:12AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability : (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to : both monetary and spiritual liabilities... Does it work at all? You can be mochel nezeq when it's mamon, but corporeal? Wouldn't Shim'on be a rasha for lifting his hand to Re'uvein either way? Related: Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? 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 micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:34:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:34:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] culture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181219183447.GB18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:41:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music : and literature: :> As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even :> the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from :> the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness :> of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. : My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the : better strategy? It has to be slower, when you think you haven't yet assimilated culture and you're trying to hold the line, than when you consciously choose to have a strategy with regard to acculturation, and expect the line to move. One will only have unconscious motion, the other will have conscious change as well. So for the masses, it means less assimilation. Then we have to ask if cultural assumilation is a bad thing. Does Hashem not want us to sing our tefillos to the kosher elements of the sound of our era? Is there a Jewish aesthetic to begin with? Way deep wading in this issue. However, for the yechidim who realize it's going on and that everyone is fooling themselves.... I see a big OTD risk as cynicism is bound to creap in, as well as (including?) a loss of respect for any authority figures who are fooled or caught blindfolding others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:20:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:20:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? In-Reply-To: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182054.GA6255@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting : the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), : animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get : no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) This is the end of OC 1:1. (AhS Yomi for 4th. Yes, cycle 2 is starting in just 4+ months! The first Tur for the AhS to write on was CM, which is why you find the haqdamah there. So "beginning" was ambiguous. Or I'm just a nitpicker.) : Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is : it equivalent of free will? .... I took the se'if to mean that angels have no YhR and therefore lack free will. Animals have no *capacity for* knowledge, and therefore couldn't possibly have a YhT, and thus also no bechirah. Only people, caught in tention between YhR and (properly applied?) da'as have bechirah, and that's why only we get both reward and punishment. : The dogs being : rewarded for not barking? There is an interesting implication from the AhS that animals do get sekhar, and angels do get oneshim. Perhaps it makes sense even without presuming they have bechirah if we take a causal approach to sekhar va'onesh. The animal that does the right thing, even through no credit of its own, is still thereby a superior being than before. Especially if it is more likely to repeat behavior done once (or more likely to refrain if refrained once). And similarly in the reverse, for angels that fail. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Dec 19 22:03:14 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 01:03:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: >I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >your spouse. Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? From isaac at balb.in Wed Dec 19 22:57:07 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:57:07 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Re Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2CC046A4-B9E6-4853-A683-179A213256CC@balb.in> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu---theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively more authentic version of the next Baal HaMesora. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Dec 20 08:12:18 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:12:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You are asking a loaded question so I will have to answer it on a few layers. First of all, I?m not sure what YOU mean by a verbal assault. The legal definition of assault varies from state to state but generally: Simple assault is an attempt to do a serious bodily harm to another person, or actually committing an act to put another in fear of serious bodily injury. Simple assault is usually classified as a misdemeanor. So if by verbal assault, a husband or wife (without touching each other), puts the other in fear of being hurt, then it meets the criteria of a crime (misdemeanor) and in most states mandates an arrest. With that scenario, yes, I would say the same for a spouse who verbally assaults the other. What most lay people confuse assault with is a BATTERY which is any unlawful offensive physical contact with another person, with or without his or her consent. ... Unlike the crime of assault, battery requires that actual contact is made, while assault charges can be brought with only the threat of violence. Though it may seem extreme to say that you don?t deserve your spouse if you commit a simple assault or battery, our own sages have said that if your wife burns your food, you have every right to divorce her. I think it boils down to the specifics and whole picture of each case. I believe your question may have meant what if a spouse speaks disparagingly to his/her spouse. In other words, what if a husband demeans his wife and calls her stupid or ugly, etc. My feeling is that you are dealing with the tip of the iceberg and most likely you have a bad marriage and a dysfunctional relationship. > On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: > > >> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >> your spouse. > > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 20 12:31:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:31:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181220203131.GB27441@aishdas.org> On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: :> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who :> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve :> your spouse. : > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? Hezeq and onaas devarim are different issurim. But they both are forms of harm recognized by halakhah. (Maybe I mean all three are recognized: hezeq haguf and hezeq mamon are different things, with different dinim.) And if the ona'as devarim gets to the point of halvanas panim, it's compared to retzichah. BM 58b lumps OD and pinning a nickname on someone together with eishes ish as sins that cause gehennom to be permanent ("sheyordim ve'ein olim") and ein lo cheileq le'olam haba (59a). And of course, "noach lo le'adam shayapil es atzmo lekivshan ha'eish, be'al yalbin penei chaveiro." (Mar Zutra, BM 59a) Which is taking seriously, not exageration, in discussions of yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. So to ammend my first paragraph, verbal abuse is far MORE vilified by the din than hezeq. I would consider answering: lo kol shekein! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 20 21:43:37 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:43:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer Message-ID: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From a write-up on borer and peelers: "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] Me-1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex county, us, world...............) 2.Is a sieve a sophisticated fork??? 3.No doubt that minhag yisrael includes many who do it-it's just not clear to me how that developed (i.e a priori first principles seem to lead to prohibition) - perhaps a good example of mimetic tradition? 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:22:47 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:22:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: <> Indeed I am always bothered by those who claim that they are not influenced at all but outside culture. Even if not directly we are all influenced by outside forces. There is no such thing today as Jewish music since anything the leviim sang has been lost. Living in Israel sefardi music is much different than ashkenazi music simply because Arabic music is different than Hungarian music. Anyone who learns Rambam is influenced at some level by Greek philosophy. Read rishonim on the reasons for dina demalchuta and compare it to the old defenses of the rights of kings - just happen to be identical. Many rishonim were familar with secular philosophy and even the Ramah knew philosophy. In spite of appearances Chatam Sofer had a broad background and spoke German. All of this without referring to RAL who has a spirited defense of much (certainly not all) of modern literature and parts of modern culture. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:30:25 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:30:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports Message-ID: << Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? >> Certainly mechila works on some level. There are stories of RAL in his younger years playing basketball with the students. Once a student complained that it wasn;t fair because they could not block their rebbe. RAL answered that in playing ball not to treat him as a rebbe. Certainly we are talking about minor contact and not severe wounding Kibud Av ve- Em is a step beyond ordinary treatment of others especially causing a loss of blood. From what I have seen the standard psak is that a doctor should preferably not treat a parent for anything requiring incisions or blood. However, for anything serious that the child is better than others than certainly, he is the doctor of choice. I recall that RMF allows cosmetic surgery only foord "god reasons". This incliudes feeling embarrased by one's appearance and also improvements especially for women for shidduch persons. I assume he would not be happy with various facial "improvements" for senior citizens -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Thu Dec 20 17:33:08 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 12:33:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively better version of the next Baal HaMesora. From mcohen at touchlogic.com Fri Dec 21 06:48:04 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:48:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma Message-ID: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means increase. Therefore not 'blessed is the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever' (artscroll) but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his kingdom be increased forever. His source is olas tamid (which I don't have), and iyun tefilah (which I looked up and I cant find this mentioned) Is this the kavanah that you are all having when you say krias shma? mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:10:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:10:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <20181221151048.GA23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 09:48:04AM -0500, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: : R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means : increase. ... : but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his : kingdom be increased forever. I am vague enough on the translation of the English word "blessed" that translating "barukh" for "blessed" is trading one unknown for a bigger one. As for my own kavanah (when I stop to have one): May the public perception (or: reputation) of the significance (or: importance) of His rule-by-public-acclimation be increased eternally without stop. Explanation: Sheim is name, which would be how others perceive something. Hashem's sheim is thus how He seems to people, which could be reputation and/or perception. Kavod shares spelling with kaveid, heaviness. (We'll discuss livers some other time.) And thus we give honor to significant "weighty" matters. Like massive things, we don't trivially push them around. And so I think of kavod as honor more in terms of significant and important than glory. Ein melekh belo am -- unlike a mosheil, what makes a melekh a melekh is the acceptance of the governed. The Gra has a whole piece on Melekh vs Mosheil and "umosheil bagoyim", until the day when "vehayah Hashem leMelekh". "Malkhusekha malkhus kol olamim umemshaletekha bekhol dor vador." Notice in that last pasuq, malkhus is framed in terms of "kol olamim", and here it's "le'olam va'ed". Le'olam -- for as long as there's an olam. Va'ad -- note the shoresh of "ad", until the missing end. There is another kind of Eternity. Hashem Himself is lemaalah min hazman. Not eternal in the sense of existing for an infinite amount of time, but in the sense that the concept of time doesn't apply. However, His Sheim is a product of us relating to Him, and thus within time -- as long as there is an "am" for Hashem to be Melekh of. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Dec 21 07:35:02 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:35:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <892aea1f-7804-ca75-2a17-2b632b2d08f7@sero.name> On 21/12/18 9:48 am, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: > One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod > malchuso lolam vaaed > > How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. > > R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch > means increase. I don't think this is perush hamilim. It's an additional facet that can add to the value of kavana, but is not required. Another facet is that "baruch" can mean to extend, as in "hamavrich es hagefen", so a bracha represents bring the shefa from the higher worlds to this one. An important thought, but one who doesn't have it in mind, or is even entirely unaware of it, has still said shma properly. Also, sheim is not *just* how others see one; ones name is connected directly to ones essence, as we see from the fact that when someone has fainted we use their name to call them back. But it is mostly used for others, just as malchus is how one relates to others, i.e. dibbur, shechina, reflecting what is going on inside one to the outside world, and yet it remains one of the essential attributes of a personality, and thus it is also one of the sefiros which those attributes reflect. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:34:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:34:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer In-Reply-To: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181221153420.GB23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 05:43:37AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From a write-up on borer and peelers: : : > "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are : > "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] : : 1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex : county, us, world...............) I could understand why the peel normally being eaten might mitigate boreir, as there is no pesoles. But how does it change the status of the peeler? In any case, the AhS (OC 391:22, but the discussion starts at se'if 19 ) only talks about peeling lots of (harbeih) garlic or onions, where he accepts the fact that it is boreier, despite being confused about how it even caqn be borer. There is a clear gemara (Beitza 13b) that says that Ravs and Rav Chiyya's wives would peel barley for them on Shabbos. And the AhS wants to know why garlic or onion would be any different. He therefore concludes that the issur isn't peeling, but the separating of the peels once they're mixed into in the heap. He explains the BY's source Y-mi accordingly. I should point out that when I was a child, no one I knew identified peeling as a form of boreir. Seems it may have been beshitah, and not ignorance. The AhS also talks (se'if 9) about non-mixtures, items that are nir'im la'ayin, like clothes, keilim and books. I do not know what he means by keilim, picking out forks from a jumble in the drawer? I bring this up because this issue was also something I didn't hear of until YU. Seems to me boreir grew a lot when the MB became "poseiq acharon" for all y'all. (Minus Sepharadim, of course, who limit boreir to literal okhel, IIUC.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 10:14:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:14:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20181221181420.GA18815@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:33:08PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the : Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, : whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of : Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic : tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- : performing Masoretic acts and decisions... I am not sure we are correctly using the word "mimetic" when discussing the unconscious copying norms and aborbing the culture of such a small "community" as that of posqim. However, if I understand what you mean correctly, I wrote something similar on Torah Musincs, where I tried to nail down what RYBS and RHS mean by the term "Mesorah". Teasers, as they state my point without proving basis: The word "masorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. ... For regular pesak too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from texts. Kara veshanah velo shimeish talmid chacham, harei zeh am ha'aretz.... If he read scripture and studied law, but did not serve a talmid chacham, such a person is an am haaretz (an ignorant peasant). - Sotah 22a ... Similarly, a poseik needs to pick up that feel, and not only the formal rules. He needs the unstructured knowledge of halakhah. Consider this rather poetic description of how the Rav experienced his shiur, entering the dialog of Torah through the ages as he joins his students in the classroom. Notice how he winds up by discussing this experience as "masorah": ... ... In an article in Jewish Action, Rav Schachter provides his definition of the word. He opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. ... The Rav identifies masorah as the ineffable skill to think like a poseik. Masorah is a skill obtained from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in a culture of mimeticism. ... Without masorah, the poseik has no way of determining which solutions to new problems are in concert with the spirit of previous rulings. Halakhah is not frozen; it does not have inertia, but it does have momentum. Apprenticeship, training under a master, transmits the feel for where the halakhah has historically been taken. Following reasoning found in a minority ruling is appropriate only when one is motivated by the Torah's own principles. The person who speaks halakhah as a first language knows when an innovative change is within "poetic license", and when the result simply violates the Torah's "grammar." As R. Yochanan quotes in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah - the apprenticeship of Torah is greater than its study". :-)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 llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 21 11:29:00 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 19:29:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Is_it_forbidden_to_teach_Torah_to_one_w?= =?windows-1252?q?ho_has_not_said_birchas_ha=92Torah=3F?= Message-ID: I wonder how this applies to restaurants. How are they allowed to serve people who do not make brachas before eating? YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Is it forbidden to teach Torah to one who has not said birchas ha?Torah? A. In regards to birchos ha?nehenin (brachos recited on food), there is a concept that one is not permitted to give someone food if the recipient will not recite a bracha. Offering food to one who will not recite a bracha is a violation of ?lifnei iver lo sitain michshol? (enabling one to stumble) (See Shulchan Aruch OC 169:2). However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l (Minchas Shlomo 1:91) writes that this does not apply to teaching Torah to one who did not recite birchas ha?Torah. Birchas ha?Torah is a birchas ha?mitzvah. Though birchos ha?mitzvos are obligatory, we do not find that Chazal forbade the performance of a mitzvah if a bracha is not recited. He notes that not studying Torah (bitul Torah) is a more serious offense than omitting the bracha. If possible, one should instruct those who have come to learn Torah how to recite the bracha, but if this is not practical, one should teach them Torah in any event. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 17:26:16 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:26:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Angels and Requests Message-ID: . In the Friday night poem "Shalom Aleichem", we ask the mal'achim to give us a bracha. We've often mentioned here that some people avoid this poem because it is either similar to avoda zara, or perhaps might actually BE avoda zara. I call your attention to the morning's parsha, Bereshis 48:16, the pasuk "Hamal'ach hagoel osi." Yaakov Avinu refers to a particular mal'ach and asks that this mal'ach should give a bracha to Yosef's sons. At first glance, this seems to be very similar to Shalom Aleichem. How is this justifiable, in the view of those who consider Shalom Aleichem to be problematic? I came up with two possible answers, and I invite the chevra to critique them, and/or suggest other answers. 1) Perhaps the halachos of avoda zara were less restrictive in those pre-Sinai days, and making requests to a mal'ach was okay for Yaakov but not for us. I suppose this is possible, but the centrality of Monotheism to the avos, it would surprise me. 2) I note that in the immediately preceding pasuk, Yaakov addressed Hashem. If so, then maybe Yaakov was not asking the mal'ach directly for a bracha the way we do in Shalom Aleichem. Rather, he was speaking directly to Hashem, asking Hashem that the mal'ach should give the bracha. This would solve the problem of "Who was Yaakov praying to?", but not the problem of "Where do brachos come from?" If the mal'ach is capable of giving a bracha, that too smacks of avoda zara, doesn't it? All comments are welcome. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 03:08:38 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 06:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bircas Kohanim when when the Shaliach Tzibbur is a kohen Message-ID: . On Areivim, R' Sheldon Liberman asked: > I heard over Shabbos that in chutz l'aretz, during the chazzan's > repetition at shacharis, if the chazzan is a kohen, then during > bircas kohanim, there is an opinion that the tzibbur should > answer "Amein" rather than "Kein y'hi ratzon". > > Has anyone heard this? The critical words here are "there is an opinion". It seems reasonable that somewhere in a vast library of seforim, there might be a sefer that suggests such a thing. Whether anyone actually does this is another matter entirely. I don't remember ever hearing anyone actually do this. I'd even argue against it. It makes about as much sense as if one would answer "amen" during the third stanza of "Shalom Aleichem". In both cases we are asking for a bracha, but in neither case have we actually heard any bracha on which to answer "amen". (When we answer "kein yehi ratzon", it means "please give us that bracha" and not "I believe in that bracha which You gave".) Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 26 08:49:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:49:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shul Message-ID: Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points out. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 27 11:49:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:49:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Amoraic statements Message-ID: Anyone know of any writings on how to think about Amoraic statements that are not sourced but very basic (i.e., why weren't they recorded earlier)? Two quick examples: 1.) Shmuel - dina dmalchuta dina (the law of the land controls), 2.) Rav-Tisha achlu dagan vechad achal yerek-mitztarphin.(9 who ate grain and 1 who ate greens combine[for a zimmun of 10]} 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 Dec 27 11:50:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:50:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sukkah Yeshana Message-ID: <0ba366bf435347f8ac060c596a575ca0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The Mishna in Sukkah (9a) discusses Sukkah Yeshana which one would have thought meant an old sukkah (schach) yet the discussion in the gemara indicates that it is an issue of lishma (intent). Why didn't the Mishna use the language of lishma? The gemara then posits a pasuk as the source of Beit Shammai's position, then asks doesn't he need that pasuk for something else, and replies ein hachi name (yes) and so quotes another pasuk instead. What was the point of Ravina/Rav Ashi including the rejected pasuk as part of the record? 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 seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Dec 30 09:44:16 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:44:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, etc. Message-ID: > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on > Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me > Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. > Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points > out. That's not why they talk. They talk because they saw their parents or other adults talk. They learned that talking is perfectly acceptable. The fact that the Shul has not followed the Mishna Berura and appointed people to end the talking merely reinforces the talkers' understanding that talking is OK. It's like asking why people cheat on their taxes. They don't cheat because they're greedy. We're all greedy. But the tax-cheaters don't have a red line. I admit sometimes the davvening is too long for me, and I get restless. But I never talk. And bli neder I won't davven in a shul where there are talkers, even if it's the only shul in town. Ruins it for me. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 18:45:48 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 21:45:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine posted: > Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because > davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there > are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people > get restless. If there were people who can keep quiet during the weekday minyanim, and only talk on Shabbos, then I would consider it to be a reasonable explanation. But in my experience, the same people talk regardless. If someone talks during a weekday maariv, then shaving twenty minutes off of the Shabbos morning won't prevent his restlessness. The authors of the linked article suggested: > Not talking until the conclusion of Chazaras HaShatz, including > the time between when we finish our silent Amidah and we are > waiting for the chazzan, is doable, it is realistic, it is a > fair expectation of those attending and it is the minimum to be > respectful of our friends and neighbors. Sadly, IMO that's not doable, and not realistic. I'd like to think that I'd be satisfied if they'd be quiet merely from when we finish our silent Amidah until the chazan begins. THAT is a minimum for being respectful of our friends and neighbors. They don't even have to be silent for a noticeable improvement. Halevai they would hold it down to a whisper. (And it doesn't count as a whisper if they can be heard 20 feet away.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 03:22:36 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 06:22:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: I should have concluded my previous post with this: Despite my pessimistic tone, I praise those who are working towards a solution. I have seen many corrective attempts fail, but that doesn't mean there's no way to fix it. Talking in shul is a serious problem, and I apologize if my frustration made it sound otherwise. Akiva Miller From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Oct 3 08:32:16 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 11:32:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: <1db301d45b2e$43dda750$cb98f5f0$@com> Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz? (not sepharadim) I was surprised to see it done. Sources? Thanks, 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/ ======= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 2 22:30:47 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 01:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3e882718-3c29-80fa-6211-ff7172a97fba@sero.name> On 30/09/18 14:13, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. I think you meant the Ramban. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 23:18:08 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 09:18:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:23 AM Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. So > go figure out how /he/ understands the idea that 2 were not taught via > Moshe. > According to the Rambam, the first diber _is_ one of the 613, and this gemara is his proof text -- see Sefer Hamitzvot Mitzvot Ase #1. Assuming that "Rambam" is a typo for "Ramban", see his hassaga on the Sefer Hamitzvot. Ramban holds that the second diber includes two of the 613 (don't make idols; don't worship them). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Wed Oct 3 00:23:19 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:23:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:43:14 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine" > From Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra ... >> In 1921 the great bibliographer (and much more) Yitzchak Rivkind >> .... On Simchas Torah they would open the Aron Kodesh >> when saying Aleinu, both at night and during the day, and while singing >> the Niggun of Mussaf of Yom Kippur would bow on the floor exactly like >> we do on Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur. When he asked for the source of >> this Minhag he was told it comes from the Gra... Interesting. The Robshitse Rov had a similar practice, falling on his face during the hakofos. (It is reported that one year, after bowing during hakofos [the first time?], he commented that only he and his son Yaakov [of Melits] understand the secret. After Yom Tov, it became known that R' Yaakov too had participated in this rite.) (Another story tells of how the grandson of the Kosnitse Maggid, R' Elo'ozor, spoke lightly of this minhag [made fun?] to the Robshite Rov's son, R' Eliezer of Dzikhov, whereupon R' Eliezer protested vehemently, saying all his father's customs have a very high source. On his return, R' Elozor's wagon tipped and he was thrown out of his carriage, falling, as we do on Yom Kippur, on his face. He saw this as a retribution for having spoken lightly of the minhag.) From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Oct 3 09:16:33 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:16:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra Message-ID: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 01:17 PM 9/30/2018, R. Zalman Alpert wrote: >The kluiz of the GRaA in Vilna was essentially the only place in Vilna >and all of Lithuania that followed minhage HAgra to the kotzo shel yud >Chaim Grade a lost talmid of the Chazon Ish and a Vilna native mentions >this in his wonderful novels about shil life in Vilna > >Because the Jslm settlement in early 19th cen was started by disciples >of the GRAthe Rivlins,etc these minhogim becamr and remain the standard >for at least the yishuv hayoshen of Jslm and beyond that group > >And thats how we know these customs in realism rather than from seforim >The Litthuanian yrshivas did not follow these customs nor did kohol,and >certainly not the chassidim of Lithuania who after WwI played an impt >role in Jew rel life in greater lita including Vilna My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and are practiced by many there. Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the Torah? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 3 14:51:19 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 17:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For > example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the > Torah? Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim of the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 14:46:37 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:46:37 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >are practiced by many there. >Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >Torah? It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the original Minhag. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 3 15:32:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:32:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading : the Torah? While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does make a similar point. ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. 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 JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 3 15:42:28 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 22:42:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. > _______________________________________________ This is a description of the fact but not an explanation of why this was a halachically acceptable result (ie where is this exception to the minhag hamakom rule) Kt Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 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 Wed Oct 3 15:54:51 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <16705774-1a3c-c42c-0f78-317676dc6114@sero.name> On 03/10/18 17:46, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >> My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >> practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >> find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >> are practiced by many there. > >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >> Torah? > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. That is a different issue, and one that was once controversial and that one can still question. Here the issue is much simpler, because when Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 18:16:02 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:16:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> Message-ID: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. Because if there was, each returnee would have to adopt the Minhag Hamakom the moment he hit an inhabited city. In contrast, there were no religious Jews left in England after the expulsion, so the newcomers can (and should) follow their old minhagim. The same would presumably apply when Jews started coming back to Spain a few decades back, and unlike Moroccans in France a few decades before. But, as I wrote before, it seems that the Minhag is to follow whatever Minhagim you were used to, especially if you have enough landsmen to create a breakaway community. On October 3, 2018 2:51:19 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading >the >> Torah? > >Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim >of >the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they >now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those > >minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed >the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably >French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? > >-- >Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all >zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you >prosper >_______________________________________________ >Avodah mailing list >Avodah at lists.aishdas.org >http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 21:54:40 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 21:54:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 3, 2018 3:32:20 PM PDT, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. What does he hold about Sefardim moving to France or Germany (which had a continuity - Germany going back well, at least a thousand years and France, while it had a break, did have a religious Ashkenazi community before and after the war). On October 3, 2018 3:54:51 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >o Here the issue is much simpler, because when >Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local >minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in >England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed >them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, >there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to >adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 4 06:19:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:19:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. _______________________________________________ The gemara (Bava Metziah 83b) discusses what hours a worker gets paid for based on the Torah "standard." The gemara queries why not just find out what local practice is? The first answer is it's a case of a new city which was nkutai. Rashi defines nkutai as meaning its residents came from multiple other cities, with multiple other practices. Perhaps this is a model for minhag? New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care what we do? 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 Thu Oct 4 10:17:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:17:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181004171737.GA32625@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:19:57PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a : preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard : for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care : what we do? BM 83b is talking about norms for business, which is likely an entirely different use of the word "minhag" than in issur veheter. For example, when we say "minhag mevatel halakhah" in CM discussions, we are relying on the presumption that both parties would take compliance to local business norms for granted, and a deal can have any conditional both parties agree on. In this CM sense of minhag, there is no reason to assume that halakhah would have problems with other norms emerging, since they are based on the agreement of all parties. But that's a whole different topic than Ashk vs Seph differences in the other 3 Turim, which is where we started. That's minhag in the sense of: 1- Rgional pesaq when other regions hold differently (eg bet yosef meat); or 2- Extra-halachic accepted prohibitions or obligations (eg avoiding qitniyos). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 09:16:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:16:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: <20181003205226.GC17060@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181004161626.GF25881@aishdas.org> Moving this from Areivim. On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 4:28pm -0700, Rabbi Meir Rabi wrote on Areivim: : The Beis Hamikdash wasn't inclusive. More than that, (according to some : opinions) there were professions which weren't obligated to do Aliyah : LeRegel because they smelled bad and couldn't be Oleh Regel with everyone. The beraisa (Chullin 4a) says that dog fertilizer gatherers, tanners and copper smiths are "peturin min hare'iyah". The Rambam tells them get get cleaned up and go (Hil' Chagiga 2:2), the Mechaber (Kesef Mishnah ad loc) explaining that we hold like the Rabanan, not that beraisa. But even if we held like that beraisa that's whether they have a petur for not coming, not an issur to come. In fact, inclusivity might be the whole reason /why/ the Rabanan don't hold like the beraisa. But lo ra'isi eino ra'ayah, so to speak, so naniach someone else does take a harder line, what would that mean? Kehunah is not inclusive of all baalei mum. But attending... The BHMQ is inclusive on the basis of things not dependent on the person's own decisions. No one, not even a nakhri child of an eishes ish, is excluded by virtue of who he is. (In the nakhri's case, up to the soreg, but still, that's true of all nakhriim.) You're talking about someone excluded because of what they chose to do. (Again, given said "some opinions".) Admittedly, too many people lack options. But someone who really wants to be oleh regel who is still forced by circumstance to an unpleasant job would choose a different one. Or beg, if they value aliyah laregel more than the protection from sin offered by "yafeh salmud Torah im derekh eretz". My point is, it's a choice, and not the same kind of exclusion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call micha at aishdas.org life which is required to be exchanged for it, http://www.aishdas.org immediately or in the long run. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:46:34 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:46:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <1b84de96-ba9a-be08-b14f-3941c6ca49ec@sero.name> On 03/10/18 21:16, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the > Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. No, there was not. The First and Second Crusades utterly destroyed the communities that had survived the Roman and Arab occupations, and the communities that started resettling EY in the Ramban's day were all immigrants who brought their chu"l minhagim with them, including the minhagim of paskening like the Bavli, keeping two days of Rosh Hashana, and not benching lulav when the first day of Succos falls on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:51:23 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:51:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0f6cfe7e-6504-98a8-c784-c122f84a59ca@sero.name> On 03/10/18 18:32, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? > : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading > : the Torah? > > While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY > community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does > make a similar point. > > ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to > switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. > He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old > minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi > Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 4 12:10:49 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:10:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rabbi wrote: 'When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways.' Agreed. Yerushalayim didn't have continuity as we know via the Ramban finding less than a minyan there when he arrived, but Chevron AFAIK had continuity from Chazal to 1929. I think Teverya did too. The museum of the old yishuv in the Old City refers to the 'mustarvim' as one of the communities in 19th century Jlem, those who were culturally pretty Arab and claimed descent from the pre-crusades community. For more info this wikipaedia page: History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel is well footnoted. So if there's well documented continuous Jewish presence and even communities in EY throughout, how did the SA set minhagim in EY such that ROY held they were obligatory on new arrivals? What happened to pre-existing customs? Or is it that the disruption and wax and wane of communities over EY with continuous small scale aliya meant there was no such such thing as minhag hamakom? Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 14:48:15 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 17:48:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181004214815.GD14160@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:10:49PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not : countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume : such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? I think it has more to do with communication and transportation changes than a change in principle. The new metzi'us is that we're much more aware of what people five towns over are doing. On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 02:51:23PM -0400, Zev Sero replied to my post: : >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to : >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. : >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old : >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi : >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. : But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his : whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all : the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there : were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument : works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? Well, you might have a question about Edot haMizrach, but EY? Didn't you just write about how the Jewish settlement of EY in the 15th cent wasn't all that dense? But I don't think this is relevent, anyway. Let's say they were wrong to take their minhagim with them. Even if the change in minhag was wrong, the normal practice in EY did indeed change. Unlike the situation once that norm was lost and no new consistent minhag emerged (on all but a few issues). So, I could see ROY saying that right or wrong about its establishment, the SA's minhag still stands as the minhag hamaqom. OTOH, invoking the SA means that he is bringing a textual component to the establishment of minhag. IIRC, ROY frames it in terms of the fact that the SA was written in EY, not that the Mechaber got there due to one of the first large yishuv in centuries, nor the yishuv itself. So perhaps we need to know more about ROY's model of minhag before spending so much time on guesses like the one above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 20:13:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 23:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem Message-ID: On Areivim (subject line same as here), several people have bemoaned how difficult it is to use a wheelchair (and many other assistive devices) in the Old City in general, and the Kotel area in particular. In terms of absolute, quantifiable, objective fact, I can't imagine how anyone could dispute that. I am bringing the topic to Avodah in order to discuss what our feelings and attitudes should be towards this situation. Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I often remark that we are fortunate to live in a time when the technology has allowed us such efficient wheelchairs. Our economy has allowed us to make building codes that require ramps and such, which would have been laughably expensive just a few decades back. Ditto for "kneeling buses" and the like. But it seems to me that you don't need technology or wealth to realize that if the shul is built at a median altitude, it will be easier for *everyone*. And yet Chazal thought it is a better idea to make the shul look impressive. Surely I'm missing something here. Can someone please set me straight? Thanks Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 19:04:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 22:04:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim > on chol hamoed in chutz la?aretz? (not sepharadim) > I was surprised to see it done. > Sources? I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 21:10:16 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 00:10:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/18 15:10, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > > Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not > countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to > assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Perhaps the first post-Talmudic book on halacha was a booklet on the differences between minhag EY and minhag Bavel. So the concept of minhag EY goes back to at least the time of the geonim. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 05:01:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:01:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna?s instruction[1] and codified by the Shulchan Aruch,[2] world Jewry started reciting ?Gevuros Geshamim B?Tchiyas HaMeisim?, better known as the formulaic insert ?Mashiv HaRuach U?Morid HaGashem?, in the second bracha of Shemoneh Esrei. This addition, showcasing the Might of G-d by mentioning the fact that He is the only One who has the power and ability to make rain, is considered so imperative that one who forgets to insert it must repeat the whole Shemoneh Esrei.[3] As there are no vowels in the Gemara or Shulchan Aruch, an interesting question arises: what is the proper way to pronounce the Hebrew word for rain (???) in this sentence? Is it Ge shem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel; eh sound) or is it Ga shem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel; uh sound)? Although the word for rain is pronounced Ge shem when saying the word by itself, still, its proper pronunciation might be changed when part of a sentence. Contemporary halachic authorities used various rules of Hebrew Grammar (dikduk) to come up with the proper solution. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 5 05:28:54 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:28:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 8:01 AM >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 >> On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction... With all due respect for the many great g'dolim who weighed in on this issue and came up with explanations about what the proper pronunciation should be, they came late in the game, after grammarians had already started changing the pronunciation. The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 07:37:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 10:37:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:01:40PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 I have yet to see a discussion that starts at the beginning. Bemechilas kevod everyone who holds "gashem", and who am I to argue against the Gra, the Netziv, the CC, R' Aharon Kotler, R YS Elyashiv, or Rav Moshe? But this article gets closer, by mentioning Sepharadim and the Levushei Mordekhai. Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:28:54PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : they came late in the game, after grammarians had already : started changing the pronunciation. : The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the : rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, : Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be : no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. But this doesn't prove that our mesorah was necessarily that there was a significan pause after "umorid hagashem". Yes, the Teimanim say "Jafen" on wine, and yet still say "geshem" here with a segol. Their mesorah is that is is not a pause. But for Ashkenazim, those older manuscripts do not prove whether or not there is a pause, since the diqduq they used would have "geshem" either way. As for Nusach haAri, Lubavitch's Alter Rebbe liked R Wolf Heidenheim's (Ravah's) siddur and diqduq, so his Nusach Ari was one of the early adopters of these language innovations. Interestingly, this means that most Ashkneazim today are davening in a nusach that is primarily a haskalisher attempt to reconstruct an authentic nusach, that is based on some ahistorical assumptions of what "authentic" was, to boot. And R/Dr Mandel is the only person I know who unwound that shift from Mishaic to Biblical Hebrew across all of davening. Unless you're willing to take that drastic step ("sabe'einu mituvakh, vesamcheinu biyshu'asakh"), saying "geshem" when most of your Hebrew is Mishnaic could something different than it did in those manuscripts, depending if a pause was intended. And, depending on whether the phrase might even be an exception to the usual rules of diqduq. (See R Spitz's article.) We simply can't know. R' Spitz concludes: Postscript: This is just one of a number of places where the majority consensus of Poskim maintain that dikduk decides the proper reading of tefillos.[30] Although many Gedolim through the ages spoke about dikduk's importance,[31] unfortunately its study at present is much neglected. In the words of Rabbi Yisroel Reisman in his excellent book Pathways of the Prophets:[32] "The myth of the lack of importance of (at least) a minimal amount of knowledge of dikduk must be dispelled. This is an area where a small amount of time and effort go a long way. Let's do it!" But to some up this post, we also need to know *which* diqduq. To provide the footnotes for that last quote: [30] See at length Rabbi Yisroel Reisman's Pathways of the Prophets, "Rules of Dikduk" starting on pg. 312. [31] For example see the Rambam's Peirush HaMishnayos (Avos Ch. 2, 1), Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim 142, 1), Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah (Ch. 5, 3), Shu"t Chavos Yair (124), Shu"t Sheilas Ya'avetz (vol. 1, 10), and Bnei Yisaschar (Introduction to Igra D'Kallah and Mayon Ganim 13, 6), all cited in the aforementioned chapter. [32] Pathways of the Prophets (pg. 325). L'iluy Nishmas the Rosh HaYeshiva - Rav Chonoh Menachem Mendel ben R' Yechezkel Shraga, Rav Yaakov Yeshaya ben R' Boruch Yehuda, and l'zchus for Shira Yaffa bas Rochel Miriam and her children for a yeshua teikef u'miyad! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Fri Oct 5 07:14:32 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:14:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An interesting discussion on this is given here by Dr Shnayer Lehman https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm YUTorah Online Online study of the Jewish holidays, Parsha, Halakha and Talmud by Yeshiva University www.yutorah.org From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 5 04:54:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 07:54:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When Sefardi and Ashkenazim Meet Message-ID: <56.57.22391.E4157BB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Rabbi Eli Mansour discusses the convergence of Sefardi and Ashkenazi traditions in contemporary Israel. Please see the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgoo.gl%2FWT2Hjq&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C97625655127d4ae2115708d62aad6b61%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636743321668910329&sdata=qGd8srOfQuC0kDFzrWfAVXfNbcQiB%2BvvgPyGWe3HehQ%3D&reserved=0 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 04:45:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:45:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5310ADD1-3CFE-455E-A5FD-9847E3F075C7@sibson.com> > > I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. > > Akiva Miller > > > _______________________________________________ > But do they duchen at shacharit on yom tov? 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 Fri Oct 5 08:00:43 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:00:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> References: , <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 10:37 AM ... > Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal > form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs > "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, > or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei > Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). > The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because > they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And > Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. ... A slight correction to R Micha's post: as far as we can tell, Chazal Hebrew DID have pausal forms. But they were not based on trop, of course, nor even on on the end of a sentence. They are used consistently in a case of parellismus membrorum in L'shon Chazal, and I am pretty sure in some other situations as well, according to the evidence from the oldest mss. with vocalization, such as the famous Kaufmann ms. of the Mishnah. But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: ??? ???? ?????? ?????, ???? ?? ?? ??????? ...? ?????? ????? ???????? ??????, ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? [For those in digest text mode and therefore can't see the Hebrew, this quote begins "LaKeil Barukh, ne'imos..." -micha] To the best of my knowledge, all old nuskah'ot have "yittenu." Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 06:14:47 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 13:14:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3252f45264ff47778db42a4dcee99b7d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I---------------------------------- IMHO Thomas Kuhn?s thoughts on paradigm shift are applicable here. Western liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be (e.g. I might like to do the avodah but I?m not a cohain) So yes, it could really be (but I?m not qualified to say it is) 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 seinfeld at daasbooks.com Fri Oct 5 08:40:01 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:40:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: 7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY: 1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts scientific History, that?s not a kasheh on the Torah, it?s more like a sha?elah - ?Why did HKBH write this? What?s He teaching me here?? 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no significant debate about that. 3. We don?t know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek ? sounds a lot like the descriptions we have of the Big Bang. 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round. They really do look that way. So either HKBH made them looking old for some reason, or they really are old. A person can ignore the question and say, ?It?s enough for me just to believe,? but the Gemara (and plenty of Rishonim and Acharonim) says that we have an obligation to study Nature to the best of our ability. 6. There are plenty of things that the smartest scientists admit they don?t know. For instance, they think that right after the moment of creation (Big Bang), the entire universe inflated instantly, like someone blowing up a balloon. Just to make this clear. There are patterns in the universe that defy logical explanation. In order to explain these patterns, it has been proposed (and accepted by many but not all cosmologists) that from 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second until 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second after the Big Bang, the universe expanded at an exponential rate (in that short moment it got 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and then the expansion slowed down. They have good reasons for believing this theory. It helps explain some of the bizarre things that we see when we look through our telescopes, chiefly, the fact that the universe appears to be the same in all directions. Yet they have no idea what could have caused this inflation. Worse for them, the current rate of expansion has been proven to be accelerating, but again they have no idea what invisible energy source could be causing this. It would be far simpler to say, ?It looks the same in every direction because it was created at the current size; there was no Big Bang and no expansion and no inflation.? But wait, we see that it is indeed currently expanding. Doesn?t that prove the Big Bang? - Expansion doesn?t prove anything. It?s a fact that requires a theory to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously expand. - Maybe this bizarre things accelerating expansion that we see, along with hypothetical inflation, are just the artist?s signature on His artwork? For after all, the only thing that can cause acceleration is more energy. The best rational explanation for this invisible ?dark? energy is that Hashem continues to be mashpia on the world and wants us to know it, without being too obvious. But wait, we also know that the stars are zillions of miles away from us, and given the known speed of light, their starlight should have taken millions or even billions of years to reach us. Doesn?t that prove at least that the universe is mighty old? - No, it doesn?t: see #5 above. 7. Yet to constantly answer, ?Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, ?What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with ?Hashem does it? without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. So what?s the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, or was it just made to look that way? I don?t know, but I?m personally completely comfortable with either answer. Neither answer can (to my understanding) be proven nor disproven. I suspect they are both true. That, as my grandfather z??l would have said, is my 2-bits. Your critical feedback welcome. Good Shabbos Alexander Seinfeld jewishspirituality.net From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 08:25:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:25:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on Marriage Message-ID: The following are excerpts from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 1:28 28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. "????????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ????????????: 28 God blessed both of them, and He made both of them responsible for the fulfillment of mankind?s mission. ??????? refers to marriage, the union of the sexes for production of human fruit ? children. Just as the choice energies and saps of the tree become ?free? in its fruit as an independent germ (see above, v. 11), so the noblest traits of godliness and humaneness of the father and mother unite to produce an independent human germ. ?????? refers to the family. r'vah = to multiply. Begetting children is not sufficient in order for the human species to multiply. Even in the case of many species of animals, increase of the breed is dependent on care of the young; and in the case of the human species, such care is absolutely essential ? even if viewed only from a physical standpoint. A human child has no chance of survival at all, if his parents do not provide him with care from the moment of his birth and do not continually promote his bodily well-being and development. Not the birth, but the care is the true cause of human increase. But r'vah includes more than this. The parents are obligated to reproduce themselves through their children: They must recur in the image of their children; and the children are to resemble their parents ? not only physically, but spiritually and morally. The parents are to plant and nurture in their children the best of their spiritual and moral powers. In short, their duty is to form and educate their children spiritually and morally. Only then will they recur in the image of their children and fulfill the mitzvah of ?????? . ?????????? refers to property (see Commentary, v. 26). Man is commanded to master the earth and subdue it. His task is to acquire the products of the earth and to transform them, so that they become fit for his purposes. Acquisition of property is prerequisite for the tasks of home and society. Property serves as an instrument with which home and society achieve their aims. Thus, the acquisition of property becomes a moral duty. The mitzvah of ??????, however, is written here last, which implies a limitation: There is no moral value to property, unless it is devoted to home and society. It is a person?s duty to acquire material assets, in order to build a home and to further the society. He should not build a home and support the society in order increase his assets and his wealth. The mitzvah of ???????????? is given at once to both sexes; they are to collaborate in harmony so as to fulfill this mission of man. Nevertheless, before establishing his home, man must first acquire material assets, and this duty ? subduing the earth, so as to further man?s aims ? is primarily incumbent only upon the male. For this reason the duty of marriage and of establishing a home is assigned directly only to the man, and only to him is it given as an unconditional duty. To the woman it is given as a conditional duty; it applies to her, only when she joins her husband. (See Yevamos 65b.) These commands place the Divine imprint on every aspect of familyand communal life. The Torah does not recognize the compartmentalization of life into God-oriented or ?religious,? on the one hand, and profane, untouched by things Divine, on the other. God claims all of life for His service and for the fulfillment of man?s mission as adom. This applies, first and foremost, to family and communal life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 11:59:27 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:59:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <20181005185927.GB26105@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 02:46:37PM -0700, RMR wrote: : It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they : vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, : they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. : So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter : Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the : Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the : original Minhag. I think it's more that minhag hamaqom is about the community, not the geography. If so many new people move in that they overhwelm the old community, they also overwhelm the old minhag. However, when Edot haMizrach got to the US in the late 20th century, many of them moved into existing communities and neither drowned out the old minhag nor did they adopt it. I think they should have done the latter, since minhag avos is only a "thing" when there is no minhag hamaqom. (Except in places like Deal, NJ, which is predominantly Syrian) And for many minhagim, the existing community -- from Yekkes to Vizhnitzers -- did have a single practice. This gets me to an issue left unresolved in a previous discussion of minhag hamaqom: Does minhag hamaqom apply piecewise, or only when there are so many practices that are consistent that there is a general feeling of unity of pesaq. For example, we talk about there being a "minhag hamaqom" in EY about things like saying Shir shel Yom after Shacharis even when there is a Mussaf, or Hakafos after Hallel. But the list of things in which the vast majority of the observant communities of Israel agree upon is quite small. Heterogeneity is the norm. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 12:31:12 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:31:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99B66C72-E111-47AA-ABA5-8E2A753AE7A4@opengemara.org> On October 5, 2018 8:40:01 AM PDT, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: >7 things every Jew should know about Ma'aseh Bereishit, even if it was >not taught in BY: >1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras >Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts >scientific History, that's not a kasheh on the Torah, it's more like a >sha'elah -- "Why did HKBH write this? What's He teaching me here?" ... >4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the >descriptions we have of the Big Bang. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work -- according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). >7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit >facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, >"What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem >does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we >would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving >us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how >to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things >work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Oct 6 11:38:57 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 21:38:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:13 PM Mandel, Seth via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have > at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that > "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, > and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, > in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei gever" in birchot hashahar? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 15:42:10 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C9B4494-797A-437D-B042-3D7AAD5FEFBD@opengemara.org> 1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? 2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). 3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 7 05:56:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 08:56:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181007125626.GC4739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 06:22:12PM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they : also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla : for geshem. I think that's the usual. After all, in Tefillas Geshem we don't just continue the list "mashiv haruach umorid hageshem, mekhalkeil chaim bechesed..." The pause before "Livrakhah velo liqlalah" is less of a question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From isaac at balb.in Sun Oct 7 00:22:12 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 18:22:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I say Geshem (as per R' Soloveitchik et al) I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla for geshem. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sun Oct 7 12:30:33 2018 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:30:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] BDE Moras Shulamith Bechhofer Message-ID: Information from RYBG on facebook: Kevurah for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h,will be at Har HaMenuchos. My brother, Horav Yochanan Meir shlita sitting shiva for 2 days from Monday night after the kevura until Wednesday afternoon in Ramat Shlomo, number 37 Shtefenesht Street by the Schaefer family. Shiva for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h will be at my mother's apartment 146 Beach 9th Street, apartment 4D, Far Rockaway, New York. Beginning Monday morning, Shacharis at 7:30 am, Mincha and Maariv at 6:05 pm. Please try to come be menachem avel before 10:00 pm. I will be returning to Monsey for Mincha Gedola on Friday at 1:15 pm, Maariv Motzoei Shabbos an hour after shekiah, and Shacharis on Sunday morning at 7:30 am, at our house, 3 Zabriskie Terrace. Besuros Tovos. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Sun Oct 7 13:03:01 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 20:03:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message Message-ID: I thought Alexander Seinfeld?s post on this subject was very interesting. I would, however, make one small change. Instead of writing ?7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY,? I would say: 7 things I and some other Orthodox Jews believe about ....? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 01:34:52 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:34:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant past. For example, in the recent controversy over Judge Kavanaugh the following appeared in a world street journal article Christine Blasey Ford was believable and sincere when she told her story of being assaulted by a young Brett Kavanaugh. So was Judge Kavanaugh when he categorically denied her claims?and none of her purported eyewitnesses have any memory of the gathering she describes. They can?t both be telling the truth, but it is possible neither is deliberately lying. The article then goes on to describe how one's memory is affected by (unconscious) attempts to heal emotional wounds. This leads to repression of embarrassing memories or memories becomes less clear over time Furthermore, the adolescent brain (9 to 25) is not fully developed. Middle adolescence (14 to 17) is a time when teens have little connection to the past or future and think only of the present. (In Israel at least 14-17 year olds are very conscious of their future and especially army service at 18) ----------------------------- I don't personally agree with all the details of the article but the total impression is that two people in their 50s testifying about an event in their teen years should be taken with a big grain of salt. Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so would probably pass "drishot"; As an aside I am aware of dayanim questioning witnesses. Is their anyting in halacha about the defendant giving his version and being questioned by the dayanim? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Oct 7 19:16:55 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2018 22:16:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi thanks for your comments. >1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? Not necessarily. Meaning, at times it does, but not always in the way that secular people use the term History. So we should not compare the two. I?d rather say, ?It contains historical information? >2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as >the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no >plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and >there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or >you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the >world was created old). We don?t have to make it work. The point is that most people frankly have no clue what cosmology says about origins (other that it?s complicated and somewhat mystical), and they often dismiss Torah because it appears to them so unsophisticated. Peeking at the Rambam gives one a clue that we have a Mesorah of a extremely sophisticated, complicated and mystical Bereishis. >3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So >hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a >source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted >from Gan Eden)? No I don?t. But I believe I saw in Rav Hirsch that Adam was first created outside Gan Eden and only put in there for the test. From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 8 05:24:45 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:24:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46de6a96-5987-0a36-1097-b2c09f3d0ebd@sero.name> On 08/10/18 04:34, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note > that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so > would probably pass "drishot"; She certainly wouldn't. The most glaring problem with her claim was precisely that she could not fulfil the most basic drishot: "when and where did this allegedly happen"? Without being able to specify these it becomes "eidut she'i ata yachol lehazima" -- it's impossible to claim that the accused was elsewhere that day, let alone the witness. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 06:26:27 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:26:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700, Rabbi wrote: The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes > are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that > nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan > Eden)? *Yes, Chazal and the Rishonim all understood that the six day creation process was not a natural one.* ''All of creation was created fully formed''. At *ma?aseh b?reishis* the ox was created not as a calf but as an adult [Rashi in *Rosh Hashanah* 26a s.v. *shor sheh-hu par*]; and Adam was likewise created as an adult standing fully erect, the Talmud reports, within the same 24-hour period. The idea that Creation was anything less than a totally miraculous process, not conducted through natural processes at all, ''accelerated? or otherwise, is rejected by the *Maharal* (*Be?er HaGolah*, p. 83, *Be?er Four*): Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory?not by means of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. The *Rambam* explains in *Moreh Nevuchim *that it is illegitimate to base conclusions about the origin of the world by examining how the world looks now and assuming that the processes that would now produce such results were responsible, because the nature of things at their origin is different. EVERYTHING produced comes into existence from non-existence; even when the substance of ?a thing has been in existence, and has only changed its form, the thing itself, which has gone ?through the process of genesis and development, and has arrived at its final state, has now ?different properties from those which it possessed at the commencement of the transition from ?potentiality to reality, or before that time. Take, for example, the human ovum as contained in the ?female's blood when still included in its vessels: Its nature is different from what it was in the ?moment of conception, when it was met by the semen of the male and began to develop. The ?properties of the semen in that moment were different from the properties of the living being ?after its birth when fully developed. It is therefore quite impossible to infer, from the nature ?anything possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the ?condition of the thing had been at the time this process commenced. Nor does the condition of ?a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and ?attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually ?existing, you will fall into great confusion: You win reject evident truths and admit false ?opinions.? Let us assume, in our above instance, that a man born without defect had after his birth been ?nursed by his mother only a few months; the mother then died, and the father alone brought him ?up in a lonely island, till he grew up, became wise, and acquired knowledge. Suppose this man ?has never seen a woman or any female being: he asks some person how man has come into ?existence, and how he has developed, and receives the following answer: ''Man begins his ?existence in the womb of an individual of his own class, namely, in the womb of a female, which ?has a certain form. While in the womb he is very small; yet he has life, moves, receives ?nourishment, and gradually grows, till he arrives at a certain stage of development. He then ?leaves the womb and continues to grow till he is in the condition in which you see him.'' The ?orphan will naturally ask: ''Did this person, when he lived, moved, and grew in the womb, eat ?and drink, and breathe with his mouth and his nostrils? Did he excrete any substance?'' The ?answer will be, ''No.'' Undoubtedly he will then attempt to refute the statements of that person, ?and to prove their impossibility, by referring to the properties of a fully developed person, in the ?following manner: ? When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and remained alive, able to move?? ? If any one of us would swallow a living bird, the bird would die immediately when it ?reached the stomach, much more so when it came to the lower part of the belly; if we ?should not take food or drink with our mouth, in a few days we should undoubtedly be ?dead! How then can a human being remain alive for months without taking food?? ? If any person would take food and would not be able to excrete it, great pains and death ?would follow in a short time--and yet I am to believe that man has lived for months ?without that function?!? ? Suppose by accident a hole were formed in the belly of a person, it would prove fatal, ?and yet we are to believe that the navel of the fetus has been open?!? ? Why should the fetus not open the eyes, spread forth the bands and stretch out the legs, if, ?as you think, the limbs are all whole and perfect?!? This mode of reasoning would lead to the conclusion that man cannot come into existence and ?develop in the manner described.? We, the community following in the footsteps of Moses and Abraham, believe that the world came into being IN such-and-such a form, and BECAME such-and-such FROM such-and-such (*haya kach mi-kach *), and such WAS CREATED AFTER such. Aristotle comes to uproot our words, bringing proofs against us based upon nature in its stabilized, perfected and active state. As for us, we declare against him that this is legitimate evidence [for determining processes that must have occurred] after nature?s having settled down in its fully developed stage; but in no way does this correspond to something?s characteristics at its being brought into existence, and produced out of absolute non-existence (MN 2:17). Shabbos marks the cessation of a process that was ongoing beforehand. If G-d's method of development of the world was through the same natural laws and processes in effect now, what ceased on the first Shabbos? None of the things mentioned above [the creation of Eve from Adam, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge, the history of the serpent and the events connected therewith] is impossible, because THE LAWS OF NATURE WERE THEN [UNTIL THE END OF THE SIX DAYS] NOT PERMANENTLY FIXED (Ibid. 2:30). The Ralbag uniquely understands specific statements by Chazal to be saying that Hashem created virtually everything simultaneously and instantaneously on the first day, all in their fully developed form (with the exception of the growth of vegetation of the fifth day) and that therefore the ?days? of Creation are ?categories.? This makes the creation process even less natural. It is noteworthy that the approach of the Ralbag is to build the understanding through the teachings of *Chazal*, and not through rejecting them on the basis that they differ with the science of the day. Zvi Lampel > > > > > [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/08/18, 9:21:07 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Oct 8 07:38:02 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 10:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Noach An Interesting Insight Message-ID: Last week God created the world. This week (some 1,656 years later), God destroys the world. Interestingly, the Baal Hatanya (Shneur Zalman of Liadi) writes that the flood has never ended and continues until this very day. We are all subject to the floods in life. We are flooded with all sorts of problems, issues, conflicts, etc. ? some more, some less. The world is still chaotic but when we do our part to minimize our personal floods, we help to minimize the floods of the world. The flood of money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy. Theodore White (American political journalist and historian) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 11:37:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:34:52AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. : Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by : many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant : past. Chaqirah is the ability to answer specific questions about the when and where of the event: 1- Which shemitah cycle 2- Which year in the cycle 3- Which month 4- Day of month 5- Day of week 6- Hour of day 7- Where And the SA discusses what we do now when we don't use 1&2 as the primary means of identifying the year, if the person is off by a day in the month, but has the correct day-of-week so that it's an obvious calendar mistake not error, etc... There is also the regular notion of cross examination, derishah. Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, asked of each eid separately. And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. So let's talk more about dinei mamonos, where neither hasra'ah nor eid echad neeman be'isurim apply. Still, we confabulate memories. Especially emotionally laden ones like something a heated argument is churning over. But can two eidim confabulate identically when they can't hear eachothers' cross-examination? But I would like to really focus on is: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. If so, why would we hold terei kemei'ah? After all, if dozens of people say the same thing, why would we believe two holdouts equally? For that matter, what would eidus be more trustworthy than even "smoking gun" level evidence? I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. But I fear that more than one paragraph on this topic would annoy people who didn't go for the idea in prior iterations. So, unless there is interest expressed, I will stop here. 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 larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Oct 8 14:39:41 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 17:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben Shapiro's take on abortion. YL Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when he speaks and is being interviewed. On Sunday, at the conclusion of the latest edition of The Ben Shapiro Election Special on the Fox News Network, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro used the last segment of the show to mount a powerful assault on abortion that was unlike any seen on a network news show before. Shapiro showed pictures from ultrasounds and illustrations of babies at various stages in utero to support his case, aware that when women see ultrasounds of the babies they are carrying, they are much less likely to consider having an abortion. Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. The later the abortion takes place, the more brutal the procedure, but no matter the brutality of the procedure, it is obvious that abortion is not some mere optional surgery to be performed for convenience. And it?s even more obvious that those who want to protect the lives of the unborn aren?t trying to control women?s bodies. Those who cherish abortion are trying to control and dismember the bodies of the unborn. Think about that next time you see a radical feminist in a Handmaid's Tale outfit suggesting that you?d better respect her right to carve apart an unborn baby in the womb or you?re some sort of fascist. No more euphemisms. See https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F36835%2Fwatch-shapiro-gives-fiery-unprecedented-assault-daily-wire&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=%2Bqenj6TOK0BiMopCLwHGel5WMFGPn5BJJ7Onf2R6yuM%3D&reserved=0 and especially the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Ftime_continue%3D27%26v%3DpoB8aIXI0Yo&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=kLq3f6Bo%2F9X3rP4HXORP3uhB5Wo6hC1ifHM%2BVBGt9j4%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 19:50:38 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:50:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181009025038.GA29143@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 05:39:41PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: :> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of :> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. Well, Rav Moshe holds as much, but most posqim do not. Shapiro is conflating the fact that Yahadus considers abortion a serious avlah with Pro-Life rhetoric that the avlah happens to be retzichah. Halachipidia has the following list (my translitations): What is the Prohibition? 1. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein - abortion is considered murder. However, this murder does not come with a death penalty. There are some cases of murder when the murderer does not get the death penalty. One of these cases is someone who murders one who is terminally ill. [4] 2. Rabbi Issar Unterman - abortion is considered abuzraihu deretzichah akin to murder.[5] 3. It is a violation of the positive commandment of peru urvu Part of the commandment is to allow every potential soul to come into being, and if one does abortion, they cannot do this. [6] 4. Spilling the seed/Onanism. The fetus is more similar to the basic seed than to a human, so destroying the fetus would be like destroying the seed.[7] 5. Aborting the fetus is injuring the mother (Chavalah). Exodus 21 says that if two men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and there is no death, but the fetus is miscarried, then they have to pay a monetary payment. So the fetus is more a part of the mother than a separate life. [8] 6. It is a Rabbinical prohibition. There is no clear prohibition in the Torah, so our only real sources are the rabbinical sources.[9] 7. According to the Zohar, one who kills a fetus is guilty of destroying God's handiwork. [10] it is unclear if this constitutes a different view of the technical prohibition, or if this is just a reasoning explaining the severity of abortion. A punishment unlike that for murder is detailed. Notes: [4] Iggros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat, Part 2, Chapter 69 [5] I.Y. Unterman, Noam VI (1963), 1-11 as cited in David Feldman, Birth Control In Jewish Law [6] Yevamos 63b [7] Talmud Bavli: Niddah 13a; Chavos Yair, Siman 31 [8] Exodus 21:22 [9] Sanhedrin 72; Tzitz Eliezer, Jerusalem, 1963, volume VII, number 48, p. 190. [10] Hok L'Yisrael, Shemot for Monday, Zohar, Shemot 3b Note how most shitos do say the fetus is not a person. #5 in particular is based on the idea that the fetus is an organ of the mother. (Which is also consistent with pen paqua.) No.s 3, 4 and 7 are about stopping the process of later producing a person. Likely #2 (abuzraihu deretzichah) as well, although it could be some other near-retzichah connection. And as for #6, it depends which deOraisa the deRabbanan is supporting. But even so, not retzichah, no human life yet. As the Bach explains the Rambam's position... You can abort a fetus to save the life of the mother a moment before it would have crowned, because it is kerotzeiach -- LIKE a rotzeiach. But it's not actually a rotzeiach, which is why in the same situation but a moment later, once the baby did crown, one could not commit infanticide to save the mother. A fetus before crowning is not subject to the same issur as after. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 9 11:04:42 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:04:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 Message-ID: In June 1990 Light Magazine published an article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer dealing with "his life in perspective; what is Torah Im Derech Eretz? ; his attitude toward modern Hebrew; and his mida of emess and bitachon. The article is at Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 9 15:26:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> References: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181009222604.GA27505@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 02:37:57PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, : asked of each eid separately. : : And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim : had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they : had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. .... REMT, kedarko beqodesh, gently corrected me in private. The eidim testifying need to have witnessed hasra'ah, and didn't have to have given it themselves. Which means that the tail of my post applies to sin/crim as well, not only dinei mamunus (as long as it's not eid echad ne'eman be'isusim). I think what I said about confabulation vs indepent derishah vechaqira of each eid separately, and (more importantly) my argument for not assuming that the neemanus accorded eidus isn't because we necessarily consider it the least fallible both still stand. Chodesh Tov! 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Thu Oct 11 01:20:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:20:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom Message-ID: << But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? >> The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a sefardi community and ROY's claim is that the Ashkenazim should have followed the existing sefardi customs. Obviously the talmidei hagra and the chassidim didn't agree. How far one goes back is part of a responsa by RMF that one who davens "chassidic" can change to Ashkenaz but not the other way since the original minhag was Asjkenaz and changed by the early chassidim. So according to RMF the fact someonepnes great...grandather 10 generations ago davened in nusach Ashkenaz has halachic meaning As to minhag EY and minhag Yerushalayim most date back about 100 years ago and a few to the days of takmidei hagra and the early chassidim. Almost none to earlier than that. The minhag of having a single drummer at a wedding in Jerusalem has mostly been replaced by a single organ player that can simulate a whole orchestra. Others claim that it holds only in the old city or that it was established by the old yishuv some 100 years ago and they are not part of that community One widespread minhag EY from the talmidei hagra and hasidim is not to wear tefillin on chol hamoed. Even in this case I have heard of some olim who put on tefillin after they return from shul. One really ancient minhag in Yerushalayim refers to not leaving a corpse overnight and so having funerals in the middle of the night. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 03:01:59 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:01:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fish With Legs?! In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: In Parshas Noach, we read about how Hashem brought the Great Flood and destroyed all living creatures, save for those inside Noach?s Ark and the fish in the oceans, who were spared as well. It would be fascinating to find out on which side of the Teiva a ?fish with legs? would have been. Would it have been considered a fish or an animal? Far from being a theoretical question, this actually happened when... To find out the full story, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Fish with Legs?!" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 02:58:05 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:58:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach Message-ID: The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both immorality and dishonesty?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 09:49:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011164903.GC19398@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 09:58:05AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach :> It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality :> than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. : : I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both : immorality and dishonesty?" The Meshekh Chomah notes... Pausing here for a shameless plug: I am now giving a quick (15-20 min) talk on Facebook Wed nights 9:30pm EDT. This comment is from that. So, the MC notes... That the dor hamabul sinned both - sexually - ki hishchis kol basar; and - financially - chamas. And he writes about the opening pasuq, based on a Rashi on the Gemara (AZ 6a): tamim -- anav ushefal ruach tzadiq - [bemaasav -gemara] - belo chamas RMShK writes that Noach "bedorosav" -- his 2 doros -- had very different challenges. Living in the pre-flood dor, being a tzadiq bemaasav and not influenced by the general dishonesty and sexual license around him, was the greater challenge. (How often does someone cut ethical corners because "that's how business is done now?") However being tamim in his midos, his anavah, was easy. The culture didn't value his tzidqus. However, in the post-flood dor, everything existed becaus of him. And the people around him had learned from the experience of tending to the animals for a year. Little challenge from peer pressure, but a much bigger challenge keeping his ego in check. This is a point the MC makes on "Malki-Tzedeq melekh Shaleim" -- the year in the midbar was a lesson in sheleimus, and that's his part of the foundation of Y-m. Avrahama added "behar Hashem Yeira'ah" to make Yerushalayim. (And thus the "-ayim", pair, in the name.) See MC Bereishis 22:14. Back to the point, it would seem that chazal attribute both difficulties to Noach's pre-flood life. It too was an "age of both immorality and dishonesty". 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 llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 08:58:19 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:58:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood ? make the ark [to consist] of enclosures for animals ? and cover it inside and out with pitch. In any event, a tavah is shaped like a box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ has no relationship to the one Noach built. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 11 07:06:55 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:06:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/10/18 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole >> Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other >> countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing >> communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and >> not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? > > The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established > community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new > minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a > sefardi?community But this isn't the case. After the crusades destroyed the original EY community with its minhagim, a new community was established by olim, who brought their mihagim with them from chu"l, and by the time the grushei Sefarad arrived there was already an established community. And what about the rest of the Mediterranean, where there were thousand-year-old communities? Leshitaso shouldn't the Sefardim who settled in each of those countries have adopted the local mihagim? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 11 06:10:16 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:10:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices Message-ID: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were an ongoing situation? 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 Thu Oct 11 07:29:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:29:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching Torah to Women Message-ID: Although throughout the ages there were Jewish women who were learned and revered1 the concept of formal education for women is barely a century old.2 Before this time, they would learn whatever was necessary from their parents.3 Girls generally did not go out of the home, and were often illiterate.4 The modern school system teaches many subjects to the girls, including Chumash, Halachah, Navi and Mishnah. Some even teach Gemara.5 Girls learn Chumash in depth with Ramban, and study more halachah than boys in yeshivah.6 The Bais Yaakov movement was spearheaded by Sarah Schenirer with just twenty-five girls in 1917,7 as a reaction to many factors8 which had changed the status quo.9 Since then, hundreds of girls? schools have been created. For more on this topic Click here to download "Teaching Torah to Women" For information about the history of the Bais Yaakov movement see https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note the curriculum of the Bais Yaakov Seminary in Krakow starting on page 77. In particular, Five Books of Moses: This included the study of the Five Books of Moses in the original and in its entirety with the commentary of Rashi and Rabbi Samuel Raphael Hirsch. and German: Instruction in the correct oral and written use of the language. The goal of this course was to provide the teachers with the ability to read by themselves the important religious literature of Hirsch and others which were written in the German language, as well as selected classical works such as the poetry of Schiller, Goethe, Nathan the Wise by Lessing, Zweig, and Beer-Hoffman. Times have indeed changed, have they not! YL study times. of the Five -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 10:04:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:04:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: <20181011170422.GD19398@aishdas.org> I got to the Arukh haShulchan's discussion of Chazal changing the entire definition of qinyan. MideOraisa, paying would be the qinyan. But Chazal were afraid that sellers wouldn't properly safeguard the item between payment and handing it over to the buyer. After all, any loss or damage is the buyers, ownership was already transfered. So, chazal made various qinyanim that demonstrate the buyer taking the item. The Torah gives the halakhah. Chazal realize that given the low state of the people around them, the halakhah would have cons that outweigh the pros. So, they change it. Reminds me of pruzbul or heter isqa, cases where in order to help someone who needs a loan get one, we allow suboptimal loan arrangements. In each case, a different validation for doing so: - Qinyan in general allows custom and agreement by both parties override the default law. - Similarly heter isqa was always technically allowed; our rabbanim just standardized a means of utilizing this alternative financial arrangement. - Pruzbul is violating shemittah derabbanan. So, while the gemara requires the motive of helpoing the poor get loans to even violate the ke'ein deOraisa, tHillel didn't rewrite Torah. But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and limit the damage. So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:01:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:01:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011190137.GG27474@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 03:58:19PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 :> In any event, a tavah is shaped like a :> box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward :> the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut :> through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. : Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ : has no relationship to the one Noach built. True; it's just the reconstruction of some Xians, given the text and the assumption that it was build not to capsize. RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis for Noach et al not to have capsized. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Oct 11 13:34:12 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:34:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Again read RSRH's commentary and you will see how he arrives at his conclusion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:14:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011191454.GA19331@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:13:44PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else : being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. : I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a : location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and : elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities : of young folks. RJR suggests that the advantage to the tzibbur would indeed trump the disadvantage for the individual. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 1:14pm UCT, he wrote: : ... Western : liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish : thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role : and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be... The comment RAM was replying to (I think) was my discussion of the advantage to the majority of the community of being pushed to think about those who need more help. IOW, not accessible shuls for the sake of those who need accessibility, but for the sake of those who need practive remembering as they pursue qedushah they they must consider others. (Especially leshitas RSShkop, where qedushah is /defined/ as commitment "leheitiv im hazulas". Not exclusively so.) I think it's simply that the hill wasn't thought of as a major inconvenience. And perhaps an obstacle likely to keep someone from coming wouldn't be a proper place for your elevated shul. Or, possibly that yes, this halakhah was only speaking "when all else is equal". Tir'u baTov! -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 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 13:10:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:10:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 01:10:16PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan : once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), : which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were : an ongoing situation? I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood of feeling anything. 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 Oct 11 16:42:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 19:42:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 09:38:57PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei : gever" in birchot hashahar? I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing But look at the Kaf haChaim OC 46 s"q 18. So I know they did in 19th cent Baghdad. However, ROY is recorses in Qol Torah vol V pg 20 as promoting gaver and aved. But in the cases we started with -- gefen and geshem. Also, Rav Pa'alim vol II, OC #25. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 12 04:36:37 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 07:36:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. > >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, >including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is >where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the >fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when >you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below >with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis >for Noach et al not to have capsized. First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because HaShem kept it afloat. Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different before the flood than after it. In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the flood were the same as they are today? If they were different before the flood, then your physics analysis does not hold water! >:-} ( have no basis for asserting that the laws of physics were different before the flood, but it is possible in light of the different climatic conditions.) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 12 05:26:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:26:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7285ED0D-3270-486A-9AD2-8DBA569E7AF4@sibson.com> [Micha:] > I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. > Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give > priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning > to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. > But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all > that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can > have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. > Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an > abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood > of feeling The question of relative priorities is always complex. I don't think this question has an algorithmic response Other than if you say all other things are equal, Which of course they never are. Kt Joel Rich From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 12 05:33:15 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:33:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> , <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Transliterations mine, but I tried to be more consistent with RSM's already present transliterations. -micha] From: Micha Berger Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:42 PM > I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing Since my name was mentioned, I think R. Micha was inviting me to add my ha'penny's worth. The Ashkenaz mss. all have gover. As due Yemenite mss. I do not remember what most S'faradi mss. have. One thing that people are only partially aware of, including many rabbonim who decided to comment on grammatical matters without the necessary study, is that L'shon Chazal is a different language than Biblical Hebrew, but that Chazal grew up knowing T'NaKh by heart, and so sprinkled their language with Biblical quotations, just as English writers leaven their language with quotations from Shakespeare or the Bible. Those quotations are in the archaic dialect of English that was spoken in the 16th-17th Century when Shakespeare lived and the King James translation was done. and do not represent the language spoken by a 21st Century writer. Similarly the language of T'filla as composed by Chazal uses their spoken Hebrew, which we call L'shon Chazal, but it is as full of quotations from the T'NaKh as a raisin bun is of raisins. Which makes it often difficult to distinguish what is L'shon Chazal from what is a quotation. I am writing a treatise about this, which God willing I will publish one of these days, which will contain proofs and various strategems to distinguish what is what. But if the language is found in a posuk, you can be sure it is a quotation. And the phrase ????? ??? [mitz'adei gaver] appears twice, once in T'hillim 37 and once in Mishlei 20, once at the beginng of a phrase and once at the end. It seem fair to me to assume that they used the form at the end of a phrase to put in the b'rokho, and so I would argue that the b'rokho is incorporating the language of ?????? ?????????-?????, ??????? ???-??????? ????????? [MeiYY mitz'adei-gover, ve'adam mah yovin darko.] and so it would be "gover," as the mss. I saw have it. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com Fri Oct 12 07:20:01 2018 From: loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com (Looking ForInspiration) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: Hello! This is my first post to aishdas.org, so forgive me and direct me if needed. Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both? Thank you in advance. Mordechai From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 12 08:20:24 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181012152024.GE12524@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 07:36:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: : >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. : >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, : > .... It would be another neis : >for Noach et al not to have capsized. : : First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the : animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen : in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed : have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because : HaShem kept it afloat. Which I noted. However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compell him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about apparence except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. : Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the : flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that : there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a : much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different : before the flood than after it. : In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the : flood were the same as they are today? Saying the world had a different climate doesn't mean the laws of nature changed. It could mean the earth changed. There is no reason to believe science itself changed since; and in fact some reason to believe it hadn't. After all, "mikol melakhto asher bara E-lokim la'asos" was before the first Shabbos. The notion that the universe changed in a new fundamental way since isn't 100% in concert with that. Although I realize "nishtaneh hateva" has numerous explanations, I don't know if any require believing the laws themselves changed. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 12 09:57:31 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:57:31 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Welcome on board! I didn't look up that sugya itself, but it could be that it was a Mishna Rishona Mishna Achrona thing. Like the reason that the Halacha in Machlokes VeAchar Kach Stam is different than in a Stam VeAchar Kach Machlokes. Also, regarding who actually wrote the Mishna - it's a Machlokes Rashi (who said (in Eiruvin, in the Samechs on the sugya of More Halacha Bifnei Rabbo) that the Mishna wasn't written in the Gemara's time) and the Rambam (who said that Rebbi wrote the Mishna). I heard that it boils down to the two Girsas of Rabbi Sherira Gaon's famous letter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 19:31:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 22:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people > on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in > reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in > the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, > halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) I think your cases are great examples of how Hashem deliberately left room for us to "improve" the Torah somewhat, thereby partnering with Him, exactly as you've explained. > And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. > Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is > not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into > account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and > limit the damage. > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted > keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be > when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than > the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged > YhR? Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her (unless he follows the prescribed procedure). That's what is meant by "lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR." The only solution is the one prescribed by the Torah itself; there is nothing for Chazal to add. Alternatively: D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. Chazal can forbid shofar on the years when RH is on Shabbos, but they can't ban it entirely on Yom Tov because of musical instruments being muktzeh. So, given that the Torah DOES allow one to take the Yefas Toar (after following the prescribed procedure), how might you word your proposed d'rabanan? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 12 14:16:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 21:16:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which Actions Have Value Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:16 You shall make a light for the ark and finish it within one cubit of the top, and set the entrance to the ark in its side; you shall make it with lower, second and third stories. God chose one man who was to save himself, his family and the animal world; he would be able to save them and himself ? only if he would do everything just as God had commanded him.?Gadol ha-mitzuveh ve-oseh me-me she-aino metzuveh ve-oseh (Kiddushin 31a) is a fundamental principle in Judaism. Contrary to prevailing opinion, a person?s actions have value only if they constitute the performance of God?s Will. What a person does on the basis of his own judgment, and the like, is of secondary, uncertain importance. During the 120 years that passed between God?s announcement to Noach and the actual onset of the flood, Noach could have done so many things: he could have built a hundred arks, and so forth. Scripture?s sole intent, however, is to say that Noach did exactly as God had commanded him; the rest he left to God. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 14 09:02:01 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 16:02:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] In sight Into Korbanos Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 8:20 20 Then Noach built an altar to God and took of every pure animal and of every pure bird, and offered ascent offerings upon the altar. la Shem; our offerings are directed to the aspect of God?s rule that desires not destruction, but life. '? is the source of all life and of all future existence, and He is ready at all times to grant new life, new vigor, and a new future. Symbolically, one offers his own life in order to win new life from God; one offers oneself up to God in order to be consecrated by God and to be elevated to a holy life on earth. One does not bring an offering to a vengeful, angry, bloodthirsty god. Rather, one who brings an offering devotes to God?s Will every pulsebeat, every nervous impulse, all muscular strength. To make an offering means to win from God eternal life. One does not offer up an animal; one offers up himself through the animal. When a person offers an animal before God and leans his hand upon it; when he slaughters it, collects its blood, dashes its blood upon the altar, and surrenders its head, legs, breast, and carcass to the flames ? in doing so he offers to God his own blood, his own mind, his own muscular strength, and surrenders himself completely to the fire of God?s Will, as set down for Israel in the Torah. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 14 20:08:41 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 23:08:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lech L'cha "Go For It" Message-ID: <406EA56D-CA2C-4FE0-B5F1-5C237B5152BE@cox.net> 12:1 Vayomer HaShem el Avram: "Lech L'cha," etc. The gematria of Lech L'cha is 100. So Avram was being told that life is a compromise: 50/50. And if he lives with give and take (50/50), he ends up with 100%. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 00:53:35 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:53:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: < Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. >> Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. Killing a fetus is not murder and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 01:12:31 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:12:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: << I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. >> First anything I brought from the Kavanaugh case was simply it was that stoty that made me think of the issue. The details of that story are immaterial. The basic question was that recent studies demonstrate false memories and especially from years ago and when the wirnesses may have been teenagers when they are not yer completely developed. On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered neveilah. The Taz doesn't like such a scenarion but many others disagree with him. They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:45:24 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89a90ad8-4240-fb55-2d1d-fba96a91819b@sero.name> On 15/10/18 04:12, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to > death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Mon Oct 15 05:49:36 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <0A43202F-B23C-41DE-A4E7-8002ED599973@tenzerlunin.com> ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses. * * * They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport).? ISTM that there should be a significant difference between executing someone when you have definitive information (I won?t use the word evidence) that he is innocent and eating a piece of meat that, although it in fact came from a non-kosher animal, is treated halachically as kosher. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 07:16:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:16:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015141643.GA20844@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:12:31AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death : even though the facts might not be true. : More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of : modern techniques versus two witnesses I didn't think I was implying that. If there is evidence -- regardless of DNA's own issues -- but not eidim, the facts are not established to the point of chiyuv misah. If there are eidim to convict, but the evidence points otherwise, the dayanim can't close derishah vechaqirah until they resolve the conflict to their own satisfaction. Given the whole bit about "achas leshev'ah / leshiv'im shanah", perhaps their own satisfaction should be to a "beyond reasonable doubt" kind of standard. (Maybe the person had a mum exactly where the knife entered would probably be considered by most of us "beyond unreasonable doubt".) : I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In : particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem : was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it : can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of : the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered : neveilah... The case in the SA that I remember : They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif : and not the metzius. That is a misphrasing. I said that pesaq relies on how we perceive the world -- and in fact this perception is the meaning of the word "metzi'us". (Which, I will note again, comes from "matza", which doesn't imply theoretical objective existence.) The nearest I come to the way you put it would be to say that matters like probability go into how we think about an unobserved unknown. Evidence is a matter of changing the odds, not of establishing definitive metzi'us. ------------------ And my pet theory is an extension of R' Aqiva Eiger's teshuvah (#136) explaining the difference between kol deparish, where rov matters, and qavu'ah. RAE makes is a chiluq between rules of birur when the reality is unknown (kol deparish) and ones where the reality was established but the halakhah is unkown. Treating this as a very broad kelal, eidus changes a kol deparish type question into a qavu'ah. Which is why rov no longer epplies, and terei kemei'ah. Evidence without observation keeps it a kol deparish question, although it does shift the odds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:40:52 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:40:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15/10/18 03:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life.?>> > Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. > Killing a fetus is not murder According to some. > and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. And as Ronald Reagan pointed out, if you're not sure whether something is murder, then committing it is at least reckless endangerment. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 08:50:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:50:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 06:40:52AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is : : With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. Except that the Bach explains that's is NOT what the Rambam holds. Which is why Rotzaiach 1:9 distinguishes between aborting to save the mother before crowning, and not committing infanticide a fraction of a moment later after the baby crowns. If abortion were murder, there would be no shift in priorities between the mother's and baby's lives before and after birth. Or: A "KErodeif" (as the velad isn't doing anything itself to risk the mother) who isn't a full person may be killed, but once born, ein dochin nefesh mipenei nefesh. Rashi (Sanhedrin 72b "yatza rosho") says that the unborn fetus isn't subject to "ein dochin NmPN" because it isn't a nefesh yet. The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 09:01:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:01:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> References: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015160131.GB26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:50:59AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the : contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam : cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? The Arukh laNeir (Sanhedrin 72b) writes that the chiluq is that in the second case we cannot isolate whether the child (once crowned) is the mother's rodeif, or the other way around. The IM (CM 2:69) writes similarly. But neither deal with the Bach's question of how that means "ein dochin" is the principle in particular invoked to explain why we cannot kill the baby after crowning, but not the fetus a moment before. Also, how is it true that we always know before crowning that it's the fetus in the mother's way, but if the head is partly out, we don't? Balebatishe question.... Let's say it's the umbilical cord vs the mother's blood loss -- does that dynamic change with crowning? But in any case, my point was that the Bach means that we cannot say as a certainty that there is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam about whether a velad is a person. Just that some acharonim take him to say so. And once you look at acharonim, variants on the theme that is definitely Rashi's abound. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 06:48:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 09:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: *Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400* *From: Looking ForInspiration >* *To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org * *Subject: * *Hello!* *This is my first post to aishdas.org , so forgive me and direct me **if needed.* *Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that **when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, **it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this **mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author?* *I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, **Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone **can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible **as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it **would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, **the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba **Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of **Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write **the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both?* *Thank you in advance.* *Mordechai* This should be helpful: >From Rambam's Letter to R. Pinchas HaDayyan (In R. Sheilat's edition, Teshuva 140): ...every decision that he [Rebbi Yehuda HaNassi] presented without attaching an author's name originated [not with him, ?but] with other sages. And those other sages as well were not the originators of those decisions, ?but [merely stated how they understood what they] obtained from the mouths of others, and the ?others from still others, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. .. [T]hey ...explicitly stated in so many places, ?Rebbi ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue A, and presented them anonymously; but he ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue B, and presented them anonymously.".This ?openly states that whatever Rebbi endorsed as final halacha, and considered the proper ?practice to follow, he stated without associating anyone?s name with it. And in so many places ?the Gemora says, ?This anonymously-stated halachah is an individual?s opinion [and not the ?majority?s]?--Rabbeynu did not mentioned the names of any of them [--neither that of the ?individual whom the halacha followed, nor that of the majority]. ? ?[Only] when it came to matters that Rebbi did not consider settled, but still debatable, and ?about which he did not lean one way or the other, did he state both opinions in the names of ?their proponents (?R. So-and-so says this, and R. So-and-so says that?) mentioning the names ?of those sages, or of recently living ones, from whom he heard those opinions--but [still] not of ?their mentors or mentors?-mentors' names. For at the time, many people still followed one ?opinion, and many still followed the opposing one. Suffice it to say that he [himself] told us ?explicitly why, in some of the mishnas, he attached names:? And why do we mention the words of Shammai and Hillel only to negate them [by ?adding that the majority of sages disagreed with both and decided differently]??to ?teach the following generations....? ? And why do we mention the dissenting words of ?individuals along with those of the majority...???So that if a Beis Din will agree with the ?individual?s opinion and rely upon it....[R' Yehuda (ben El'ai) added:] And why do we ?mention the words of the individual together with those of the majority only to negate ?them??So that if a person reports receiving a teaching other than that which was ?accepted by the majority....?? ...it was only necessary to mention opposing opinions during those times ?that some practiced one way, and others practiced a different way, when some obtained the ?law according to one sage?s opinion, and some according to another sage?s opinion. End of quote from Teshuva. Regarding stam mishnayos that contradict, each mishna had its own author and, following Rambam, Rebbi placed them in the order he did. One explanation is that he changed his mind, and his pesak is identified by the rules of stam v'acher kach machlokess (machlokess meaning a mishna with an opposing view, not necessarily a mishna contaning two views), and vice versa. However, the majority of Tannaim in Rebbi's day did sometimes differ with him. And in cases where the Beis Din Gadol did not put the issue to a formal vote, later authorities, even Amoraim, did not necessarily follow Rebbi's decision. Regarding the last point, check out Rambam's payrush, followed also by the Rav MiBartenura, on the mishnayos at the beginning of Eidiyos, and see how it differs from that of the Raavad and Tosefos Shantz Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/15/18, 9:02:19 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Sat Oct 13 20:23:41 2018 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 23:23:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Moving this aspect of the discussion over from Areivim. Subject line is mine. -micha] On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM Micha Berger via Areivim wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 01:26:50PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: >: I am surp[rised that you did not suggest that men begin wearing >: tephillen the entire day as was apparently the custom in ancient >: times... > For people who had desk jobs. > Laborers didn't, for pragmatic reasons. And in an agrarian society, that > was most men most of the day, except in the winter. My impression was that the heter to not wear tefillin (issur to wear tefillin) only applied to particular cases, such as one who was carrying a burden (of a particular size or content, i.e., excrement) on their head, but that a normal farmer/craftsman/laborer would generally wear tefillin the entire day. A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did not wear tefillin, but it is critical of this practice, and although the gemara appears to give a justification of such (while still maintaining its objection to the reality), it is not along the white collar/blue collar axis. Josh From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 11:18:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015181859.GE5656@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 11:23:41PM -0400, Joshua Meisner via Avodah wrote: : A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did : not wear tefillin... The context is, any mitzvah, like milah, that people were moseir nefesh for when there was a government deceree is still muchzeqes beyadam. Tefillin was given an example where there never was such a history, and therefore our commitment remains less. It says "merupeh beyadam", not that people weren't wearing them at all, which is what you say here. Nor, more on-target for our discussion, that people were wearing them just for davening instead of all day. Possible referants: Tzeduqim wore their tefillin on the bridge of their noses (bein einekha). So many Jews were nikhshal. Or maybe there were sects who believed like the Qaraim or R that there are no physical objects involved at all to keep the ideas in sight and at hand. But it just struck me -- most likely, that they weren't careful to keep a guf naqi. After all the gemara reads: ... kegon tefillin, adayin hi berufah beyadam. DEamar R' Yanai: tzerichim guf naqi... What's that dalet doing there in "de'amar" if R' Yanai wasn't discussing said ripui? RGS writes : Here's a question for you: Why don't men wear tefillin all day long? The mitzvah is not just during morning services; it is throughout the day (cf. Tur, Orach Chaim 37). So why don't we wear them all day? The answer to this question is historical... There is textual evidence that already in Talmudic times there were many people who did not wear tefillin.... His argument here is the same as yours. ... The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 13a) specifically condemns those who never wear tefillin. This laxity by many on wearing tefillin continued into the Middle Ages. Tosafos (Shabbos 49a sv. ke-Elisha) write that one should not be surprised that at that time people were lax in tefillin, since they were in the times of the Talmud also. This is attested to in many other places, and in the times of the Geonim there are even implications that almost no one in the land of Israel wore tefillin. The Beis Yosef (Even Ha-Ezer 65) quotes the Kol Bo who suggests that in some communities ashes are not placed on a groom's forehead because the community members do not wear tefillin. There was even a responsum by R. Sherira Gaon, copied in many medieval works on halakhah, answering a question about whether it is yuhara (haughty) for a yeshiva student to wear tefillin when no one else does. It seems that in order to defend this practice, some rishonim utilized the idea that one who wears tefillin needs a "guf naki - clean body". The Shibbolei Ha-Leket (Buber ed., p. 382) quotes one view that "guf naki" means that a person is clean of sins.... Sefer Ha-Chinukh (no. 421) states that "guf naki" does not refer to someone who has no sins or impurity, implying that someone else had suggested that it did. The author explicitly condemns those who are strict on the holiness of this mitzvah and thereby deprive the masses of the mitzvah. Rather, "guf naki" refers to the ability to refrain from passing gas and thinking improper thoughts while wearing the tefillin. R. Moshe of Coucy (Semag, mitzvos aseh no. 3) tells of how he would travel around thirteenth-century Europe, preaching to people that they should wear tefillin during the morning prayers. Even if they cannot control themselves all day, people can certainly maintain a guf naki for the prayer services (that is the view of Tosafos [Pesachim 113b sv. ve-ein]; Rosh [Hilkhos Tefillin, no. 28 and Beis Yosef [Orach Chaim 37]; footnote 8 in the Schlesinger edition of Semag assumes the Semag agrees). Evidently, this practice of wearing tefillin only during morning prayer services took hold and the prior practice of widespread abandonment of the mitzvah slowly turned into minimal performance of it during the morning prayers. However, someone who cannot control himself and cannot maintain a guf naki may not wear tefillin. Despite the biblical obligation, someone in a definite situation such as that should not wear tefillin at all (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 38:1). For this reason, the Arukh Ha-Shulchan (Orach Chaim 38:6) rules that those who are not obligated in the mitzvah of tefillin -- such as women -- should never place themselves in even a doubtful position of not maintaining a guf naki. ... 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 Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il Tue Oct 16 00:45:18 2018 From: Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il (Ezra Chwat) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:45:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> References: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <85b0325c428741fcb0a9d98b30ef7206@Ex1.Nli.loc> [Micha] wrote: > Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the > water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the > fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity > is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Great insight, it's pshat in [Beresheet VII: Vateilekh hateivah al penei hamayim] meaning, all of it above surface, as in Gen I 2. Although there are a plenty (majority) sources in [lehon miqra] and [lehon chaza"l] where the meaning clearly infers partial immersion below the water surface. [Doq vetishkach] search and see. In any case this also sheds literary light on the two images presented for [lechem hapanim] (Menahot 94b): [sefinah roqedet] vs [teivah perutzah]. Why these images instead of description? Perhaps theres a message here about [teivat Mosheh] or [teivat Noach] Here's Rashi's drawing (source ) Dr. Ezra Chwat |Manuscript Bibliographer Department of Manuscripts The National Library of Israel, Jerusalem Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, P.O. Box 39105, Jerusalem 9139002 ezra.chwat at nli.org.il | www.nli.org.il From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Tue Oct 16 05:10:21 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:10:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Zev Sero commented: ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway.? What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 16 05:25:28 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:25:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: On 16/10/18 08:10, Joseph Kaplan wrote: > Zev Sero commented On Micha's remarks: >>> it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though >>> the facts might not be true. >> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, >> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. > What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the > value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel > Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Well, we *know* that it is indeed what He wants. That is surely beyond all question. All we can discuss is *why* He wants it, and what lessons we can draw from this counterintuitive fact. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:16:00 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:16:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> > RMB: > > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, > or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes > posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? > Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? It is in general true that the Torah prefers to regulate strong emotions (like greed and lust) rather than to extirpate them. See for example Hagigah 9b ?yaeh aniyusa liyehudaei ??, and yet the Torah doesn?t prohibit wealth (though see Parshas Shoftim 17:16-17), though historically several communities have enacted sumptuary laws. And see H. Deos 1:4-5 about the difference between a tzaddik and a hasid. The Rambam implies (at the end of 1:5) that he prefers tzidkus to hasidus but see H. Deos 6:1 that this applies only in a virtuous society. It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical level, however, I don?t see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. But there?s a more important point. What?s weird about war is that it?s not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say ?hasatan mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama? that?s partly because the soldiers don?t have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over his lifetime. So it makes a lot of sense that k?nagged YhR is specifically mentioned in the context of milhama. David Riceman From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:35:09 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42DB0493-2688-4FB1-B731-24A6D9C76BC7@optimum.net> [Corrected as per a follow-up email. -micha] RMLFI: > I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, > Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone > can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible > as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it > would be much appreciated. If you really mean that read through YL Epstein's "Hakdamah L'Nusach HaMishnah". Albeck wrote a (shorter) "Hakdamah L'Mishnah" and, IIRC, [Epstein also] wrote a "Hakdamah L'Sifrut HaTanaim". There's a mahlokes rishonim whether the mishna is a sefer peak or an encyclopedia of sources. This is related to the machlokes amoraim about whether halacha k'stam mishna. But it is possible for mishnayot with contradictory anonymous conclusions to have been edited by the same person. David Riceman From t613k at aol.com Wed Oct 17 20:57:38 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 23:57:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16685525a33-1ec3-bc74@webjas-vac183.srv.aolmail.net> In a message dated 10/15/2018 ? From: Micha Berger >> However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compel him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about appearance except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. << >>>>> ? ? ? The bottom may have been flat but not the top.? See Ber 6:16 "A window [tzohar] shall you make for the Ark, and to a cubit finish it from above...." (ArtScroll translation) ? I understand this to mean that the sides of the ark, at least the upper level, were slanted so that rain would run off (the reason most roofs of houses are slanted rather than flat).? At the top it only one square cubit wide, where the window (if the tzohar was a window, or possibly an LED light) was set in place. ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 18 03:08:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 06:08:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181018100847.GF26742@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:29:42AM -0400, Toby Katz wrote: : He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on : this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does : not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, : let alone the same as murder... This "let alone" undermines his whole thesis. Few akharonim take the Rambam to mean that abortion is murder, and of those who do, not all hold like their understanding of the Rambam. : We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these : issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians : recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that : Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. Or even to start with the assumption they are similar. It is best to just look up our views, and then see pragmatically which party to work with. Rather than identify with either camp and risk assimilating their values. 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 t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 17 21:29:42 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 00:29:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> ? From: "Prof. Levine" > IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an > abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben > Shapiro's take on abortion. >> Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is >> Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when >> he speaks and is being interviewed. ... >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... Ben Shapiro is a brilliant commentator and makes a powerful case against abortion. He also makes a Kiddush Hashem by publicly identifying as an Orthodox Jew and always wearing a yarmulka. However, I am troubled by this statement of his: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, let alone the same as murder. If a young woman is raped c'v the very best and most prudent thing she should do is take the "morning after pill" which prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum. To many Christians the morning after pill is exactly the same as abortion or infanticide, but the Torah does not view it that way. When a certain couple with whom I am intimately acquainted were undergoing IVF treatment in order to have children (which they ultimately did, B'H), they asked their most serious shailos of a very prominent posek in Baltimore. One shaila was what to do with excess embryos that were created in the lab. An embryo is just a fertilized ovum that has developed into a tiny little ball of cells, could be just eight or sixteen cells at first. When you hear that embryos are created in a lab and sometimes frozen to be thawed and implanted at a later date, please do not imagine that little babies are in the freezer. (Only in Lakewood are young humans put in the freezer.) Since multiple pregnancies are hazardous for the mother and often do not have a good outcome for the babies, as a rule no more than three embryos are implanted in the uterus at one time. In IVF powerful hormones are given which often result in the release of multiple eggs at ovulation, which in turn result in multiple embryos at fertilization. But if you are not going to implant more than three, what do you do with the extras? The posek told the couple that they could do what they wanted -- freeze the extras for a later attempt, or discard them. Catholics would consider the discarding of these little balls to be the same thing as murder, and possibly they would consider putting them in a freezer to be child abuse. We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. I suspect that Ben Shapiro is not aware of a very important distinction. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 05:40:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:40:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" Message-ID: >From https://goo.gl/7m1UWj Halacha L'kovod Shabbos - "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" One is permitted to spray one's hair (e.g. sprinkle or hand-pat water on frizzy hair) on Shabbos as long as it is not very wet, because the Melocho of Melabain (cleaning or scouring) does not apply to the human body. (If the hair gets very wet it may not be squeezed out since hair is subject to the prohibition of S'chita - squeezing). However, the use of hairspray which will stiffen the hair and form a structure may involve the Melocho of Boneh (building). If one sprays the hair first and then styles and shapes it; this would be prohibited on Shabbos because it is similar to Boneh. However, some poskim permit the use of hairspray if one is careful to first style and shape the hair, and then only afterwards add the hairspray. When done in this manner the loose hair is shaped at the time of styling, and does not resemble Boneh because the hair is loose. The subsequent spraying merely acts to retain a pre-existing shape. Once the hair has been sprayed it can no longer be shaped, styled, or touched. {We mentioned previously that the use of hairspray on Shabbos does not involve the Melocho of Zoreh.} Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah 302, Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa 14:50:131, Kitzur Hilchos Shabbos re:Gozez:5:16, Biur Halacha 303:27, Hilchos Shabbos R' Shimon Eider, Minchas Yitzchok 6:26, Sefer 39 Melochos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 19 05:31:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:31:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hirhurei tshuva Message-ID: <7e7b234b4f3d4d51bc22ea4cdc8114d5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The Artscroll Yom Kippur machzor has the following comment (I could not find the GRA's statement in Aderet Eliyahu). "David replies with just two words: "I have sinned to HASHEM." Nathan answers, "[If so] God has removed your sin and you will not die. "The Vilna Gaon notes that according to the Masoretic text there is a space after David's brief confession, even though it is in the middle of a sentence. This implies that David wanted to say more - he felt that he should go into more detail about his sin and the sincerity of his remorse - but was so overcome by remorse that he could not speak. He didn't have to. Nathan broke in to tell him that he had been forgiven - because his confession, brief and incomplete though he thought it to be - was utterly sincere." Me-Do you think this thought coheres with the following insight from R'YBS: "In response to this Divine verdict, R'Yehudah HaNasi cried, marveling at how some individuals merit the World to Come only after a lifetime of effort, while others acquire such reward after only brief effort. The Rav emphasized that the executioner not only earned a share in the World to Come, but achieved the same level as did R'Chananya in this regard. "Why did R'Yehudah HaNasi have such an emotional reaction to the afterlife destiny of the executioner? The answer is that although prior to this incident R'Yehudah HaNasi had certainly understood the redemptive power of teshuvah, he had not previously appreciated the redemptive power of hirhur Tshuva, "awakening" of teshuvah. If teshuvah is indeed a multistep process, involving sin recognition, remorse, and resolve, how can an individual possibly be considered righteous after only a moment's thought? Only through hirhur Tshuva, which is spontaneous, instinctive, and sudden. In one second, an individual can live the jarring experience of awakening from spiritual slumber." 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 Fri Oct 19 07:03:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:03:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Most Profound and Far-Reaching Vision of the Future Ever Permitted a Mortal to Behold or to Utter Message-ID: In his commentary on Bereishis 9:25-27 25 He said: Cursed be Canaan; he shall be a servant of servants to his brothers. 26 And he said: Blessed be God, the God of Shem; may Canaan become their servant. 27 God will open [people?s] emotions to Yefes, but He will dwell in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be a servant to them. RSRH provides deep insights into a number of important topics. He writes 25?27 We have here what may be the most profound and far-reaching vision of the future that God ever permitted a mortal to behold or to utter. The entire history of mankind ? past, present, and future ? is contained in these three verses. and then later on The spirit of Israel does not produce ecstatics who lose their grip on reality and go mad. Judaism yearns for God?s closeness, but requires of man clarity of thought, a composed and sober mind. Ecstatics who ?merge with the divine? lack freedom of choice; they imagine that they themselves do nothing, but that God acts through them. This is not the way to serve God. Our task is to make use of the intellect and the freedom God has given us, in the earthly sphere which He has assigned to us; to serve God faithfully, conscientiously, and with a clear mind. Only thus will we attain the highest perfection a person can reach; only thus will our actions be sanctified, and will we be worthy of God?s closeness. IMO there is so much of import in his commentary on these verses that I have taken the trouble to post it at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/profound_far_reaching_vision.pdf If you take the time to read this, you may well find insight into what we see going on in the world today as well as what has happened in the past and will happen in the future. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 21 07:14:12 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 10:14:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayera "We have to teach empathy as we do literacy." (Bill Drayton) Message-ID: <0D74D2E3-332B-4E5B-9E58-56B4273FC281@cox.net> 1) The following is a beautiful reflection of Jewish sensitivity. The original source of the story is not known. See Bamberger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 1939), p. 209, note 17/ "Once, Abraham's love of strangers clashed with his zeal for God. He invited a wayfarer to his home and, finding the wayfarer praying to his idol, chased him away. God reprimanded Abraham severely: 'I have borne with him these many years although he rebelled against Me, and you cannot bear with him one night?!' Abraham had realized his sin and did not rest until he had brought the stranger back.? (Benjamin Franklin composed his "Parable against Persecution" on this very theme). 2) The Sidrah opens by saying that God appeared to Abraham [Gen. 18:1], but when Abraham applies the vision to his own world he suddenly sees three men standing before him [Gen. 18:2]. Abraham is the religious man par excellence for he sees God in the human situation. Franz Rosenzweig Based on the puotation in On Jewish Learning, ed. Nahum Glatzer (New York: Schocken, 1955), p. 124 3) 18:2 "And he lifted up his eyes and he saw, and, behold, three people....." Who were these three people? Michael, Gabriel, and Rafael. Michael came to inform Sarah that she would bear a child; Rafael, to heal Abraham; and Gabriel, to overturn Sodom. (Bava Metzia 86b) 4) The sin of Sodom consisted not only in what the people did but in what they failed to do. Thus, no one raised a voice in protest when the crowd molested Lot's guests. Failure to protest is to participate in the sins of a community. (Gen. R. 50:9) This is reminiscent many years ago of Kitty Genovese, a woman in Queens, N.Y., who was screaming for help at the top of her lungs in a major apartment complex, and not one person lifted a finger or even phoned the police. This woman was killed due to the negligence of every person aware of her screams. Are we raising our voice in protest when we witness people being hurt? "The dew of compassion is a tear." Lord Byron (1788-1824) One of the greatest British poets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 21 16:38:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 19:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:18:17AM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : I don't understand why it would need such long : deliberation or a long teshuvah to demonstrate what every school : child knows, that a mumar remains a Jew. You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein's "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity". (Reprinted in Leaves of Faith. ch 3 pp 57-84) http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage (When I hit that URL, the article was available on Google Books in its entirety.) It isn't as open-and-shut that "Yisrael, af al pi shechat'ah, Yisra'el hu" is as universal or as much as a given as most of us were taught in school. We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the qiddushin are chal. But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking Hoacheia 17a. Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim even though their conversation had been accepted for generations before then. RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. Including, RAL writes, Brother Daniel or any other meshumad applying for citizenship under the Law of Return. 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 rabbi at opengemara.org Mon Oct 22 02:45:07 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:45:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> References: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 21, 2018 4:38:17 PM PDT, Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein... > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage ... > We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to > practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the > qiddushin are chal. > But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a > non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, > Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking > Hoacheia 17a. > Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim ... I didn't learn that sugya in a while, but I was under the impression that it's a machlokes Rishonim how to learn the Aseres Hashevatim (I think it's the Meiri there). Some learn that they were a horaas shaah. Others learn like you wrote, that one who is a min is considered completely not a Jew. The thing is that the Halacha doesn't follow those Rishonim, as we're still Choshesh for the Kiddushin of a Min (who does give up their Jewish identity). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Oct 23 23:02:52 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:02:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters Message-ID: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim B:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to harvest because? they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. The Radbaz explains that since the workers aren't experts, they will either give too much pe'ah or too little.? Meaning, the issue is technical, not that they aren't chayav to give and therefore they can't do it. What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or twice with them. Ben From eliturkel at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 07:51:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:51:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: << RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. >> RAL is the most persuasive essentially after several generations. It is hard to believe that someone who converted to Xtianity in the middle ages would have descendants who are Jewish through the mothers when all connection to the Jewish world is lost. I once read that there are 80 million descendants today from the Jews in Spain that left Judaism. While we only count those through the maternal side this would still give a lot of "halachic" Jews for people who might be strong anti-semites today. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 25 06:33:46 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:33:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: Message-ID: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we say lo palginon (we don't split)? 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 Oct 26 11:06:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:06:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026180609.GA18376@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:40:01AM -0400, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no : significant debate about that. Quibble: +/- 168 years during Galus Bavel, and perhaps other issues. Also, the Seder Olam, R' Yossi bar Chalafta (acc. to Yavamos 82b & Niddah 46b), is only one tanna among many. For that matter, he is "only" the primary author, as it quotes people who lived later than RYbH. Of course there are machloqesin about many of his positions. (Our calendar is Sefer Olam chronology with a different year 0. Seder Olam numbers the year of Adam's creation as 0, and we use year 1 for the week before Adam, so that our numbers are SO + 2. But the same age.) But in a much smaller scale than you intended to, there are numerous debates. I have a pet theory that these factors are the reason why shetaros, and in particular gittin, explain the year is only as "beminyan she'anu monim kan ba'ir Ploni-ville..." But in any case, since lemaaseh no din relies on the year, pesaq doesn't apply, and machloqesin neither have to be nor even can be resolved. : 3. We don't know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam : HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a : day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. The Ramban is clear -- a yom was 24 hours on a hypothetical clock, the way we measure time now. R' Dessler explains the Ramban as equally saying that a yom was 1,000 years. Which wouldn't be long enough to help, but it gets weirder -- not just any 1,000 years, but a millennium of the 6,000 of world history. According to REED, the Ramban correctly holds that time is non-linear. (Michtav meiEliyahu vol II pp 150-154, Yemei Bereishis veYemai Olam, I paraphrase it paragraph by paragraph at ) R' Dessler writes that the arrow of time and the whole concept of a time-line is specific to how human beings perceive reality, and even that only as people have done so /after/ the cheit. Which gives him the room to say that the scientific age of the universe is not so much wrong as choosing a less than optimal way of viewing a problem that doesn't admit any one answer. The age of the universe is 6 millenia or so plus 6 days as seen from the perspective the Torah advises us to adopt. But that doesn't make some other answer less correct, or less useful for some other purpose. : 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the : descriptions we have of the Big Bang. : 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny : that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round.... Well, the Ramban on bara mentions hyle, which is the Greek for chomer in chomer vertzurah (which they called hylomorphism). So Hashem first made substance without form. Or maybe, less hard to imagine, the current substance, but in forms that no longer exist. Now, Quantum Mechanics is nothing at all like hylomorphism, but... According to Big Bang theory, in the first fractions of a second after yeish mei'ayin, things were so hot that individual particals had no identity. What now appears to be four kinds of particles, for kinds of fields, mediating forces was just one mush, not so mention the particles we think of as matted. As things cooled, the symmetry split again and again until the types of particles and forces we know today differentiated. Does sound like chomer beli tzurah. : - Expansion doesn't prove anything. It's a fact that requires a theory : to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made : the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously : expand. How do we explain "Shakai"? That He said "dai" and the expansion ended, no? : 7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit : facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, : "What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem : does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, : we would be much poorer... But there is no way to disprove "the universe is young and Hashem had His Reasons for doing it that way", reasons we can't identify. We might want answers that feel less facile, but that doesn't make it false. Might just be human hubris, to need a universe we can understand. That is different than what you're talking about, which is more similar to separating a scientific study of cause with a Torah study of purpose. But it does raise the question of whether "a bit facile" is a meaningful RELIGIOUS problem. You want to know the science, fine. But life's values doesn't rest on it. Nor should you assume science can't his a wall. : So what's the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, : or was it just made to look that way? REED says both. Because, in his typical Kantian perspective, he has science address the world as humans perceive it, believing the world as it exists "out there" is actually unknowable. And so, the world before eitz hadaas and observation by human consciousness of our sort is amenable to different descriptions. Each capturing a different shadow of the basic unknowable. On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. That natural is just a term we use to describe the patterns by which Hashem usually acts. It is all "by Himself". >From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> + When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. :-)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 From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:41:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:41:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters In-Reply-To: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> References: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181026184149.GC20611@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:02:52AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim [2]:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to : harvest because they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. ... : What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here : and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or : twice with them. I assume you're llimiting your question to pei'ah. Because leqet requires getting out of a habit when you're in the middle of gathering. And for the same reason, why not worry about shikhechah? I would think that even with instructions, it's leqet and shikechah that's hard to get used to and get right. :-)BBii! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:36:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:36:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026183619.GB20611@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:20:01AM -0400, Looking ForInspiration via Avodah wrote: : Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that : when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, : it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this : mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? It didn't. The mishnah took a 3 generation process: R' Aqiva, R Meir and Rebbe. Stam mishnah is usually like R Meir, although the gemara at times proves a different maqor, not even the final redactor. (Stam Sifra keRabbi Yehudah, even though the Sifra is not by Rebbe, but by his student, Rav.) You have statements like on RH 19b, where you're told the mishnah is not in accord with R" Yehudah haNasi. So the notion that the opinion of the mishnah is necessarily the opnion of the redactor is not a given. Nor is the stam mishnah always R' Meir. Therefor conflicting opinions isn't proof of multiple redactors. (Although,as I wrote, redaction was one school, not one person.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:05:56 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:05:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20181028150556.GB10183@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:10:21PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : Zev Sero commented: :> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, :> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. : What, if anything, does this teach us -- about Halacha or morality or : the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Perhaps it tells us that more die when the appeals process is endless? And thus, once the case is closed, it's closed. And we trust G-d to insure that any miscarriage of justice in the case is just in the broader context. Just thinking out loud to keep the topic going... It needs more discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 28 05:04:29 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:04:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:19:23 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:19:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf : The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of them a couple of decades ago. Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an artificial evolution of halakh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 10:09:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 13:09:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: At 11:19 AM 10/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: Please see >http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. > >And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >them a couple of decades ago. > >Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an >artificial evolution of halakh. I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that RYBS said this. In any event see http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf From there The findings in this article seem to confirm the judgment of some scholars that the rabbinic sources cited by R. Epstein should not be taken as accurate and that they require independent confirmation from the original sources.61 Certainly the inconsistencies found in MB cast serious doubt as to its value as a completely accurate historical account. We will never know what lies behind the puzzling inaccuracies in R. Epstein's oeuvre, nor is it for us to speculate. R. Menachem Kasher, after setting severe strictures about the reliability of R. Epstein's citations, nevertheless expresses a charitable understanding of the circumstances that may have brought this about. Noting R. Epstein's statement in MB that he lived a "life of suffering" (hayyei tsa)ar), R. Kasher writes that R. Epstein was a "great man" (adam gadol) whose )) is "a monumental work" (avoda anakit), and he attributes the many inaccuracies in the work to R. Epstein's difficult and inordinately busy life which did not permit him to check his sources as carefully as he should have. One old lesson emerges reinforced from all this-a lesson for researchers in any field, especially the field of Torah scholarship. Primary material must be carefully examined, and if only secondary sources are available, their veracity must be meticulously ascertained. Rayna Batya seems to have been an extraordinary woman, but the inaccuracies in R Epstein's telling of her story cloud our ability to know her and her absorbing story. We close this article, which is written in sadness rather than glee, by noting one final irony. When Mesorah Publications published a translation of R. Epstein's MB, tided My Uncle the Netziv, it deleted certain key words.64 The passage in which we learned of Rayna Batya's scholar- ship was one of the changed passages. The original passage, for example, mentioned the venous books she used and included, among others, Mishnayot and books of aggada. In the English translation, these books were deleted from the list, causing much indignation in the scholarly world at this attempt to revise history. How ironic it is that this effort to "sanitize" R. Epstein's reputation should have inadvertency hit upon the truth: that the story of Rayna Batya lie many other elements in MB and Torah Temima are in fact in need of serious revision. _________________________________ In light of all this can we really be sure that the Netziv read newspapers on Shabbos? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:25:15 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 12:09 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the > accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that > RYBS said this. > > In any event see > http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition article would Certainly qualify. HM From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 14:35:04 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 17:35:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 05:25 PM 10/28/2018, Harry Maryles wrote: >FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical >of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to >R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition >article would Certainly qualify. IIRC Rabbi Meir Fund is the one who told me that RYBS said that there are many inaccuracies in the writings of the Torah Temima. Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be well documented. YL From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:49:03 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:49:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <5E34DB8F-9432-4A3B-BD90-808E37069230@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be > `well documented. I glanced at it. But I did not read it. All I was doing was saying what my rebbi told me personally HM From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 19:06:13 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 22:06:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage > ... > RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends > up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who > reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who > goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed > not be Jews. One must be wary of the phrase "would indeed not be Jews". As RAL reiterates there, over and over, "Jew" can mean different things in different contexts. For example, Please see what he wrote there on pages 66-67, distinguishing between "shem Yisrael" and "kedushat Yisrael": > If we ask, in purely descriptive terms, whether anyone born of > Jewish parents is a Jew, the answer must be yes. As an epithet, > the term "Jew" remains applicable to any individual who was > ever endowed with Jewish status - even to a mechumad. Hence, he > is obligated to pursue a Torah life, and should he decide to > return, he would perhaps require no new conversion.[38] > However, if we ask whether a meshumad has anything of a Jewish > personality and character, and whether, therefore, he continues > to be endowed with the personal status of a Jew, the answer is > a ringing no. He remains a Jew without Jewishness. What he > retains is simply the descriptive epithet: shem Yisrael. Of > kedushat Yisrael, however - of the sacredness of the Jewish > personality, that which essentially constitutes being a Jew - he > is bereft. > [38] The first point, that the obligation remains, is certain. > The second, that reentry would not necessitate gerut, is open > to question. One might argue that even for one who is endowed > with shem Yisrael, the recovery of kedushat Yisrael requires > gerut. It may also be contended that gerut would not be required, > but only because the return to the fold would retroactively > cancel the earlier renunciation. My point is that - according to RAL - even the very most extreme meshumad, who severs his connection to the Jewish people so completely that he has totally lost his kedushat Yisrael, still has shem Yisrael, and IS STILL OBLIGATED IN MITZVOS. This is a critical distinction. To refer to such a person as a non-Jew would easily mislead people to think that he is now relieved of his Jewish obligations. It would be most tragic if the meshumad himself was led to such a conclusion, for it would divest him of the last shred of motivation to return. He would think of himself as an ordinary outsider, for whom gerut is totally optional. (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say about the next generation. Suppose we are talking of a woman meshumedet, who still has shem Yisrael, but abandoned her kedushat Yisrael. Do her children have shem Yisrael or not? It has always been my presumption that her children (and the children of her daughters, etc etc ad infinitum) would be obligated in mitzvos, but this article makes me wonder about that. To phrase it in more technical terms: For a newborn to have shem Yisrael, does it suffice that his mother has shem Yisrael, or must she also have kedushat Yisrael?) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:03:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181029190301.GE13649@aishdas.org> So, here are the three shitos RALichtenstein discusses about how to resolve the apparently conflicting gemaros. 1- The Rashba (Yavemos 22a) takes the case of the marriage of a backslid geir (Yevamos 67b) as primary. And the gemara about Kusim does not mean that Chazal reject their attempt at conversion. Rather kol demeqadeish al daas chakhamim meqadeish gives Chazal the power to deny the validity of their attempts to marry (other) Jews. Variant on this theme: 1b- The Ittur (quf, Qiddishin 78a) says that R' Yehudai Gaon says that Chakhamim DO allow their marriage to a Jew, and that the statement is about stam yeinam, shechitah, and other laws that are limited to maaminim. Th SA (YD 159:3) similarly says that we may not pay a Kusi ribis, but we may charge him. 2- HaGahos Mordekhai (Yevamos 107) holds that the person is literally not a Jew -- but. Because we cannot know the extent of someone's apostacy, we aren't mindreaders, for something as major as eishes ish, we recognize lechumerah his marriage to a Jewish woman. 3- R' Chaim Solovei[t]chik notes that the Rambam WRT seider nashim (Ishus 4:15, Issurei Bi'ah 13:17) as following Yevamos, like #1. And yet WRT taharah, Peirush haMIshnayos (Nidda 7:4) says a Kusi's body is not metamei tum'as ohalim, because nakhriim don't. R' Chaim says that Yevamos refers to a geir who returned to his old practices, in RAL's terms "an apostacy of action". But the Kusim and the 10 Shevatim not only changed behavior, but also ceased identifying as Jews. The opinion I mentioned earlier as R' Aharon's was his following his wife's ancestor. The quote RAM provides from Leaves of Faith pp 66-67 I saw more as a subject - object distinction. In his own eyes, he has the din of a Jew. But in the eyes of how others are supposed to relate to him, he does not. And it's the latter -- how are we to classify others -- that was under discussion. To quote RAM on another point: : (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on : the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say : about the next generation... RAL writes a little later: > It might be be argued that it only applies to a mass secession, whereby > not only an individual but his whole social context becomes uprooted. Or > one might contend that only the children, born in complete ignorance of > their origins, are affected, whereas the apostate, paradoxically, might > remain a Jew. 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 emteitz at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 09:17:40 2018 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:17:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: RMicha Berger wrote: >>And yet, the Netziv spen[t] Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >>One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >>the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >>them a couple of decades ago. To which RDYitzchok Levine responded: >I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the >accurateness of his writings. Even granting RDYL's source, there is quite a difference between accuracy in the quoting of sources and accuracy in conveying an eyewitness account. The former would attribute carelessness and imprecision to R. Boruch Epstein; the latter would accuse him of being an intentional liar. Even granting the inaccuracy of his writing, it has no bearing whatever on the accuracy of what he attests to having seen. However, even if the N'tziv did read the newspapers, it is may have no relevance to the current discussion. As RMB cited, it was the haskala press. The Netziv may have been reading it for the purpose of "v'da ma shetashiv," which I believe would render his reading permissible on Shabbos. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:54:42 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:54:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: In-Reply-To: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181029195442.GF13649@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 01:33:46PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for : accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not : guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but : have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we : say lo palginon (we don't split)? QLbdRM applies to chaivei misos shogegin. Because it's shoegeig, BD doesn't kill him, but because he violated a law that carries dinei nefashos, he is off the hook for paying a plaintiff as well. Although in the case of shogegin, the Maharshal says he is chayav to pay midinei Shamayim, even if the court can't force him to pay, and the Qetzos questions this. REWasserman (Qoveitz Shiurim 93) says there are two issues -- which crime to try and which punishment to give. Because in the case of shogegin, there is only the first -- we try for the worse aveirah, but HQBH still holds him accountable for the onesh of the lesser one, since that's the only onesh he is up for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 18:40:39 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 12:40:39 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Toivelling a flower vase more used for food Message-ID: Is the classification of Kelie SeUdah determined by the manufacturer or the user? The Gemara (AZ 75b) rejects the proposition that scissors acquired from a G require Tevillah, only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. The reason we may have thought scissors do require Tevillah - since once Kashered, all food taste is gone, it's like a new device. In fact that's how the Gemara knows that new utensils do require Tevilla. Now, if new devices require Tevillah then it's got nothing to do with the food of the G. In that case scissors should also require. The Gemara rejects that because only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. Meaning it's got something to do with food, at least in the potential. The Ritva however, is troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food of a G. He explains that nevertheless, since they will be used eventually for food they have some connection to food, therefore even new utensils of a G require Tevillah, and he adds, because they're going to a sacred (kosher or Jewish?) use. But why was he troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food? Could this mean that if the G never intend to use it for food, but as a flower vase for example, but the Y chooses to use it for food, that it does not require Tevillah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 30 09:04:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:04:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Freshly Brewed Coffee- on Shabbos? Message-ID: >From the article at http://cor.ca/view-891-freshly-brewed-coffeeon-shabboshtml.html It is well known that there are various grades of roast of coffee beans, from light roast to dark roast. When does a coffee bean become fully roasted to the extent that halacha would allow for it to be cooked on Shabbos? Poskim have expressed doubt as to whether roasted coffee beans have the status of a food that is baked or roasted.8 Due to this doubt, we are not prepared to provide the heter to use microground coffee on Shabbos, even in a kli shlishi.9 ee the above URL for much more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Oct 29 14:12:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 21:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: Pasuk 24:4 in Bereishis says 4 But you shall go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son, for Yitzchak. RSRH comments: Eliezer is to be guided by two considerations: First, l'vni; she should be worthy of being the wife of my son; she should justify my hope that she will become my daughter even as he is my son. This is the general requirement regarding her character. But two people can each be of the most excellent character and still be incompatible. Hence, l'Yitzchak; Eliezer should make sure that the woman is compatible with Yitzchak's individual character. Avraham rejected the daughters of Canaan, preferring an Aramean woman for his son. Let us bear in mind, though, that the Arameans, too, were idolaters. Thus, the reason for Avraham's decision was not the idolatry of the Canaanites, but their moral degeneracy. Idolatry is basically an intellectual error, and that can be corrected. Moral degeneracy, however, takes hold of the whole individual, heart and soul. Hence, even a man such as Avraham could not hope to find among the Canaanites a modest, morally pure woman as a wife for his son, a woman who would bring with her a nobility of spirit and the purity of morality, as a pearl for his home. [Email #2. -micha] Someone who is a rabbi with broad based knowledge sent me the following in response to my earlier message with this subject line. It is amazing how RSRH always can find something so very thoughtful and true. The Rambam alludes at the same matter: that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo, and so he will lose his Chelemer in the Olam HaBo, while it is very possibly that he might do t'shuvo for hillul Shabbos, even if only on his deathbed. RSRH was indeed the kind of very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations. YL From t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 31 00:16:31 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 03:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> From: "Prof. Levine" >: Please see >: http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. My father asked me not to read novels on Shabbos. He didn't say anything to me about reading non-fiction. I was a teenager at the time. I said he asked me, not he told me. I understood that novels were not Shabbosdig. Secular novels, that is. There were almost no Jewish novels back then. It is possible that he phrased it as a request rather than halachic statement because he did not want to impose on me some stricture that might turn me off. Possibly we are now discussing chinuch advice for parents of teenage daughters rather than hilchos Shabbos. From: Micha Berger > And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. > One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from > the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of > them a couple of decades ago. > Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an > artificial evolution of halakha. Not Friday night and not maskilishe papers. I have a copy of the letter that was sent out by the Lakewood Cheder School, recalling the book <> which it had sent out as a fundraiser. The letter does not say what is wrong with the book. All it says is, <> There seems to be a little dig there at the Torah Temima, R' Baruch Epstein, who was the Netziv's nephew and also a ben bayis in the Netziv's home and of course a talmid of the Netziv in the Volozhin yeshiva. But apparently because he thought his uncle was human, a very great man but still human, he somehow didn't <> know his uncle. After the death of his first wife, the Netziv married the sister of the Torah Temima (yes, married his niece), thereupon becoming not only the uncle but also the brother-in-law of the TT. Who nevertheless never really knew his uncle/brother-in-law, according to Lakewood. My father (R' Nachman Bulman) wrote a haskama for the book My Uncle the Netziv, which is a translation (by Moshe Dombey) of parts of the TT's memoirs, called in Hebrew <> The book came out in 1988. To quote part of my father's letter, which is the first page of the book: > The experience of Torah life derives first and foremost from Torah > learning. But the impact of Torah learning is immeasurably richer when > the lives of living Sifrei Torah, of Torah Sages, become educative models > for our people. Further, such lives are vital links in the chain of Jewish > historical knowledge. Mekor Baruch is a matchless compendium of biography, > memoirs, and lore....A glowing portrayal of Volozhin and its last central > figure, the venerable Netziv, is a major part of the work.... I ran into a friend of mine in Brooklyn shortly after Lakewood recalled the book, and he asked me, <> At that point I had no idea who the Netziv was and had never heard of the book or of the Lakewood recall, but I knew my father. <> was my instant reply. I called my father up and asked him for the lowdown. He said that some people in Lakewood were upset because the TT said his uncle read newspapers, but it was because Lakewood was unfamiliar with the papers mentioned in the book. My father actually laughed out loud as he told me this. <> (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was amused by this, too. <>) I will quote a couple of paragraphs from My Uncle the Netziv, to give the flavor of the book and of the humanity, the depth and breadth of the Netziv's personality. He used to say that he considered the newspapers like greetings from the entire world and therefore waited expectantly for their arrival. [They were weeklies that arrived on Friday.] He would not look at the paper Friday night as that time was set aside for reviewing [his Torah learning]. He would save his perusal of the paper for Shabbos morning [after kiddush]. It upset him greatly when one newspaper slandered another....My uncle's wrath was particularly provoked by his favorite papers--the Magid and Levanon--who could not seem to talk about each other with any sense of dignity and derech eretz....The owner of the Levanon, Yechiel Brill, had unilaterally decided that his paper would be the sole voice of the rabbinical community and Torah outlook on all the issues of the day....to his great chagrin, he found out that many rabbonim and members of the Torah community were also avid readers of his arch rival paper, the Magid... The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe newspapers! I recently heard, by the way, that My Uncle the Netziv is once again being sold openly in Lakewood seforim stores (apparently it has been reprinted) and no one remembers that old controversy anymore. They will sell you the book without putting it in a plain brown wrapper, and I wouldn't be surprised if some people read the book on Shabbos. -Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From micha at aishdas.org Thu Nov 1 10:11:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:11:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181101171103.GI32359@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:16:31AM -0400, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the : book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to : learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was : amused by this, too. <>) Also, Zionism. The Netziv supported Chovevei Tziyon. I enjoy pointing out to people that although Zionism was a hotly contested issue in 19th cent Eastern Europe, it was not a communal division line. And so the Netziv's yeshiva had no problem having R' Chaim Brisker as its segan RY. (We really don't see Zionism opening up as a community-defining matter until sometime during or shortly after WWI. The Agudah's first attempt to have a Kenesiah Gedolah was interrupted by that war. Many rabbanim were stranded on the way to it. Including RAYKook, who spent WWI in Switzerland and then England. On their second and successful attempt, in 1923, being a Zionist made you ineligable for membership in the Agudah, and RAYK wasn't invited.) : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic ways.) Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Nov 1 04:37:27 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:37:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: ?that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo,? This is, indeed an intelligent and worthwhile statement. Yet it also is, as I see it, basic common sense that does not require a ?very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations.? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Nov 2 06:29:57 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:29:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Between Eating Meat and Milk Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I know that there are various customs as to how long one must wait between meat and milk. Is waiting between meat and milk a Rabbinic obligation or is it a custom? A. The Gemara (Chullin 105a) states in the name of Rav Chisda that one who eats meat is forbidden to eat cheese afterwards, but one who eats cheese may eat meat. Mar Ukva qualifies that when he would eat meat, he would not eat cheese until the next meal. There is disagreement among Rishonim as to how to understand the ruling of Mar Ukva. * Rambam held that Mar Ukva was teaching us that one must wait approximately 6 hours, the length of time between meals. Shulchan Aruch follows the opinion of Rambam although he states precisely 6 hours. * Tosfos understood that Mar Ukva meant that once one eats meat, it is forbidden to eat cheese until the meal is concluded by reciting Birkas Hamazon. In addition, the mouth must be cleaned. The Rama follows the opinion of Tosfos, but writes that there is a minhag to wait one hour and that the custom of those who are careful is to wait 6 hours. Interestingly, the common German custom is to wait 3 hours. So while all agree that there is a definite Rabbinic obligation to wait between eating meat and milk, there are different opinions as to how long one must wait. For Sefardim who follow the ruling of Shulchan Aruch, waiting 6 hours is an absolute obligation. For Ashkenazim, who follow the ruling of the Rama, the obligation ends once one cleans out one?s mouth and recites a bracha acharona. Waiting one hour, three hours, or six hours are different customs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Nov 4 06:33:48 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 14:33:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Asking a Non-Jew to Perform Melacha Part 1 Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Amira%20l'Akum%20101.pdf The author is Rabbi Shmuel Stein, originally from Brooklyn, is a talmid of Mesivta and Yeshiva Torah Temimah, Yeshivas Yagdil Torah in Eretz Yisroel and Bais Medrash Govoha. Rabbi Stein teaches the popular Wednesday evening In Hilchos Shabbos Shiur and writes a review sheet which is disseminated each week before Shabbos. He organizes the Kollel?s youth programs including Masmidei Erev and Miami Masmidim program. Rabbi Stein is the new resource director at Yeshiva Elementary school and teaches at Mechina of South Florida. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Nov 4 21:03:58 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 07:03:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: [Micha wrote:] > On 11/1/2018 7:11 PM, [RnTK] via Avodah wrote: >: The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the >: Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe >: newspapers!> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos Haskalishe newspaper. > About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist > papers. I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content is like. If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content In addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based content. I don't think of these papers as being Torah publications, rather they are party newspapers that include some Torah". I would ask a different question though: What constitutes a Torah publication? Does it have to deal with parshat shavua, Gemara, mussar, exclusively? Would reading about an opinion piece, written by a rabbi, on world affairs constitute Torah? Rav Kook regularly wrote news columns. What about a mixture of Torah and news? How much of each? Is the content of each article reviewed to make sure that it doesn't violate the laws of lashon ha-rah? From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 09:22:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 17:22:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 25:27 27 When the lads grew up, Esav was a man who understood hunting, a man of the field, and Ya?akov was a totally dedicated man, living in tents. Our Sages never hesitate to point out to us the errors and shortcomings, both great and small, of our forefathers, and precisely thus they make Torah great and glorious, heightening its instructiveness for us (see Commentary above, 12:10). On our verse, too, an observation made by our Sages indicates that the sharp contrast between the two grandsons of Avraham was caused not only by their natural tendencies, but also by mistakes in their upbringing (Bereshis Rabbah 63:10). As long as they were little, no one paid attention to the differences in their hidden natures (see v. 24); they were given the same upbringing and the same education. Their parents overlooked the cardinal principle of education: 'chanoch lanar al pi darco, ?Bring up each child in accordance with his own way? (Mishlei 22:6). Each child should be guided in accordance with the path intended especially for him, the path that suits the qualities and tendencies latent in the depths of his personality, and thus he should be educated, both as a man and as a Jew. The great Jewish task is basically one, but the ways of its fulfillment are manifold and diverse, as human character traits and paths of life are manifold and diverse. Precisely for this reason, each child must be brought up al pi darco; educate him to the one great goal, according to his own unique way, in keeping with his potential. To attempt to educate a Ya?akov and an Esav together in the same classroom, in the same routines and in the same manner, to raise both of them for a life of study and contemplation, will inevitably mean to ruin one of the two. A Ya?akov will draw from the well of wisdom with ever-increasing interest and desire, whereas an Esav will hardly be able to wait for the day when he can throw away the old books and, together with them, a great life-mission, of which he was taught in a one-sided manner, totally unappealing to his nature. For much more on this topic see Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 12:49:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 15:49:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah Message-ID: <20181105204918.GA15965@aishdas.org> The AhS discusses length a few times, but I just passed CM 218:1. It ends: And know that according to the measure in our country of Russia, every 4 amos in the gemara is 3 arshin of ours, which is 7 regel ["fut"] which is one sazhen. And every tefach is 2 vieshoks. Well, there is the translations from wikipedia's page on "Obsolete Russian Units of Measurement" >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete_Russian_units_of_measurement>. 1 fut = 30.48 cm (= 1' British Empirial) = 3/7 arshin 1 arshin = 71.12cm = 2-1/3' 1 sachen = 3 arshin = 2.1336m = 7' So, 4 amos = 3 arshin 1 ammah = 3/4 arshin = 3/4 * 2-1/3 ft = 1.75' = 21" 1 vershok = 1/16 of an arshin = 4.445cm = 1-3/4" Meaning a tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 ammah) Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). Given the round numbers the AhS is working with -- 3/4 of a local unit of measure -- RMF and the AhS could differ only by rounding tolerance. 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 llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 13:16:27 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 21:16:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? Message-ID: RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf For more on this see https://www.ajol.info/index.php/samj/article/viewFile/157422/147034 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 13:35:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 16:35:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181105213511.GA31108@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:16:27PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See : http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf There was a 1979 paper by [Dr?] Philip Lanzkowsky in the American Academy of Pediatrics Journal on the topic. The AAP Journal even cites RSRH! Abstract: Polycythmia as a result of twin-to-twin transfusion in monozygotic twins has only been recognized as a clinical entity in the last few decades. The first recorded case of polycythemia in the newborn due to twin-to-twin transfusion, however, was reported in the Bible: "And when her (Rebekah) days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first came forth ruddy, all over like a hairy mantle; and they called his name Esau...". Genesis XXV, 24-26. A ruddy newborn twin is a clear description of polycythemia in the newborn presumably due to twin-to-twin transfusion. According to Hirsch,[1] despite the contrastrating differences between Esau and Jacob, they were identical twins with complete exterior similarity. Twin-to-twin transfusion occurs in 15% of identical twins. One may further speculate that because of the marked intellectual and emotional differences between Esau and his brother Jacob, that Esau's intellectual restrictions might very well have been evidence of brain damage due to cerebral sludging as a result of polycythemia or kernicterus due to uncorrected hyperbilirubinemia pursuant to polycythemia. "... nothing is new under the sun.... It has already been in the ages before us."[2] The article itself is behind a paywall, though. The problem is that Rabbeinu Chananel quotes R Yosi that Yaaqov was conceived first. And R' Yosi is an amora. As my kids and I each learned in our respective parashah classes in elementary school, Yaaqov was allegedly really the bechor, because the pebble that comes out of the vessel last was the one put into the vessel first. It's the one nearest the exit, after all. I say allegedly, because bekhorah doesn't really go to the second twin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Nov 5 13:36:32 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 16:36:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] RYS and His Son Going to College (was Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: <38.4E.22391.2E7B0EB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:17 PM 11/5/2018, R Micha wrote: >HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, >they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch >Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in >math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it >happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. >And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic >ways.) He did not agree with nor approve of his son's decision to get a college education. >> From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 1 pages 313 - 314. >>R. Israel, however, was deeply distressed that his son had >>abandoned the study of Torah, since the son had excelled so well in >>it in his youth. The father derived no comfort at all from the >>son's remarkable achievements in the world of science, and cut off >>his support during all the son's student years. R. Israel exerted >>every effort to restore his son to Torah study. When Hamaggid >>reported in 1865, that "Mr. Lipkin was on his way to Koenigsberg to >>engage in advanced research, "the editor added that this was the >>son of R. Israel of Salant, and that he was "a pride to his saintly >>father, the Gaon, as well, may he live, who did not prevent the son >>from attending lectures at university, and so to integrate Torah >>and science, for the greater glory of the sons of our people." A >>few weeks later the same periodical (No. 11) carried a letter over >>the signature of R. Israel with these remarks: "Since Truth is the >>lamp at the feet of the righteousness that goes about on earth, I >>find it my duty publicly to proclaim that no glory accrues to me, >>as the slip of your pen would seem to indicate, in respect of my >>son. On the contrary, to me this is a 'bitterness of the spirit'. >>My heart grieves at the path which my son has wanted to set for >>himself. Whoever loves his soul and has the power to persuade him, >>to turn his desire not to run counter to my will and wishes, will >>do a great favor to one as depressed in spirit as I am today". >>Nor was there any contradiction between R. Israel's personal >>attitude and his simultaneous efforts to spread Judaism in academic >>circles. There was nothing in his views to prevent him from trying >>to infiltrate Torah inside the walls of the university and to >>influence students. Furthermore, he employed every means at his >>disposal to guard his son against straying from Judaism. He >>journeyed specially to St. Petersburg to extract a three-fold >>promise: that his son would observe Shabbat, refrain from eating >>trefah food, and not shave. [27] He would say that were he able to >>disguise himself as a woman, he would go to work in the restaurant >>patronized by his son, so as to supervise the kashrut. He also >>requested R. Isaac Blazer, then rabbi in St. Petersburg, by mail, >>to keep an eye on the son. [28] In this way, it is said, the son >>remained a loyal Jew. >>[27.] As related by Rabbi A. D. Berkovsky. Presumably this was the >>journey to St. Petersburg undertaken that year, 1872, as mentioned >>above, in connection with his political activities. R. Naftali >>Amsterdam is reputed to have related that, when R. Israel was in >>St. Petersburg, several of the university professors remarked to >>the son that they would want to see what made his father so great. >>The son suggested that they ask his father the most difficult >>question in geometry they could propound. They submitted a problem >>which had engaged their minds at that time. R. Israel studied it >>for a few minutes, and solved it to the astonishment of all the >>specialists in the field (told by R. Abraham Braude). >>[28.] R. Israel's last letter to R. Isaac Blazer concerning his >>son's conduct elicited the reply that the son had not tasted >>gentile baked bread for the past three months R. Israel understood >>this to imply that his son had been dead for three months, since no >>other bread was available in the capital. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t613k at aol.com Mon Nov 5 19:18:40 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:18:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> From: Micha Berger : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! [--old TK] HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. ? ?>>>> ? You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? When we speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a secular intellectual and academic movement and of? people who were not religious and who were often virulently anti-religious.? Wissenschaft des Judentums types. There definitely were secular, anti-religious journals being published in Europe in the 19th century, some in Hebrew, others in European languages.? These were not the journals that the Netziv was reading and discussing with his talmidim on Shabbos morning after kiddush. ? You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. ? The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were definitely Orthodox.? However, the use of words like modern, worldly, charedi, Orthodox and Zionist is anachronistic.? Those terms weren't used in the 19th century as they are today.? Nineteenth century Europe was not 21st century America.? Yechiel Brill, the editor and publisher of the Levanon, was a <> only in the loosest sense of having worldly interests and being a little bit on the modern side of the frum spectrum, but he was anti-Haskalah and anti-Reform.?? ? I don't know why you want to paint the Netziv as an avid consumer of secular newspapers.? That is just not accurate. ? Now, Ben Waxman wrote: ? >> I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content >>is like. >>If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah >>publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their >>content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all >>write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content. In >>addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based >>articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. >>So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, >>he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based >>content. Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view.? The letters to the editor could be long, weighty essays themselves.? You can't really compare them to Hamodia or Yated.? They were more like an Orthodox version of today's _Commentary_ magazine, but with more flame-throwing. ? The main thing they had in common with today's charedi newspapers is that they did not carry pictures of women.? But then again, they did not carry pictures of men, either. No pictures of anything!? Just pages and pages of words.? ?:) ? Ah, I remind myself of that song from <>?? ? Words Words Words I'm so sick of words I get words all day through First from him, now from you Is that all you blighters can do ? All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the far side of the moon. ? ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 23:28:59 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 09:28:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles Message-ID: This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgluck at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 6 05:10:10 2018 From: mgluck at mail.gmail.com (Moshe Y. Gluck) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 08:10:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sent: November 6, 2018 5:37 AM Cc: marty.bluke at gmail.com This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and obligatory on both parents? KT MYG Sent via the BlackBerry Hub for Android From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:35:51 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:35:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday, November 6, 2018, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not > mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and > obligatory on both parents? > > I didn?t understand this point either as this is not an inyan of chinuch but pikuach nefesh which would apply to the mother also. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:07:42 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:07:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Toby Katz via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive > today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with > access to old library archives. > > > All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the > far side of the moon. > This is not quite true: together with lots of other Hebrew journals, they are all available online at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/JPress/English/Pages/default.aspx I doubt if that site gets as many hits as the New York Times, so basically you are right, but at least anyone who cares can judge for themselves what these newspapers were like -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Nov 6 10:59:09 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 20:59:09 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <5b8a21c0-a020-2f8a-c85c-af2e6568db4e@zahav.net.il> If no one has seen them, how do you know what was in them? You did a research paper? Ben On 11/6/2018 5:18 AM, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one > alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic > researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies > and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's > intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the > issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 6 12:04:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:04:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181106200428.GC28629@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 10:18:40PM -0500, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : From: Micha Berger :> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... :> Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of :> whose paper.) : You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way. When we : speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a : secular intellectual and academic movement and of people who were not : religious and who were often virulently anti-religious. Wissenschaft des : Judentums type... This is revisionist. When Beruriah David's PhD paper talks about the Maharatz Chajes as a Masekil, she was indeed talking about Wissenschaft types, but certainly not unobservant, never mind "virulantly anti-religious". In any case, the modern parallel to what we're talkiong about is if one of today's "yeshivish" rashei yeshivah, who happens to also be a Zionist, read a newspaper -- not a Torah magazine like JO -- put out by a LWMO "Academic Orthodox" type institution. : You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were : pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to : Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. I think you misunderstand the history. This is Chovevei Tzion, the people who brought you Achad haAm. These were Orthodox Jews who aligned with Secular Zionism. The people who founded Petach Tiqva in 1882. Bilu was also well on its way by the Netzi's hayday. But that has little to do with haMad. : The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, : moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were : definitely Orthodox. Nope. This is also revisionist. At least "moderate chareidi" is. : Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one : alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers : with access to old library archives.... Or Google. http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=tab&tab=browse&pub=MGD&_ga=2.44647777.412515131.1541534577-590544565.1541534577#panel=browse 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Nov 7 07:15:12 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:15:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0e8301d476ac$adf40550$09dc0ff0$@com> > Meaning a AhS tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 > ammah) > Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an > ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). You meant to say: RMF (IM OC 1:136) tefach is 3.54" (9cm) and ammah 21-1/4" (53.98cm). [Yes, I typoed -- 3 and 4 are adjacent keys. Which is how the error didn't reach my times-6 result for the ammah. -micha] From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 7 07:16:46 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:16:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1a5d3f60-a1f2-d250-1c3d-fc81959fdb40@sero.name> On 6/11/18 8:10 am, Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm > not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek > and obligatory on both parents? My guess is that these decisions are usually left to the mother, and the anti-vaxx nonsense has spread mostly among women, so he's now telling the men that it's their duty to insist on vaccinating the children even if their wives are opposed. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 7 11:25:01 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:25:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn Message-ID: I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" be to daven first, then learn? 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 Tue Nov 13 10:06:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181113180654.GA7634@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 07:25:01PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven : (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning : starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" : be to daven first, then learn? Perhaps it's because of Berakhos 31a: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven neither from din, nor from devar halakhah, ela mitokh halakhah pesukah. And what is halakhah besukah like? Abayei said, like what Rabbi Zeira said. ... and then quoting a settled halakhah that Rabbi Zeira said once. ("benos Yisrael hichmiru al atzman...") Rava said, like that which Rav Hoshia said.. But I think you get the idea. So, maybe people assume 1,600+ year-old discussions in the gemara qualify. I don't think that's shitas Rashi, though. Rashi ('halakhah pesuqah") says the gemara is worried about topics that a person would continue thinking about during davening. (The Be'er Heitev holds like Rashi.) But in any case, looking a little more meta: The gemara's assumption is that one is supposed to learn before davening, and the gemara then discusses what it is one should be learning. Later on in the sugya: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven from within sorrow, nor laziness, nor silliness, nor chatter, nor qalus rosh, nor devarim beteilim ela mitokh simchah shel mitzvah. Perhaps the learning is indeed seen as a prep for davening. (In addition to talmud Torah.) See OC 93. In the SA, that second TR is in se'if 2, and the first, in se'if 3. Se'if 4 amos, "Ha'oseiq betzorkhei tzibur ke'oseiq baTorah", because there is similar simchah shel mitzvah. 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 zvilampel at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 13 17:07:16 2018 From: zvilampel at mail.gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:07:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:13 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality > : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means > : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are > : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem > : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature* Just to be clear, that was a quote of the Maharal. > While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your usage. > the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent. Rambam teaches that during maaseh breishis, Hashem put the normal properties and behaviors into the natures of the things He created and formed. He also instilled in them the potential for certain aberrational behaviors, to be actualized upon certain conditions, such as the staff turning into a serpent. But such changes open can only last temporarily. But then there is the constant reaction of natural events to mankind's good and evil deeds, which is a neis nistar. This, Rambam explains, is nevertheless the greatest miracle of all: > "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with > loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a > continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of > metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". > (Rambam's Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end]) This view as well is shared by the Ramban. And this is his point in the passages in which he is mistakenly understood to be saying that "there is no 'it' to nature." As an example, in Toras Hashem Temimah, he cites the Rambam approvingly and says, "Most people think that the Alm-ighty does not constantly enact miracles, that the world proceeds in its way, and many of the chachamim think so, too, but the Rav (Rambam) curses them....All our affairs are entirely miracles, there is no nature and way that the world proceeds, for behold the promises of the Torah are all absolute miracles ...The fact of "And I shall give your rains in their time [if you keep the mitzvos]," Hashem will open for you his good treasure-house, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its time an d to bless...is the same as the plague of the firstborn, the dever and arov, and the drowning of the Egyptians in the sea...the only difference is that between the hidden and the open...." So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago shel olom, no "it" to nature. > From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? >Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? >See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam. The Ralbag demonstrates he was well acquainted with the Rambam's writings on the subject, and he himself states that none of his fellow rishonim before him "realized" that this was what Chazal were saying. The two issues raised in this post, the issue of time with the issue of miracles and ha-olom beMinhago noheig, actually tie together. Rambam in the above mentioned payrush on Avos famously maintains that it was on erev Shabbos that Hashem instilled potential aberrational behavior in the nature of the 10 things listed. However, the potentials for aberrational behaviors were instilled in the natures of all other creations ON THE DAY THE TORAH INDICATES. E.g. one example he gives is that the nature of water to split was instilled on day 2. So he is understanding the days as units of time, in which there were days 1-7 and a 6th day bein ha-shemoshos. If one were to attempt imposing the concept of "step of logic" on the use of the word "day" in this passage, the passage would not make sense. Moreh Nevuchim 2:30 does not differ. In MN 2:30, Rambam emphasizes that time itself is something Hashem created. It is a result of the turning of the sphere, which itself is something that was created. Thus, creation did not happen after a certain amount of time, because time could not exist before creation. This is the meaning of his saying that creation, the initial creation ex nihilo, happened "outside of time." (See Abarbanel ?(p. 8, left-hand column, middle), Crescas and Ephodi. Shemtov does attribute the "levels" peshat to Rambam.) But then he poses a question: If the sphere and heavenly bodies were first created the fourth day, how were the first three days measured? He is obviously assuming, in his question, that the creation days of the Torah are units of time. The question is how could there be a first, second and third day, if the thing that produces time, the revolving sphere, did not exist until day four. The question includes the assumption that each day of maaseh breishis witnessed a new creation ex nihilo of the rakia, the vegetation, the creatures, etc., so the heavenly bodies that determine units of time did not exist until the 4th day. He answers that day does not mean a unit of time, but a step of logic. No, wait, he doesn't. He answers that Chazal teach that despite the impression one may get from the pesukim, there was not a new creation ex nihilo each of the 6 days. There was one creation ex nihilo of everything, and then a "revealing"/separation/extraction of each component. What occurred on day 4 with the heavenly bodies responsible for time was not their creation. Their creation and behavior of determining time began at the instant of creation ex nihilo. He cites the Chazal comparing the process over the six creation days to that of various types of seeds. Even though they were all planted one day, each one sprouts later, on a different day. Repeat: later, on different days. The question of how there was time and days 1, 2, and 3 before day 4 is answered with the principle that the heavenly bodies responsible for time existed from the moment of creation. Nothing in the Rambam's words (either here or in his treatment in the first chelek of word meanings) about days meaning levels. "The particle "ess" in the phrase "ess ha-shamayim ve-ess ha-aretz ("the heavens and the earth") signifies "together with." Our Sages have explained the word in the same sense in many instances. Accordingly, they assume that God created, with the heavens, everything that the heavens contain, and with the earth, everything the earth includes. They further say that the simultaneous Creation of the heavens and the earth is implied in the words, "I call unto them, they stand up together" (Tehillim 48). Consequently, all things were created together, but revealed (nisgalu) / were separated from each other (nivdelu) one by one (rishon rishon). Our Sages illustrated this by the following simile: We sow various seeds at the same time; some spring forth after one day, some after two, and some after three days, although all have been sown at the same time. This outlook, which is undoubtedly the correct one, solves the problem of... how the first day, the second day and the third day were determined.... This is explicit in the words of our Sages in Bereshis Rabba. They said, regarding the light the Torah says was created on the first day. They said it as follows: These [lights of the luminaries mentioned in the Creation of the fourth day] are the very same lights that were created on the first day, but were not hung in their places until the fourth day. Behold, they explicitly stated this idea." All this would be an awful way to express the simple idea that by "day" the Torah means not a unit of time but a logical step. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 14 09:01:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:01:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Did you intentionally reply off-list? Or should I copy your email and this one onto Avodah? On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, : Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your : usage. A lot resided in the word "hypostasis", and a reason why I couldn't find a more apt word among normal English ones. :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. But it's minhago shel olam. Not an "it". The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH. It is this direct causality that people mistake for his saying there is no teva. According to the Rambam, nature is the product of the Seikhel haPo'al, which is acted upon by mal'akhim, which, if you chase the chain of causality up to the start, is a product of hashgachah kelalis and Divine Da'as. But there is an "it" there. Teva is a metaphysical object, not a pattern. See Moreh 2:11-12 (ch. 10 may be a useful prelude.) (Nevu'ah is also mediated through the Seikhel haPo'al [2:35], but that's a different subject.) A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a person, and thus to that extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH delegates his fate. I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to nature". But you apparently took me to mean there is no nature. Rather than no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on. That's what I was talking about, and most of your reply doesn't actually address the chiluq I'm making. : So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. No, but he does mean there is no such "thing" as nature. It's not a hypostatis. : His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago : shel olom, no "it" to nature. : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. See also the Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. The Abarbanel specifically endorces the Ralbag's "yesod" in understanding the Rambam. https://www.sefaria.org/Abarbanel_on_Torah%2C_Genesis.1.1.10 This is how the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian like R' Yitzchaq Arama. RYBS too, Mainodies between Philosophy & Halakhah, pg 187. In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of time. His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before the sun. And it's not a problem we modern people would face, anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 14 21:37:51 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:37:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli Message-ID: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html Me-Yet R' Ellman would not ( at least when I asked him) say that any of these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food for thought 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 Nov 14 21:35:38 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:35:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions Message-ID: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? Do we see this same propensity in prior authorities who were not writing codes in this manner? Other reason why different authorities might deal with this issue differently? 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 Nov 15 10:52:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:52:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> References: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20181115185222.GA28484@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 10:31:20PM -0400, R Akiva Miller replied to my post: :> So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted :> keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be :> when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than :> the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged :> YhR? : Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal : encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to : the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate : the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the : fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But that's the converse of my question. I didn't ask why Chazal found the taqanos they did. Or in the case of ribbis, engineered a solution using a pre-existing loophole. I asked why the RBSO didn't. If Chazal knew that people couldn't keep up the moral standard, obviously the Author of the deOraisos did too. And therefore, why didn't He allow ribbis for the same "lo diberah Torah ela keneged YhR" reasons as eishes yefas to'ar. Once we have G-d making compramizes for EYT, why did He leave ribbis to Chazal? Why did Hashem make it that money is qoneh? He knew better than chazal that it would create situations where a seller is still holding something he no longer owns, and sometimes that will mean carelessness in how the item is guarded. Why did Chazal need to invoke hefqer BD hefqer and totally rewrite how sale works? (That said, I am almost satisfied with RDR's answer, below.) : But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. : The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her : (unless he follows the prescribed procedure)... Today's militaries assume otherwise. Avoiding ribis is less of a problem when "money" is primarily a metal or contract to swap, only a half-step beyond barter. One is "only" losing opportunity cost. But once we got prime rates etc... so that there is a difference between present and future value of money can be done in some settings, avoiding ribbis became something not enough lenders could afford, and the poor suffered. Eishes yefas to'ar is similarly situational. Whether it is "unwinnable" at best depends on the kind of war one is fighting. Maybe when fighting barbarian tribes. But not as a general rule. : Alternatively: : D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. But they can allow things explicitly denied by the Torah? If you can engineer heter isqa into something that covers most of the situations where ribbis is needed, they could have engineered and issur. But I also recently encountered while learning Arukh haShulchan something that may be a counter-example. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that there are no shevu'os when the dispute is over qarqa. So, while modeh bemiqtzas (e.g.) about money or metaltelin requires a shevu'ah deOraisa, if it is about real estate there is no shevu'ah deOraisa. However, Chazal still require the nitba to make a shevu'as heises in order to retain his chazaqah on the land. And on Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:16:00AM -0400, R David Riceman replied to the same post: : It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it : is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical : level, however, I don't see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah : prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. I am sure the same was said before heter isqa. Chazal were a bunch of rabbis capable of finding 49 ways to be metaher a sheretz. Our inability to figure out how they would have created a law like eishes yefas to'ar doesn't prove it impossible. For that matter, the gemara apparently concludes that pruzbul was only enacted because shemittah today is derabbanan. Although I think it's left open whether pruzbul would not work when shemittah is deOraisa. Or whether hefqer BD would meant it would work, but they question the hava amina that Hillel would circumvent a deOraisa like that. What kind of "you don't" the gemara is talking about would impact your answer. That said, I like RDR's "more important point". Repeated here, since it's been nearly a month -- an eternity as list-time goes: : But there's a more important point. What's weird about war is that : it's not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between : civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those : different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say "hasatan : mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama" that's partly because the soldiers don't : have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. : But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to : rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person : to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over : his lifetime. : So it makes a lot of sense that k'nagged YhR is specifically mentioned : in the context of milhama. The reason why I said above I am only "almost satistfied" is that it borders on explaining too much. We aren't looking only for a chiluq between EYT and my sample dinim derabbanan. But also between deOraisa and derabbanan. You are left saying there is a whole set of dinim on a tightrope -- they are lifelong challenges and therefore controllable enough for HQBH not to want to compromize for human nature, and yet history evolved the situation to the point where they pose impossible challenges that chazal needed to accomodate. Well, not necessarily "impossible". At least: by Chazal's day these grew into challenges that are so rarely met, the usual outcome is more costly than the din -- such as the poor not being able to get a loan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 14:57:30 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:57:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli In-Reply-To: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119225730.GA28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:37:51AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: : https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html : : Yet R' Ellman would not (at least when I asked him) say that any of : these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food : for thought I like RARakeffetR's mashal (and recall, he is a RIETS RY with a PhD in Jewish History): You can ask a historican how the electric refrigerator was invented, and you will hear about the social forces involved, the wiring of the American home for power, etc... None of which tells you how the refrigerator actually works. (He might even give you the history of the application of thermodynamics and the Carnot cycle without ever explaining that particular bit of science.) Similarly: Knowing that a particular area of halakhah was mined in response to a given situation doesn't change the fact that the halachic principles had to be there and had to be applied. And the knowledge does little to teach you the principles themselves. 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 15:06:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 18:06:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions In-Reply-To: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119230604.GB28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:35:38AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan : aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority : opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach : rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? ... I think the SA tried to reach conclusions. For that matter, he tried to follow majority of his short list of major posqim. I think for him it was just a way of dealing with not being sufficiently convinced; and not having his triumverate answering the question for him. For the MB... Not sure I want to reopen that whole "the MB was written to help posqim, and its 'rulings' are lehalakhah velo lemaaseh" -- not always even followed by the CC himself. (Who was author of most of the book, and editor in chief of the rest.) : Other reason why different authorities might deal : with this issue differently? The AhS has enough confidence in toras imekha that he would use it to say that lemaaseh we pasqened like a minority, or like (what seems to me to be a) dachuq peshat. There are exceptions, where he holds that common practice is just too dachuq, but they're rare. So, for the AhS, being stumped means that not only is there no clear textual winner, there is no clear minhag (accepted practice) either. So holding out in fear of a mi'ut isn't likely. Holding like a mi'ut because the tzibbur already does, much more comomn. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 20 09:08:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181120170828.GA27185@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, ... :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. Actually, it's real, but I think you misunderstood what I meant. (As I said in the previous email.) Relevant is this excerpt from a recent shiur from Gush's Vitual Beis Medrash. Rav Bednarsh gives 2 chiluqim that are orthogonal to the one I mentioned (whether there is an "it" behind teva, or if nature is "merely" a pattern of Divine Action): 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. About fn #4... I spoke to RDBerger about his paper. I can ask a parallel question on RAB's article to introduce the same answer, so I will do so here. RAB writes (below): > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The > Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only > the principle of hashgacha pratit. > Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these > two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more > nuanced. > In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise > of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God > and not to doctors for healing.... ... > For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) > that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on > a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, > to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or > punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in > the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence > and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness... > In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that > his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh > Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and > tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully > on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the > Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order... Okay, so it's much more nuanced, but then what does he mean in the two places we started with? What I pointed out, that the Ramban is denying teva as an it -- that even teva is through the same direct Influence as neis -- adds the same nuance without ignoring those two more famous comments of the Ramban. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Yeshivat Har Etzion PHILOSOPHY > Topics in Hashkafa > Shiur #06: Divine Providence and the Natural Order 1 Rav Assaf Bednarsh Adapted by Leora Bednarsh Should one attempt to provide for one's needs in this world by working through the natural order, or should one do so by keeping mitzvot and trusting in God to provide? Are the events of this world caused by direct Divine Providence or by the natural scientific order? This question has tremendous practical significance and is the subject of much debate in the contemporary Jewish community. This topic is often portrayed as "hishtadlut (effort) vs. bitachon (trust)." ... The Position of the Rambam No Jewish philosopher can entirely deny the doctrine of hashgacha pratit. There are many examples in Tanakh that very clearly indicate that God miraculously takes care of the righteous in this world in accordance with His Divine plan.[1] However, almost all the cases in Tanakh deal with exceptionally righteous and spiritual individuals. That may be because most of Tanakh deals with these great individuals; these are the people we need to learn about in order to learn to be good Jews. The Rambam, however, maintains that this is not coincidence. It is not simply that these happen to be the main characters in Tanakh. According to the Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim III:18), hashgacha pratit is not something that God automatically utilizes in running the world. God relates to us when we relate to Him. When we open the channel, God's bounty flows through that channel. If we don't bother to create those lines of communication, then He does not communicate with us either. Those who have achieved philosophical sophistication, who have studied what the Rambam understands to be the Jewish mystical philosophical tradition and focus their thoughts on God, enjoy the benefits of Divine Providence. According to the Rambam, not all people enjoy equal Divine Providence. Those who are pious and good and religious enjoy more Divine Providence because of their understanding of God, which fuels their piety and goodness. Those who are prophets enjoy a higher level because of their deep understanding of God. Those who are on a very rarified level of philosophical spiritual achievement can be assured that God looks out for them in this world. The wicked and the religiously ignorant, however, have no such promise of Divine Providence. Even regular people who may be reasonably religious and try to think about God quite often still have not achieved that level of understanding at which they can assume that they are beneficiaries of constant direct Divine Providence. For the Rambam, then, most people do not enjoy the benefit of direct Divine Providence all the time. Accordingly, it makes perfect sense that we are expected to work through the natural order. The natural order is the default. When we change the rules by achieving philosophical knowledge of God, our lives begin to be run by the principles of Divine Providence. But much of the time the world is run by the natural order and God does not involve Himself. Thus, we should be expected to provide for ourselves and to achieve whatever goals we feel the need to achieve by means of the natural order. The natural order is the one thing that is guaranteed. God created the world and created the scientific order as the way in which the world will run until God decides to get involved because someone let Him in to his life.[2] And even then, God is only involved partially, to the extent that someone partially perfects themselves and meditates upon God. Of course, this does not mean that God has no part in our lives when we do not enjoy Providence. There is still hashgacha klalit, general Providence. God still arranges the world generally in such a way that our needs are provided for. We say blessings, thanking God, for example, for creating fruits of the tree, but not because He created this particular fruit for me to eat today, rather because He created a wonderful world that provides for much of our needs. It is our job to appreciate that. But when I stub my toe or win the lottery, is that God's direct intervention? According to the Rambam, most of the time it is not. Rather, it is the natural order. The Position of the Ramban It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only the principle of hashgacha pratit. Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more nuanced. In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God and not to doctors for healing. He states that when the masses of the Jews are perfect, their lives will not be run by the natural order, but rather directly by God; He will be their doctor. According to Ramban, that is what the righteous did in the days of Tanakh, during the era of prophecy. Anyone with access to prophecy does not need a doctor, and in case of illness should turn instead to a prophet, who will tell him which of his actions needs to be improved; he will then repent and repair those actions so that God will heal his disease. "What business do doctors have in the house of someone who fulfills the will of God?" asks the Ramban. Although the Rabbis interpreted the verse "ve-rapo yerapeh" (Shemot 21:19) as evidence that the doctor has permission to heal, the Ramban restricts the significance of this inference. If someone asks for help, the doctor should heal the patient - but Chazal never said that the patient should seek medical care, only that the doctor should provide it. The patient should ideally put all his trust in God and not in the natural order. However, if the patient has already put his trust in the natural order, the doctor has no choice but to heal him, because that is the only option left. When someone puts his faith in the natural order, his live is unfortunately run by the natural order. But when someone puts his faith in God, his life is controlled by direct Divine Providence. Similarities Between the Ramban and the Rambam The Ramban here seems to take an anti-Maimonidean stance, focusing on Divine Providence. However, on closer analysis, he does not deny the existence of the natural order. He acknowledges the existence of teva. Of course, he believes that it is far preferable to live by faith in God and not by teva, but once our spiritual level fell and we became accustomed to using medicine and working within the scientific order, God "abandoned us to the happenstance of teva." If we read the Ramban very carefully, we notice that the examples he uses of those who should not seek medical help but rather turn directly to God are limited to a time when the masses of Jews are righteous, during the time of prophecy. The Ramban is referring to people on a very high spiritual level. They enjoyed the benefit of constant Divine Providence and therefore had no business working through the natural order. The implication is that the situation is quite different for regular people in regular times. Even righteous Jew nowadays, when, unfortunately, the masses of Jews are far from perfect and when prophecy has not been restored to us, are not on the same high spiritual level. Therefore, they cannot have a reasonable expectation of constant Divine Providence in their lives, and perhaps they should visit doctors. Although everything that happens in the world is subject to Divine Providence, God has decided to abandon us - regular people in the contemporary era - to the workings of the natural order. We no longer merit constant Divine Providence. This is, in fact, explicitly the opinion of the Ramban in several places. For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness. But Yaakov himself was not sure that he was righteous enough to enjoy Divine Providence, which is why he prepared using natural means to make peace, or if need be, war, with Esav. He made various preparations using the natural order because in his humility, he was not certain that he was on the level to expect Divine Providence. If Yaakov Avinu questioned whether he deserved Divine Providence, the clear implication is that we can certainly not rely on it! In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order. We are instructed to conscript an army and go out and fight in the event of war, not just to sit and pray and wait for God to fight for us. We cannot always expect to be on such a high spiritual level that we enjoy constant Divine Providence. Rather, we must work under the assumption that we may not always be experiencing Divine Providence, and we must therefore work under the natural order. The Ramban tells us that if God wants us to win a war, we will win without an army, and if, God forbid, He wants us to lose a war, no matter how strong our military is, we will lose. But sometimes, when we are neither completely righteous nor completely wicked, God does not want any particular result, because He is not exercising Divine Providence at that point. That is why it is so important that we work through the natural order. The Ramban in this commentary seems to be in line with mainstream religious Zionist ideology. We work through the natural order because not everything always is decreed by God.[4] Differences Between the Ramban and the Rambam As much as the Ramban claims to agree with the Rambam, there is still a significant difference between their philosophies. The Ramban in a number of places, including his commentary to Iyov, tells us that Divine Providence can be either positive or negative. If someone is truly righteous, then God watches and guards him all the time. If someone is evil, God will intervene in the world to punish him. Those in the middle, neither wicked nor righteous, are left to the natural order. The Rambam, on the other hand, holds that Divine Providence can only be positive, not negative. It is purely a function of one's connection to God. Therefore, the more connected one is to God, the more Divine Providence; the more disconnected one is, the less Divine Providence. Punishment only occurs in this world because when God removes His Providence, one is exposed to the many perils of the dangerous world that we inhabit. While the Ramban has a volitional model of Divine Providence, in which God decides to exercise Providence when a person deserves reward or punishment, the Rambam has a more mechanistic model, under which Divine Providence is an automatic result of spiritual achievement. What the Rambam and the Ramban have in common, however, is their belief that while Divine Providence is an ideal to strive for, it is not the default, automatic way in which the world works. God sometimes involves Himself through the principle of hashgacha pratit, but often does not. The natural order is the authentic way in which God created the world to run when He doesn't decide to get involved and change things. For the Ramban and the Rambam, then, the answer to the question of faith (bitachon) versus effort (hishtadlut) is clear. We are expected to take care of providing our needs in this world the best we can using the natural order. None of us are arrogant enough to assume that we are so holy and righteous that we have constant Divine Providence. Of course, we strive to be more holy, spiritual, and righteous. We strive to enjoy more Divine Providence. And, at least according to the Ramban, perhaps our ultimate goal is to reach the highest spiritual levels and abandon the natural order. Nonetheless, in regular life, the Rambam and the Ramban would have us work in the natural order because we can never be certain that anything that happens to us in our lives is the result of God's direct intervention. Our success or lack thereof may be purely a function of the natural order. Therefore, we must take care of ourselves. God is not always taking care of us, as we may not be sufficiently righteous. _______________________ [1] For example, the Exodus and figures such as the Patriarchs, Daniel, and Chananya, Mishael and Azarya. [2] Even in this case, Rambam nowhere states that one who enjoys Divine Providence should not work within the natural order. In the next two shiurim, we will present various explanations of why even one who enjoys Divine Providence might be required to work within the natural order. [3] The Ramban understands God's "knowledge" of Avraham as constant Divine Providence [4] Many attempts have been made to resolve the apparent contradiction between the Ramban's statement in his commentary to Shemot 13 and his sermon Torat Hashem Temima and his formulations in his commentaries to Bereishit 18 and 32 and Iyov 36. It seems likely that the Ramban intended to claim not that everything that happens is a miracle, but that miraculous Providence ultimately controls everything. Since even nature was created by God, Providential intervention can override the laws of nature, but the laws of nature do not restrict Divine Providence. When Providence chooses not to intervene, however, nature still follows its course. For further reading, see the original texts, as well as David Berger, "Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmanides," in Isadore Twersky (ed.), Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuosity (Harvard University Press, 1983), available at https://www.biblicalnaturalhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/MiraclesNahmanides.pdf. From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 06:41:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:41:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yaakov and Esav Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32:8. 8 Ya?akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. In Ya?akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya?akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya?akov?s attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 08:24:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:24:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? Message-ID: One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the ?Medina shel Chessed? is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic issues of this very American holiday... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 22 04:30:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? Message-ID: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is it equivalent of free will? What does it mean to have free will without consequence? How then do we understand the medrash in Breishit that the trees were punished for not following HKB"H's direction? The dogs being rewarded for not barking? 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 zvilampel at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 09:30:07 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:01 PM Micha Berger wrote: > > RMB: > :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. > > ZL: Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no > less > : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of > : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that > : minhag permanent. > > ... > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. Where does Ramban say this? As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent at maaseh breishis. See, for example, on Shmos 6:6. ''The posuk says 'Vay-hiH khein'' because that is the teva that was instilled in them forever...and they will remain with the first teva that was instilled in them at the time of their formation (Vayamdual haTeva haRishon asher hussam bahem bEis yetsirasam). And on Vayikra 26:11, in the passage about refuah, he uses the phrase, VaHashem Heeneecham lemikrei haTivee-im, Hashem leaves them to the natural mikrreim. How is this insisting that, contra Rambam, ''those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH''? Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. RMB: [According to RambaM:] A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a > person, and thus to that > extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva > (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH > delegates his fate. > ZL: You are making a distinction that you attribute to RambaM, between teva and minhago shel olam. Teva is something that a daas-lacking person is left to. Through it, Hashem delegates his fate. Minhag shel olam is something else. I don't follow. Where is such a distinction made? And I thought you maintained that contra RambaN, RambaM does /not/ hold that HQBH delegates the fate of lesser people. Only ''the RambaN talks about nature being a pattern in events... /directly/ caused by HQBH. Is there also a distinction between ''directly causing'' and ''delegating''? Do you mean RambaM holds Hashem HAD delegated their fate (by setting up the mechanisms at Creation)? RMB: > I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to > nature". ... no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on... there is no such > "thing" as nature. It's not a > hypostatis. ZL: Where do you see what you are trying to explain in Ramban? Regarding the shiur by Rav Bednarshom, and the point that 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. The last sentence should be about RambaN, right? And here's something to ponder: As I wrote previously, the Rambam writes that the greatest miracle of all, is nature's responding to man's behavior, favoring good behavior and punishing bad behavior. Granted, favoring good behavior is miraculous. But l-fi Rambam's shittah, what is miraculous about leaving the practitioner of bad behavior to the wiles of nature? Also, regarding: > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. Obviously, this is just the hava amina. The Ramban did not write that ''everything that happens'' is a miracle. His wording is that the whole [teaching of the] Torah [about reard and punishment] is a miracle. Meaning, as the maskana is, that the Torah's system of award and punishment is miraculous. Secondly, the Ramban does not say that everything is a miracle,without causation, except reward and punishment. The causation between behavior and reward and punishment is an explanation of, not in contrast to, his statement that the whole teaching of the Torah is that there are miracules. > > > :ZL: His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a > : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the > forces > : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, > : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no > minhago > : shel olom, no "it" to nature. > > : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand > : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is > : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified > model, > : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. > > : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, > > : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, > note > : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? > > : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and > : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being > in > : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya > : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? > > :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. > > : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given > : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say > : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. > But > : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... > > It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. It is not his peshat in the Rambam. He does not mention Rambam, much less attribute to him, the ''levels'' peshat, neither in his Torah commentary nor in his Milchamos Hashem. If you can find such a passage, please locate it for me. On the contrary, here is how he addresses the question of how there could be days before the fourth day when the sun materialized. He gives two possibilities. And he gives the ''levels'' approach as an /alternative/ explanation to the answer that the sphere, by which time and days are produced, was in operation from the moment of creation.They are two /different/ ways of answering how there could be days one through three before the existence of the stars, although both answers are predicated on the Chazal-based view that everything in the universe and earth was instantly and simultaneously created in its complete form (besides vegetation and Adam and Chava). And if the virtually identical verbiage to that of the Rambam is an indication that Ralbag was intending to give peshat in the Rambam, note that he is explicitly using that verbiage in the answer granting that ''days'' are units of time, in /contrast/ to the notion of ''days'' meaning ''levels''. And also remember, as I have noted before, that Ralbag explicitly says (Torah commentary, on VaYchulu) V-im nim-tsi-u rechokim meod mei-hakavana asher matzanu kahn, kmo shetireh mimah shebier bazeh haRav HaMoreh besifro hanichbad Moreh HaNevuchim, ViHachcham R. Avraham Ibn Ezra.... that his new approach is /very far/ from that of the Rambam. And he repeats this in Sefer Milchemes Hashem, Presentation VI, ?Part II, Chapter 8, Conclusion. Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. This is how > the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian > like R' Yitzchaq Arama. > But you see, you have to resort to secondary sources to support the claims about what Rambam and Ralbag held, whereas we have the first-hand sources in front of us. The fact is that the Ralbag does not attribute the ''levels''approach to the Rambam, and in fact considers the ''levels'' approach as an alternative to what the Rambam wrote.. Abarbanel is known to repeat ideas of his contemporary, R. Y. Arama. He is also known to have a very eclectic style. You are of course correct that in his 9th shayla he attributes the ''levels'' approach to the Rambam. But look how he does it, and explain to me how it makes sense: > The 9th shayla concerns what is mentioned in the Moreh Nevuchim. Rambam > notes that time ?cannot exist without the movement of the celestial > spheres, the sun and moon. However, this raises ?the question as to how > there could be time before the fourth day on which the celestial spheres > and sun were ?created. The Rambam answered this question by asserting that > in fact the spheres and the sun were ?created on the first day. Thus time > existed for the first 3 days in the same manner as it existed on the > ?subsequent days. He explained that in fact everything ? both the Heavens > and the Earth ? were created ?on the first day. Stop here. Do you not see the Abarbanel explaining Rambam as holding that the days of Breishis were units of time, and not ''levels''? Let's continue: The Rambam cited Chazal that the word ?es? indicated that the creation on > the first day ?included everything associated with the Heavens as well as > everything associated with the Earth. He also ?cited the gemora (Chulin > 60a) that everything that was created was created in its final form. He > also cited ?another statement of Chazal that the Heavens and Earth were > created simultaneously. Thus the Rambam ?believed that the work of Creation > happened all on one day and was not divided amongst six days. He ?claimed > that in a single moment of creation everything came into existence. And of course, the Rambam continues (and Ralbag includes it) that whereas all was created ex nihilo from the first instant of creation, following that was a process of separating the components of the universe, forming things, as he says elsewhere in the Moreh, kach mikach. How then does the Abarbanel say in the next breath: > He explained that the reason ?for the Torah stating that there were six > days of Creation was to indicate the different levels of created ?beings > according to their natural hierarchy. Thus the Rambam does not understand > the word day to be a ?temporal day and he doesn?t read Bereishis to be > describing the chronological sequence of creation?. Kasha reisha al sefa! And note that in shayla 5 as well Abarbanel had written: That which the Torah mentioned of the creation of the stars on the fourth day, made HaRav haMoreh answer, as it seems from his words, in that chapter 30 of Part Three, that on the first day the sphere was created with the stars and light. But their actions had affect on the fourth day upon the vegetation.Such is apparent from the words of the Rav...Perhaps RambaN too meant this, since he mentions this approach in the name of yeish meforshim. And if one is to treat this as Abarbanel changing his mind, well then consider another about-face over 80 pages later (p. 85 in our editions) Behold you see that the opinion of the Rav was ...that all that is mentioned regarding the activity of the six days, ?from the creation of the heavens and the earth, and all of the phenomena, and the creation of Adam and ?his wife, up until ?vayechulu? have no allegory whatsoever, for everything was ?literal to him [the Rambam]. Therefore you will see that in this very chapter, no. 30 in the second section, ?in all which the Rav has explicated regarding the activity of the six days, he did not make an allegory or a ?hint at all. Rather, he did the exact opposite, for he made a concerted effort to support the doctrine of ?creation ex nihilo and accepted all of the verses literally?? Obviously, Abarbanel was not consistent as to whether the Rambam understood the creation days to be ''levels'' rather than units of time. So he should not be cited with such certainty that he held so. ?I would also caution against uncritically accepting A?s description of B?s opinion if A goes on to ?lambaste it, as the Abarbanel did with his original reading of the Moreh Nevuchim. ?(The question presents itself, then, how did the Abarbanel?s contemporary, the Akeidas Yitzcahk, ?and the commentary of the ShemTov?who is not regarded as a rishon?as opposed to the ?commentary by Crescas), and the Abarbanel himself in his second take, get from (a) the Rambam?s ?classical rendition of a six-day meta-natural development of potential created on day one, to (b) ?seeing the Rambam as promulgating that ?the six days are a metaphor for six levels in the hierarchy ?of natural objects: light/darkness, water, minerals, flora, fauna, man??? My theory is that the earlier commentators of the Moreh, such as Narboni, greatly influenced by ?the Aristotelian academia of the time, anxiously imposed their radical views on the Rambam. (We ?see that in the Rambam?s own time, he complained of people radicalizing his views?including those ?who as accused him of (or ?complimented? him for) denying techiass ha-meisim). They hijacked the ?Moreh so efficiently that it became popular to think the Rambam thought like Narboni. This ?became the starting point from which later commentaries saw the Moreh (similar to, l?havdil, Rashi?s ?commentary being one?s first impression of what the Chumash says, and one?s natural thinking that ?what Rashi says is necessarily what the Chumash undoubtedly means.)? > In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, > following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, > there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which > processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the > Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of > time. > Not my issue. > > His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before > the sun. > *In the words of Ralbag the **problem is with zeman before the sun. His answer is that the sphere, even without the sun, produces zeman. * The problem that bothered the early ones, with what were day one, day two and day three measured? Behold, the light-bearers were not in existence until day four! [The answer is that even though the light-bearers did not appear until day four], the heavenly sphere was in existence on day one, and each revolution of it formed approximately one day. Abarbanel puts it that the problem is zeman before the sphere, sun and stars. The answer is that they all existed and formed zeman from the first act of creation. ???"? (?????, ??? ?) (?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? (?, ?-?) ...??????, ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? (??? ? ??? ?), ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???, ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?????; ???? ???? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?):... ??????? ??????: ?? ??? ???? ?????, ?????: ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????, ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? (?????? ??, ??). ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????: ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??????????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? (?, ?) ?* ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ???.* ???? ?????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??????,??? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ????, ????? ???? ???? ??? *.??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? .* *??* ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???, ????? ?? ????? ?????? *???? ??????*, ?? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ??? ????? *???? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????*; ??? ????? *??? ????? ???????,* ?? [??"? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????, ?"?] *?**??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????, ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? *? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??. ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???????, ??? ????? ?????. *???? ????? ????? *??? ???? ?????, ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?????. ??? ?? ????????? ??????? ??? ??????: ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?), ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?????. ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? (??? ? ????? ???? ????), ?????: ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??. ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????, ?? ???? ?????? ??, ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???????, ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? > > But the bottom line,to which we both agree, is that traditional Judaism holds that Creation, regardless of our issue about zeman, was not a natural process. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162531 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 23 02:58:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. : : : Where does Ramban say this? ... This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, it directly from G-d. : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag : permanent at maaseh breishis... Which is not in contradicction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain ways. To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel hapo'el, but still thimk you can reach what the rishonim are talking about? :-)BBii! -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 zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 15:37:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 18:37:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those > events > : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. > : > : > : Where does Ramban say this? ... > > This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > from G-d. Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or uses intermediaries. > > : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times > that > : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag > : permanent at maaseh breishis... > > Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern > of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that > behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain > ways. I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures. Yes, Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but they would be in agreement that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM, and just as much not a ??thing?? ?to RambaM as to RambaN. The disagreement would be whether Hashem at Creation set up intermediary steps ?in creating the world?s components and their behaviors. According to both of them, at the end of the Creation period Hashem established what the normal behaviors (patterns) would thereon be, and up to then the nature of the world was not stabilized. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but both agree that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. RambaM cites Chazal that ?Hashem at Creation also imbued in the things of the world the potential for aberrant behaviors ??(miracles) to be triggered when Hashem so decrees. I do not see RambaN disagreeing, but even if he does, I do not see framing it in terms of a dispute over whether nature is a ??thing.?? It would be a dispute over whether the miraculous natures were imbued at Creation or first initiated at their enactment, and in view of the Chazal cited by RambaM, RambaN would have some explaining ?to do. And of course, although the Rambam strongly objects to the idea that Hashem is constantly recreating the world, he also famously states that Hashem is constantly maintaining it, and that if He would remove His maintenance, the world would cease to exist. ? And if one insists on inferring from RambaM?s words an issue of Nature being considered a ????thing??, as opposed to a mere normal pattern of behavior, consider this quote:? http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=38545&st=&pgnum=14&hilite? The One Who created it [the world] made its general properties as a kiyum gadol. ??...This is what it means when it says, ??I know that all that G-d will make, IT will be ?forever.??...The yesodos ... all these are kayamim l-olom. It is impossible to add upon or take away from them, for it says, ??And G-d MADE [things] so that [people] will be in awe before Him, for ...these [things] stand forever. The above are the words of RambaN, in his Drasha on Kohelles. One could argue therefrom that he considers the general properties of the world as ??things?? that are permanent. Or not. > To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. To the Rambam, as well. > > : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to > : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. > Especially > : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. > > You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel > hapo'el, but still think you can reach what the rishonim are talking > about? No. You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? Zvi Lampel -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban Drasha on Kohelles.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 500027 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 25 17:29:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:29:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the Destruction of Sodom? Message-ID: <20181126012932.GA7767@aishdas.org> See https://www.sciencenews.org/article/exploding-meteor-may-have-wiped-out-ancient-dead-sea-communities or . I am including just a teaser. I intentionally ended with the note that the researcher works at a Xian university, as that does speak toward objectivity. We'll see what peer review says of the evidence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Science News Archaeologists at a site in what's now Jordan have found evidence of a cosmic calamity An exploding meteor may have wiped out ancient Dead Sea communities By Bruce Bower 10:00am, November 20, 2018 Preliminary evidence indicates that a low-altitude meteor explosion around 3,700 years ago destroyed cities, villages and farmland north of the Dead Sea (shown in the background above) rendering the region uninhabitable for 600 to 700 years. DENVER -- A superheated blast from the skies obliterated cities and farming settlements north of the Dead Sea around 3,700 years ago, preliminary findings suggest. Radiocarbon dating and unearthed minerals that instantly crystallized at high temperatures indicate that a massive airburst caused by a meteor that exploded in the atmosphere instantaneously destroyed civilization in a 25-kilometer-wide circular plain called Middle Ghor, said archaeologist Phillip Silvia. The event also pushed a bubbling brine of Dead Sea salts over once-fertile farm land, Silvia and his colleagues suspect. People did not return to the region for 600 to 700 years, said Silvia, of Trinity Southwest University in Albuquerque. He reported these findings at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research on November 17... From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:49:35 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:49:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Weight of a Shekel Message-ID: <20181126204934.GA12575@aishdas.org> No, they didn't find a sheqel, they found something just as good -- a beqa from bayis rishon, as in machatzis hasheqel "beqa lagulgoles". Just multiply by 2 to get a sheqel haqodesh. (Ie a beqa is a plain old sheqel.) (There apparently weren't 1/2 sheqel coins during basyis rishon.) See or https://www.timesofisrael.com/straight-from-the-bible-tiny-first-temple-stone-weight-unearthed-in-jerusalem/ The Times of Israel Straight from the Bible: Tiny First Temple stone weight unearthed in Jerusalem By Amanda Borschel-Dan 21 November 2018, 12:57 pm Volunteer at City of David sifting project finds rare `beka' measure, used by pilgrims paying half-shekel tax before ascending to Temple Mount, in dirt from dig near Western Wall [Picture of weight, bearing the word beqa in kesav Ivri in mirror writing. The caption reads:] A First Temple period weight measure called a 'beka' was unearthed in a City of David excavation in the Davidson Archaeological Park and discovered in the wet sifting project in Jerusalem's Tsurim Valley. (Eliyahu Yanai, City of David) An extremely rare, minuscule biblical stone weight inscribed in ancient Hebrew script with the word "beka" was discovered in rubble taken from excavations at the foundations of the Western Wall. Only a handful of similar stone beka weights have been unearthed in Jerusalem, said archaeologist Eli Shukron... Unlike several hundred years later, during this era, there was no half-shekel coin. Pilgrims brought the equivalent weight, a beka, in silver to pay their tax, which would have been measured out on scales in the very spot under the Temple Mount where the tiny stone weight was unearthed. Shukron said in a press release, "When the half-shekel tax was brought to the Temple during the First Temple period, there were no coins, so they used silver ingots. In order to calculate the weight of these silver pieces they would put them on one side of the scales and on the other side they placed the Beka weight. The Beka was equivalent to the half-shekel, which every person from the age of 20 years and up was required to bring to the Temple." According to the release, the biblical shekel weighed 11.33 grams.... To give you an idea of where that stands halachically, the Rambam's (H' Sheqalim 1:2) 384 se'or. A barleycorn is 0.044 and 0.05 gm, so the Rambam's sheqel would be at least 16.9 gm. Rashi (Shemos 21:32) says that a sheqel is half of a the ounce used in Cologne. Which today we would call .5 troy oz, or 15.55gm. The CI holds it's .51 troy oz (15.86 gm). Once again, the evidence about shiurim from Har haBayis is below even the Rambam's shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:26:21 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:26:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly :> from G-d. : Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or : uses intermediaries. Except that he calls it a neis. It can't both be Divine Intervention AND left to metaphysical mechanics. I mentioned that RDBerger et all never go around back to the first Rambans they discuss to explain what they do mean after all. He does deny teva in the famous comment at the end of parashahs Bo (13:16) (where he refers you back to comments on Beresishis 17:1 and Shemos 6:2). For that matter, he even denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. We have to close the circle somehow. Teva = nisim nistarim. Nistar through allowing patterns, minhago shel olam. ... :> Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern :> of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that :> behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain :> ways. : : I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that : it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow : apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the : behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". (I think this description of the Ramban is the belief most of us leave yeshiva day school with.) : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. Physics does not inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His Action to be hidden by routine. : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim in the usual sense. ... :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : : To the Rambam, as well. To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. To the Ramban, a person who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from Him as needed. Tir'u baTov! -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 llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 27 06:18:44 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:18:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why Didn't The Brothers Tell Yaakov "Yosef is alive"? Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 37:35 35 All his sons and daughters arose to console him, but he refused to accept consolation. He said: I shall go to my grave, mourning for my son. Thus his father wept for him. (?His daughters? probably refers to his daughters-inlaw.) All of them ?arose? to console him. They did not ?go? or ?come?; they ?arose? to console him. ?To arise? in order to perform an act implies that the act is born of resolution, an act one must bring oneself to perform. Until this point, they themselves were immersed in grief. No one feels so much grief as do those who must console a mourner. To see one?s aged father inconsolable, viewing every cheerful thought as a sin, would move even a heartless scoundrel to agonized remorse. He would be too distraught to offer consolation, because he would be in need of consolation himself. But why didn?t any of them attempt to sprinkle soothing balm upon the wound? Why didn?t they reveal to him: ?Yosef is alive!?? The answer: because that would have been the greatest cruelty of all. In the minds of parents, a child who was torn by wild beasts is never lost, but a child who is wicked is worse than lost. Therefore, he who would not aggravate the father?s grief a thousandfold would have to remain silent until the day when Yosef would return and the joy of the reunion would mitigate in the father?s mind even the crime that had been committed by his other sons. Had they told Ya?akov at that time the truth about what had been done to Yosef, Ya?akov would have felt as though he had lost not only one son, but ten sons at one time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 06:39:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gradations of Lifnim miShuras haDin Message-ID: <20181128143951.GA12638@aishdas.org> Surprisingly, not a subject I've thought about before. Apparently, there are different kind of lifnim mishuras hadin callings. See Arukh haShulchan CM 222:8. The SA (se'if 2) talks about the case where someone buys something from one of 5 people, doesn't recall which, and each of them are tov'im for payment. The money is held in escroe by BD until the claimants come to agreement or Eliyahu arrives and sorts it out. And if he is a chassid, he should pay each of them, kedei latzeis yedei Shamayim. The AhS adds: And a chassid adif miyarei Shamayim (YS) because a YS does not want to be mevater his own property in a business matter, and a Chassid is mevater. (Shabbos 120b). Presumably a YS is the person concerned latzeis yedei Shamayim (or else I can't understand the AhS). And this goes on to the case of the yoreish of one of the potential sellers, claiming he would be patur even LYS (Sha"kh, Ramban, Ritva.) Whereas the Qetzos says that while he is patur even LYS, chassid, ra'ui lo la'asos kein mimidas chassidus. So, there seems to be two kinds of lifnim mishuras hadin involved here, and there is a nafqa mina lemaaseh: the YS who is concerned LYS, and the chassid who is pursuing his midas chassidus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 11:48:46 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:48:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Baalus and Chameitz (was: help with 2 sugyot) Message-ID: <20181128194846.GA21056@aishdas.org> On 1 May 2013 (v23n74 ) I replied to a question by RAM with (in part): > But I think the key here is the word "property". I suggested in the past > that there is no such thing in halakhah. (With a probable exception of bal > yeira'eh bal yeimatzei.) There is baalus, but that's a different concept. > Returning to bal yeira'eh as an example... A son does not inherit chameitz > from his father who dies while owning it on Pesach. The issuer hanaah > means a lack of baalus. Even though it's the father's in the sense of > being chameitz she'avar alav haPesach (for the part of Pesach the father > was alive to own it). > As is implied in what RAM writes, baalus is more like custodianship than > what we think of when we hear "property". Which is born out in the word > "baalus" as well. Baalus revolves around control and responsibility, > not an abstract principle of how the world is divided up among people. > My previous thoughts on baalus and qinyan, as shaped by prior conversations > here, are at . Well, Arukh haShulchan Yomi adds another data point -- CM 245:10. Someone gives another a gift and the recipient uses a language of bitul (bitul, mevatel, mevuteles hi, tivateil, etc..) to reject the gift after it reached him, if it's metaltelin, the item is hefqer. The AhS notes the connection to bitul chomeitz that renders it hefqeir. However, he says this is no raayah because chameitz on Pesach isn't in his reshus, it's only made "ke'ilu hi birshuso" by bal yeira'eh. And that's why gilui daata is enough to get the chameitz out of his reshus. But (citing the Ran, beginning of Pesachim), something that is mamash his is different. The AhS concludes that bitul only makes the gift hefqer because it's a gift, but if it were actually his nekhasim, it wouldn't be sufficient. (Now that I wrote all that, I seem to recall someone did along the years mention that bitul chameitz only works because we're talking about quasi-baalus, and not real baalus. But I invested too much to what to skip sending this email now. And besides, I added another maqor.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 28 21:29:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 05:29:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. Message-ID: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to both monetary and spiritual liabilities. I was wondering, according to those who said you can waive the spiritual liability, whether that would also work retroactively (e.g. would somebody escape lashes for less than a penny's worth of damage -if the aggrieved party waived the spiritual damages after the fact of the hit) 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 Nov 30 10:19:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links Message-ID: <20181130181913.GA25124@aishdas.org> Einstein and G-d: http://nautil.us/blog/how-einstein-reconciled-religion-to-science Eistein said things about G-d that appear to contradict -- he both speaks of the Designer of existence and belittles the G-d of religion. Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's -- not emunah in a Borei but our standards, but far from atheism in their self-perception. --- Stephen Colbert explains his faith to Dr Neil de Grasse Tyson https://www.facebook.com/michael.bernstein.86/videos/10100134331341237/ He says that his faith doesn't come from a place of evidence, it comes from gratitude. Until they can explain why we exist rather than not exist, we need some basket to put that gratitude in. A little too Gcd of the Gaps. He could have made the same point using a more Non-overlapping Magesteria approach. IOW, he shouldn't be talking about belief until Dr Tyson and others in his profession can explain why we exist. Rather, he should point out they can't -- "why we exist?" isn't even a scientific question. Science doesn't cover all of human experience. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 18:36:04 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 21:36:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:26 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> RMB : This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > :> from G-d. > > : ZL: Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the > : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas > : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at > : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or > : uses intermediaries. > > RMB: Except that he calls it a neis.... ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' from Hashem than RambaM did. denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: > From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, > all our things and everything that happens to us is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago shel olom. It can't both be Divine Intervention > AND left to metaphysical mechanics. > Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine intervention manipulates but does not undo. The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force .'' > And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits > sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." > > Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. > We have to close the circle somehow. > ... According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". ZL: You are basing a lot on the Ramban using the expression ''hakol begeiras Elyon.'' But that expression, as well as ''neis,'' is no indication of disagreeing with the idea of Hashem intervening and conducting a neis nistar working through intermediaries to manipulate but not undo minhago shel olom. Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim has a chapter on this. And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own through the control of the angels over the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force . And behold the control was /from the time of their coming into being until forever more, *a gezeyras Elyon* [another girsa is Elyonim] that He placed in them/.'' The correct translation of ''gezeyras elyon[im] may even be ''a gezeyra about the upper world(s)/beings/forces,'' with elyon not being a reference to Hashem, just as it obviously is not in the first sentence of this passage. The gezeyas Elyon is what He placed into the forces that produce nature, the minhago shel olom. In the passage where Ramban declares that all that occurs to us is neis and not minhago shel olom or teva, he is contrasting our belief that Hashem, through neis nistar, manipulates minhago shel olom according to our deeds, with that of those who hold that nature runs mechanically with no connection to human behavior. Realizing this answers all that you proceeded to write: > > ...ZL: > : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem > : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... > > RMB: You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. ZL: I cited his repeated explanation of vayehi chein, and now his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12. RMB: [Ramban holds, contra RambaM, that] Physics does not > inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His > Action to be hidden by routine. > > ZL: : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that > : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and > : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of > : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. > > RMB: But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras > Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim > are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? > ZL: This is again your unwarranted inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras Elyon. > > ZL: : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you > : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a > : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much > : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... > > RMB: Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other > says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim > in the usual sense. > > ZL: This is again your inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras > Elyon, which I showed is incorrect. Rambam speaks in terms of Seichel > HaPoel setting up the world's machinery of spheres that influence matters > on earth. Ramban speaks in terms of Hashem creating influencing spheres > controlled by angels. Ramban considers Nature no less an ''it'' than > Rambam. Rambam considers Nature no more an ''it'' than Ramban. > > ... > RMB: :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. > : > ZL: : To the Rambam, as well. > > RMB: To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah > necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. > And RambaN (Devarim 18:13) speaks of Hashem redirecting the normal course of the spheres to act in favor of those who draw close to Him through their avodah. (In fact, Rambam in Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end], too, puts it terms of avodah: "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". According to both, Hashem intervenes to manipulate the machinery of minhago shel olom based upon man's closeness to him. > ZL: : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without > : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? > > RMB: The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is > saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, > he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. > > Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is > hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. ZL: I'll concede that point, although I'm still left with the question that the Rambam refers to minhago shel olom oneshim, too, as the greatest of nissim nistarim. How is abandonment to nature a neis? And he also refers to, for example, the Egyptians being punished for volunteering to fulfill the role of persecutors foretold of in the bris bein habesarim. The plagues were not a mere abandonment to nature... Tsaruch iyun.... > To the Ramban, a person > who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from > Him as needed. > ZL: That's an interesting twist on how to look at oneshim as a chessed. > > Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/03/18, 8:45:33 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban on astrology Devarim 18, 9-13.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2384560 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 4 09:31:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:31:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181204173107.GC16262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 09:36:04PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the :> : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas :> : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at :> : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or :> : uses intermediaries. :> RMB: : Except that he calls it a neis.... : So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar.... Different "it". The Ramban calls everything a neis. The fact that that doesn't imply what you would think if you only looked at those 2 comments doesn't change the fact that to the Ramban, teva is a neis. So: The Rambam acknowledges sekhar va'onesh via neis nistar, for those who earn such HP. (Hashgachah = both sekhar va'onesh.) And yet normal teva is the action of the Seikhel haPo'al, a metaphysical automaton "preprogrammed" by the Borei. The Ramban holds that all of teva is neis nistar, whether it's hashgachah (leshitaso: hashgachah = sekhar), onesh, or minhago shel olam. Again, but in significantly different words: To the Rambam, teva follows minhago shel olam because the Seikha haPo'al has a single mission and lack bechirah. According to the Ramban, teva is a word that means the subset of Divine Action that follows minhago shel olam rather than being selected by HP. I believe you agree that rishonim understand the Rambam's position on teva and the Seikhal haPo'al the way I explained it. I am not clear how you can insist they got it wrong. : ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, : > all our things and everything that happens to us : is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the : manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or : non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day : behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and : everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago : shel olom. Right, but that's not HP. According to both Rambam and the Ramban, not everything that happens to every person is HP. And yet they are all neis. You are also incorrectly deducing from the Rambam's talking about that whih happens to us that he means to exclude things that don't impact human life, such as the growth of a tree in the middle of the Amazon where it possibly effects no one. However, he is saying the Torah is founded on knowing how to view what happens to me personally. Not abstract knowledge about how the world works. That tree in the Amazon isn't on topic. ... : ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling : it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' : from Hashem than RambaM did. Even before we get to our point, not really. According to the Rambam, sekhar is a neis nistar. Onesh is almost always abandonment to teva. (Similarly, to the Rambam on Cheileq, gehenom is kareis is a lack of olam haba, and not suffering in olam haba.) Suffering as onesh is usually just what happens to a human being trying to fight what we would call today the law of increasing entropy. (It's easier to break things than make them.) On rare occasions, there is a Makas Bekhoros, but those are nissim geluyim. After all, leshitas haRambam, sin causes a lack of knowledge of the Borei, and thus a disconnection from Him, and thus a lack of hashpa'ah. HP itself is causal, leshitaso. Just as nevu'ah is causal, and it take a neis for Hashem to hide information from a navi who has enough yedi'ah to be connected up to be able to "look" for it. So, they disagree about whether onesh is HP / neis, even before we get started with our dispute. (Something also mentioned in the shiur from Gush I pointed you to.) :> It can't both be Divine Intervention :> AND left to metaphysical mechanics. : Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem : created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar : v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In : contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine : intervention manipulates but does not undo. And to repeat myself, you're nmistaken. The Rambam has a delegate Hashem gave nature to, and when there is a break from minhago shel olam, Hashem (via mal'akhim, beings higher than the Seikhel haPoal) is intervening. The Ramban does not have such a delegate. When there is a break from minhago shel olam, it's because someone earned Hashem making another kind of decision; another priority rose to the top in (kevayakhol) how He Chooses what to Do. Your reasserting otherwise still doesn't explain why you feel the Abarbanel and Narbonni got him wrong about this idea that a separate seikhel was created to do teva, that just runs minhago shel olam. And in fact, further down you stop denying this and instead argue from the Ramban in Devarim that the Ramban also has such sikhliim. I am not clear where exactly you stand. : The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm : of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each : ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago : shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. Runs like a machine, ie following a minhag. Whereas the Rambam gives it an actual metaphysical machine. : To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing : astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created : the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the : spheres. You are literally quoting a Ramban that says that even though there are kokhavim, mazalos, mal'akhim and sarim which has a nefesh, one cannot worship them or use astrology to tell the future (kesoa'avos hagoyim haheim) because they're only responding to His Will. A navi, who is looking at His Will, can know the future. : ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim : controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and : constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the : stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force : .'' Manhig = controller? : And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that : very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own : through the control of the angels over the spheres. Not on its own. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 04:19:47 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 07:19:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 > From: Micha Berger > > Einstein and G-d: > > ...Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's He said so explicitly ''I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... '' New Times, April 25, 1929, in answer to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/04/18, 7:16:09 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Tue Dec 4 08:24:16 2018 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 18:24:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Tuesday evening) begin Prayer for Rain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Tuesday evening), December 4, 2018, corresponding to the evening of 27 Kislev, 5779, the third night of Chanukka. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: https://www.lookstein.org/professional-dev/veten-tal-u-matar/ (Thanks to Russell Levy for suggesting the article.) In unrelated news, here's what keeps me busy: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/ Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky Post-doctoral Fellow Department of Mathematics Ariel University Ariel 4070000, ISRAEL ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Tue Dec 4 11:25:15 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One clear difference between the Rambam and the Ramban is the value of miracles as evidence; see H. Yesodei HaTorah 8:1 vs. Toras HaShem Temimah Ed. Chavel pp. 146, 150, 152, etc. I think the explanation is hinted at in the Ramban in Shoftim you cited. The Rambam holds that miracles are ad hoc, but the Ramban holds that miracles also follow laws and those laws echo creation. David Riceman Sent from my iPad From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 6 05:32:53 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 13:32:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] seuda shlishit Message-ID: <1c08882303fd4627b3659b0785fb9331@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> It is certainly preferable to either eat bread or stop eating before shekia (or close to it - beyond our present scope). If you partake in a full meal but refrain from bread for a certain reason, leniency has strong grounds. If you are picking at food according to your mood, and even more so if you previously fulfilled seuda shlishit, it is difficult to allow eating as night approaches. (Me- Is this generally followed?) 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 Thu Dec 6 14:45:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:45:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Havdalah or Menorah on Motzai Shabbos Which comes first? Message-ID: Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos - Chanuka? Not a recent question, this situation of competing halachic principles has been the basis of the centuries-old debate regarding which mitzvah has priority and should therefore be performed first. In other words, on Motzai Shabbos Chanuka this annual halachic dispute, simmering since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up... Please see https://goo.gl/oV2gpg YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 7 11:21:41 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 19:21:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: Q. I will be traveling to New York from my home in New Jersey for a Chanukah party at my parents? house and won?t be returning home until late at night. I have the following options: I can light at home at 4:00 PM (which is before sunset); I can appoint an agent (shliach) to light in my house for me at the proper time; I can light at my parents? house; or I can light upon returning home late at night when there are no longer any passersby. What should I do? A. The Mechaber rules that if one will not be able to light the Chanukah candles at the prescribed time, he may light them any time after Plag HaMincha (Shulchan Aruch OC 672:1). Plag HaMincha in the winter is approximately an hour before sunset. However, if one must leave immediately thereafter, it may not be advisable to leave candles unattended. The possibility of using an agent is questionable, since Mishnah Berurah (675:9) rules that when an agent lights for him, the person must stand next to the agent and hear him recite the brachos; obviously, this is not feasible in this case. The third possibility, lighting at one?s parents? home, is not acceptable. One must light where he lives (i.e. the place where he eats and sleeps on a regular basis). Since he does not live in his parent?s home but is merely eating a meal there, he may not light there. One should follow the fourth option and light upon returning home. As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. Therefore, one may light even if it is late and there will be no passersby to see the menorah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 8 17:32:58 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 20:32:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49e62b3e-cb2d-9d77-dbff-c94f400def1e@sero.name> > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit > primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising it, if not to the passersby? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 18:33:18 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:33:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: . Someone quoted the OU's Halacha Yomis: > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. R' Zev Sero asked: > What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising > it, if not to the passersby? I don't think the OU meant to suggest that one isn't yotzay if his family doesn't see the neros. When danger caused us to move the menorah indoors, *everyone* lit indoors. No exceptions were made for those who live alone. It seems clear to me that one is yotzay even if he is the only one to see them lit. Come to think of it, one is yotzay Pirsumei Nisa if no one hears him read the Megilla, or if no one sees him drinking Arba Kosos. Why should Ner Chanuka be different? It is true that the Mishne Berura 672:11 says that if everyone at home is already asleep, then he must either wake someone or light without the bracha. But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants to act like that, we don't stop him." Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 12 21:41:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:41:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music and literature: As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the better strategy? 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 Dec 12 21:44:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? 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 Dec 15 19:22:45 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 22:22:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: <4EBAA25A-8790-4673-AAFF-7E2AC74B5C9A@cox.net> With an extremely unusual exception, all professionals will tell you that the first time your husband assaults you must be the last time. Furthermore the law is clear and unequivocal: Any incidence of a domestic crime must be dealt with by arresting the guilty party, be it husband or wife. I can tell you that any call we get involving a domestic always results in an arrest. Dina D'Malchusa Dina This is the law and we are mandated to follow it. I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve your spouse. Mechila or no mechila, the consequences are serious and the law must be followed. Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 16 11:13:33 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot Message-ID: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of chutz l'aretz. Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? Ben From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 16 12:56:05 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 15:56:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? First thought, just to help the ball rolling. Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? So, there are people actually eating challah in the Rambam's world. Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both being deOraisa. (In particular, it can be taken retroactively; you can eat before hafrashah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Dec 17 08:28:25 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:28:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Asara b'Teves Message-ID: The message of this commemoration is that after the destruction, we must trace its sources and mark its stages; we must look backwards to events that are not earth-shattering and perceive how the seeds of the destruction on the Ninth of Av were planted on the Tenth of Teves. The more we study history, the more we learn that we should not concentrate only on the final act itself, but also on all the stages that led up to it. This also applies to the Holocaust which is probably the worst tragedy in Jewish history. Along these lines we also recite Kaddish on the 10th of Tevet for all those whose date of death is unknown, who perished in the Holocaust. Apparently, the tenth of Teves is "the Day of God" about which many prophets spoke ? the tenth day of the tenth month. (The 10th of Teves is the only fast day that can fall on a Friday). The number ten in kabala is related to the sefira of malkhut, and therefore, the very essence of the day is appropriate to the theme of God's kingship. Chazal teach that at midnight a north wind would blow, rousing King David from his sleep to serve his Creator. It is in the middle of the night, specifically in the depths of the darkest part of the night, that the sovereignty of Israel awakens, and the kingship of God is revealed in the world.May the Kingship of the Almighty finally rule all mankind thus fulfilling the vision of the prophets: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall men learn war anymore; for all men, both great and small shall know the Lord.? Amen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 17 09:09:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:09:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 16/12/18 3:56 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that > : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? > > First thought, just to help the ball rolling. > > Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. I assume Sefardim also, though I don't know this for certain. But the SA certainly says to do so, and only the Rema says the minhag is not to. > They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem > with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump > actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? AFAIK it's got nothing to do with chinuch; the reason it's given to ketanim rather than gedolim is because they have never experienced tum'ah that comes from their own bodies. It can also be given to an adult cohen who has been to the mikveh. The Rema says this is not our minhag because since it's not eaten in EY there is no need for it to be eaten in chu"l. Other acharonim suggest that it's because we have no cohanim meyuchasim, so we're not even certain this child is a cohen in the first place, or because we're worried that the child won't be careful with it and it'll get into people's food, or just that if it's not burned immediately it will somehow find its way to someone who shouldn't eat it. > Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both > being deOraisa. Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan. (Nowadays even chalah of EY is midrabanan, but it has an ikkar min hatorah, whereas in chu"l it's entirely midrabanan.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:25:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:25:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181217172541.GA5532@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:09:38PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both : >being deOraisa. : Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan... Sorry, chalah of crops made from chu"l that were brought into EY are indeed deOraisa, and yes those aforementioned qulos still apply. (Similarly, challah from Israeli grain that was needed in chu"l is only chayav miderabbanan.) 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:14:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181217171454.GA25337@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:33:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the : brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the : opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar : Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants : to act like that, we don't stop him." Going back to the SA (OC 677:3) the mechaber says that *yeish omerim* that if you light at home alone after others have lit there without you, you make the berakhos. Interestingly, the se'if opens "yeish omerim", it's the only opinion quoted. The Rama quote the Mordechai that this is because he is obligated to see the neiros, vekhein nohagim. Ateres Zeqeinim ad loc quotes the Maharash: veyeish cholqin. So, if you want to be machmir to light, (he calls it "rotzeh lahchamir") light without a berakhah. The Maharil says that once you light on your own, you showed you didn't want to be yotzei with the earlier lighting, so you weren't. And that's why it's not a berakhah levatalah. The picture I'm trying to show here is that the discussion about the berakhah appears to be because this is after someone else lit for the home. Not because you're alone. And, if I understand the Mordechai correctly, he appears to be saying that whether or not the purpose of the mitzvah is pirsumei nisah, the actual mitzvah includes just seeing the lights. Perhaps because even internalizing the neis I myself already know about intellectually qualifies as "pirsum". But that's not how R' Moshe discusses it. He simply says that pirsum isn't me'aqeiv. 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 09:05:16 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:05:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] lighting the menora Message-ID: As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. My impression is that most modern poskim certainly in EY disagree and that many/most light outdoors for the public -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 18 09:24:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:24:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Comedy -- is it good for the Jews? In-Reply-To: References: <49f57ed6-82ab-b6eb-2210-00930742efaa@sero.name> <20181211154507.GB6212@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181218172413.GB29597@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:02am EST, R Moshe Y. Gluck replied to me on Areivim in a conversation about a stand up comic at a venue that lost their hekhsher over it: : One can argue that comedy, in it of itself, is assur, independent of : subject matter because of Assur L'maalos Piv Schok B'Olam Hazeh (Berachos : 31a). This gemara makes an interesting contrast to the rather famous gemara (Taanis 22a) about Rabbi Beroqa Choza'ah and Elihahu haNavi in the marke of Bei Lefet. Elihahu points out two beduchei as among those there who would merit olam haba, eiuther because they chear up the depressed or bring peace to those arguing. Given the first "i nami" in Taanis, where's the chiluq to be drawn? Another problem I have understandign the gemara in Taanis. The market in question was full of Jews. (Another person Eliyahu pointed out was noted for not dressing like one, but turned out to be employed by the prison system and he protected the women in his jail.) And "kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq". So why are just these people being pointed out as being "bar alma de'asi"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:28:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:28:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. In-Reply-To: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182837.GA18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:29:12AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability : (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to : both monetary and spiritual liabilities... Does it work at all? You can be mochel nezeq when it's mamon, but corporeal? Wouldn't Shim'on be a rasha for lifting his hand to Re'uvein either way? Related: Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? 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 micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:34:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:34:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] culture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181219183447.GB18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:41:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music : and literature: :> As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even :> the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from :> the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness :> of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. : My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the : better strategy? It has to be slower, when you think you haven't yet assimilated culture and you're trying to hold the line, than when you consciously choose to have a strategy with regard to acculturation, and expect the line to move. One will only have unconscious motion, the other will have conscious change as well. So for the masses, it means less assimilation. Then we have to ask if cultural assumilation is a bad thing. Does Hashem not want us to sing our tefillos to the kosher elements of the sound of our era? Is there a Jewish aesthetic to begin with? Way deep wading in this issue. However, for the yechidim who realize it's going on and that everyone is fooling themselves.... I see a big OTD risk as cynicism is bound to creap in, as well as (including?) a loss of respect for any authority figures who are fooled or caught blindfolding others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:20:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:20:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? In-Reply-To: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182054.GA6255@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting : the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), : animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get : no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) This is the end of OC 1:1. (AhS Yomi for 4th. Yes, cycle 2 is starting in just 4+ months! The first Tur for the AhS to write on was CM, which is why you find the haqdamah there. So "beginning" was ambiguous. Or I'm just a nitpicker.) : Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is : it equivalent of free will? .... I took the se'if to mean that angels have no YhR and therefore lack free will. Animals have no *capacity for* knowledge, and therefore couldn't possibly have a YhT, and thus also no bechirah. Only people, caught in tention between YhR and (properly applied?) da'as have bechirah, and that's why only we get both reward and punishment. : The dogs being : rewarded for not barking? There is an interesting implication from the AhS that animals do get sekhar, and angels do get oneshim. Perhaps it makes sense even without presuming they have bechirah if we take a causal approach to sekhar va'onesh. The animal that does the right thing, even through no credit of its own, is still thereby a superior being than before. Especially if it is more likely to repeat behavior done once (or more likely to refrain if refrained once). And similarly in the reverse, for angels that fail. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Dec 19 22:03:14 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 01:03:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: >I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >your spouse. Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? From isaac at balb.in Wed Dec 19 22:57:07 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:57:07 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Re Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2CC046A4-B9E6-4853-A683-179A213256CC@balb.in> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu---theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively more authentic version of the next Baal HaMesora. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Dec 20 08:12:18 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:12:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You are asking a loaded question so I will have to answer it on a few layers. First of all, I?m not sure what YOU mean by a verbal assault. The legal definition of assault varies from state to state but generally: Simple assault is an attempt to do a serious bodily harm to another person, or actually committing an act to put another in fear of serious bodily injury. Simple assault is usually classified as a misdemeanor. So if by verbal assault, a husband or wife (without touching each other), puts the other in fear of being hurt, then it meets the criteria of a crime (misdemeanor) and in most states mandates an arrest. With that scenario, yes, I would say the same for a spouse who verbally assaults the other. What most lay people confuse assault with is a BATTERY which is any unlawful offensive physical contact with another person, with or without his or her consent. ... Unlike the crime of assault, battery requires that actual contact is made, while assault charges can be brought with only the threat of violence. Though it may seem extreme to say that you don?t deserve your spouse if you commit a simple assault or battery, our own sages have said that if your wife burns your food, you have every right to divorce her. I think it boils down to the specifics and whole picture of each case. I believe your question may have meant what if a spouse speaks disparagingly to his/her spouse. In other words, what if a husband demeans his wife and calls her stupid or ugly, etc. My feeling is that you are dealing with the tip of the iceberg and most likely you have a bad marriage and a dysfunctional relationship. > On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: > > >> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >> your spouse. > > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 20 12:31:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:31:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181220203131.GB27441@aishdas.org> On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: :> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who :> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve :> your spouse. : > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? Hezeq and onaas devarim are different issurim. But they both are forms of harm recognized by halakhah. (Maybe I mean all three are recognized: hezeq haguf and hezeq mamon are different things, with different dinim.) And if the ona'as devarim gets to the point of halvanas panim, it's compared to retzichah. BM 58b lumps OD and pinning a nickname on someone together with eishes ish as sins that cause gehennom to be permanent ("sheyordim ve'ein olim") and ein lo cheileq le'olam haba (59a). And of course, "noach lo le'adam shayapil es atzmo lekivshan ha'eish, be'al yalbin penei chaveiro." (Mar Zutra, BM 59a) Which is taking seriously, not exageration, in discussions of yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. So to ammend my first paragraph, verbal abuse is far MORE vilified by the din than hezeq. I would consider answering: lo kol shekein! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 20 21:43:37 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:43:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer Message-ID: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From a write-up on borer and peelers: "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] Me-1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex county, us, world...............) 2.Is a sieve a sophisticated fork??? 3.No doubt that minhag yisrael includes many who do it-it's just not clear to me how that developed (i.e a priori first principles seem to lead to prohibition) - perhaps a good example of mimetic tradition? 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:22:47 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:22:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: <> Indeed I am always bothered by those who claim that they are not influenced at all but outside culture. Even if not directly we are all influenced by outside forces. There is no such thing today as Jewish music since anything the leviim sang has been lost. Living in Israel sefardi music is much different than ashkenazi music simply because Arabic music is different than Hungarian music. Anyone who learns Rambam is influenced at some level by Greek philosophy. Read rishonim on the reasons for dina demalchuta and compare it to the old defenses of the rights of kings - just happen to be identical. Many rishonim were familar with secular philosophy and even the Ramah knew philosophy. In spite of appearances Chatam Sofer had a broad background and spoke German. All of this without referring to RAL who has a spirited defense of much (certainly not all) of modern literature and parts of modern culture. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:30:25 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:30:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports Message-ID: << Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? >> Certainly mechila works on some level. There are stories of RAL in his younger years playing basketball with the students. Once a student complained that it wasn;t fair because they could not block their rebbe. RAL answered that in playing ball not to treat him as a rebbe. Certainly we are talking about minor contact and not severe wounding Kibud Av ve- Em is a step beyond ordinary treatment of others especially causing a loss of blood. From what I have seen the standard psak is that a doctor should preferably not treat a parent for anything requiring incisions or blood. However, for anything serious that the child is better than others than certainly, he is the doctor of choice. I recall that RMF allows cosmetic surgery only foord "god reasons". This incliudes feeling embarrased by one's appearance and also improvements especially for women for shidduch persons. I assume he would not be happy with various facial "improvements" for senior citizens -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Thu Dec 20 17:33:08 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 12:33:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively better version of the next Baal HaMesora. From mcohen at touchlogic.com Fri Dec 21 06:48:04 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:48:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma Message-ID: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means increase. Therefore not 'blessed is the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever' (artscroll) but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his kingdom be increased forever. His source is olas tamid (which I don't have), and iyun tefilah (which I looked up and I cant find this mentioned) Is this the kavanah that you are all having when you say krias shma? mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:10:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:10:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <20181221151048.GA23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 09:48:04AM -0500, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: : R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means : increase. ... : but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his : kingdom be increased forever. I am vague enough on the translation of the English word "blessed" that translating "barukh" for "blessed" is trading one unknown for a bigger one. As for my own kavanah (when I stop to have one): May the public perception (or: reputation) of the significance (or: importance) of His rule-by-public-acclimation be increased eternally without stop. Explanation: Sheim is name, which would be how others perceive something. Hashem's sheim is thus how He seems to people, which could be reputation and/or perception. Kavod shares spelling with kaveid, heaviness. (We'll discuss livers some other time.) And thus we give honor to significant "weighty" matters. Like massive things, we don't trivially push them around. And so I think of kavod as honor more in terms of significant and important than glory. Ein melekh belo am -- unlike a mosheil, what makes a melekh a melekh is the acceptance of the governed. The Gra has a whole piece on Melekh vs Mosheil and "umosheil bagoyim", until the day when "vehayah Hashem leMelekh". "Malkhusekha malkhus kol olamim umemshaletekha bekhol dor vador." Notice in that last pasuq, malkhus is framed in terms of "kol olamim", and here it's "le'olam va'ed". Le'olam -- for as long as there's an olam. Va'ad -- note the shoresh of "ad", until the missing end. There is another kind of Eternity. Hashem Himself is lemaalah min hazman. Not eternal in the sense of existing for an infinite amount of time, but in the sense that the concept of time doesn't apply. However, His Sheim is a product of us relating to Him, and thus within time -- as long as there is an "am" for Hashem to be Melekh of. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Dec 21 07:35:02 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:35:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <892aea1f-7804-ca75-2a17-2b632b2d08f7@sero.name> On 21/12/18 9:48 am, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: > One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod > malchuso lolam vaaed > > How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. > > R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch > means increase. I don't think this is perush hamilim. It's an additional facet that can add to the value of kavana, but is not required. Another facet is that "baruch" can mean to extend, as in "hamavrich es hagefen", so a bracha represents bring the shefa from the higher worlds to this one. An important thought, but one who doesn't have it in mind, or is even entirely unaware of it, has still said shma properly. Also, sheim is not *just* how others see one; ones name is connected directly to ones essence, as we see from the fact that when someone has fainted we use their name to call them back. But it is mostly used for others, just as malchus is how one relates to others, i.e. dibbur, shechina, reflecting what is going on inside one to the outside world, and yet it remains one of the essential attributes of a personality, and thus it is also one of the sefiros which those attributes reflect. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:34:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:34:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer In-Reply-To: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181221153420.GB23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 05:43:37AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From a write-up on borer and peelers: : : > "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are : > "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] : : 1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex : county, us, world...............) I could understand why the peel normally being eaten might mitigate boreir, as there is no pesoles. But how does it change the status of the peeler? In any case, the AhS (OC 391:22, but the discussion starts at se'if 19 ) only talks about peeling lots of (harbeih) garlic or onions, where he accepts the fact that it is boreier, despite being confused about how it even caqn be borer. There is a clear gemara (Beitza 13b) that says that Ravs and Rav Chiyya's wives would peel barley for them on Shabbos. And the AhS wants to know why garlic or onion would be any different. He therefore concludes that the issur isn't peeling, but the separating of the peels once they're mixed into in the heap. He explains the BY's source Y-mi accordingly. I should point out that when I was a child, no one I knew identified peeling as a form of boreir. Seems it may have been beshitah, and not ignorance. The AhS also talks (se'if 9) about non-mixtures, items that are nir'im la'ayin, like clothes, keilim and books. I do not know what he means by keilim, picking out forks from a jumble in the drawer? I bring this up because this issue was also something I didn't hear of until YU. Seems to me boreir grew a lot when the MB became "poseiq acharon" for all y'all. (Minus Sepharadim, of course, who limit boreir to literal okhel, IIUC.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 10:14:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:14:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20181221181420.GA18815@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:33:08PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the : Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, : whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of : Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic : tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- : performing Masoretic acts and decisions... I am not sure we are correctly using the word "mimetic" when discussing the unconscious copying norms and aborbing the culture of such a small "community" as that of posqim. However, if I understand what you mean correctly, I wrote something similar on Torah Musincs, where I tried to nail down what RYBS and RHS mean by the term "Mesorah". Teasers, as they state my point without proving basis: The word "masorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. ... For regular pesak too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from texts. Kara veshanah velo shimeish talmid chacham, harei zeh am ha'aretz.... If he read scripture and studied law, but did not serve a talmid chacham, such a person is an am haaretz (an ignorant peasant). - Sotah 22a ... Similarly, a poseik needs to pick up that feel, and not only the formal rules. He needs the unstructured knowledge of halakhah. Consider this rather poetic description of how the Rav experienced his shiur, entering the dialog of Torah through the ages as he joins his students in the classroom. Notice how he winds up by discussing this experience as "masorah": ... ... In an article in Jewish Action, Rav Schachter provides his definition of the word. He opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. ... The Rav identifies masorah as the ineffable skill to think like a poseik. Masorah is a skill obtained from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in a culture of mimeticism. ... Without masorah, the poseik has no way of determining which solutions to new problems are in concert with the spirit of previous rulings. Halakhah is not frozen; it does not have inertia, but it does have momentum. Apprenticeship, training under a master, transmits the feel for where the halakhah has historically been taken. Following reasoning found in a minority ruling is appropriate only when one is motivated by the Torah's own principles. The person who speaks halakhah as a first language knows when an innovative change is within "poetic license", and when the result simply violates the Torah's "grammar." As R. Yochanan quotes in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah - the apprenticeship of Torah is greater than its study". :-)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 llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 21 11:29:00 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 19:29:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Is_it_forbidden_to_teach_Torah_to_one_w?= =?windows-1252?q?ho_has_not_said_birchas_ha=92Torah=3F?= Message-ID: I wonder how this applies to restaurants. How are they allowed to serve people who do not make brachas before eating? YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Is it forbidden to teach Torah to one who has not said birchas ha?Torah? A. In regards to birchos ha?nehenin (brachos recited on food), there is a concept that one is not permitted to give someone food if the recipient will not recite a bracha. Offering food to one who will not recite a bracha is a violation of ?lifnei iver lo sitain michshol? (enabling one to stumble) (See Shulchan Aruch OC 169:2). However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l (Minchas Shlomo 1:91) writes that this does not apply to teaching Torah to one who did not recite birchas ha?Torah. Birchas ha?Torah is a birchas ha?mitzvah. Though birchos ha?mitzvos are obligatory, we do not find that Chazal forbade the performance of a mitzvah if a bracha is not recited. He notes that not studying Torah (bitul Torah) is a more serious offense than omitting the bracha. If possible, one should instruct those who have come to learn Torah how to recite the bracha, but if this is not practical, one should teach them Torah in any event. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 17:26:16 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:26:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Angels and Requests Message-ID: . In the Friday night poem "Shalom Aleichem", we ask the mal'achim to give us a bracha. We've often mentioned here that some people avoid this poem because it is either similar to avoda zara, or perhaps might actually BE avoda zara. I call your attention to the morning's parsha, Bereshis 48:16, the pasuk "Hamal'ach hagoel osi." Yaakov Avinu refers to a particular mal'ach and asks that this mal'ach should give a bracha to Yosef's sons. At first glance, this seems to be very similar to Shalom Aleichem. How is this justifiable, in the view of those who consider Shalom Aleichem to be problematic? I came up with two possible answers, and I invite the chevra to critique them, and/or suggest other answers. 1) Perhaps the halachos of avoda zara were less restrictive in those pre-Sinai days, and making requests to a mal'ach was okay for Yaakov but not for us. I suppose this is possible, but the centrality of Monotheism to the avos, it would surprise me. 2) I note that in the immediately preceding pasuk, Yaakov addressed Hashem. If so, then maybe Yaakov was not asking the mal'ach directly for a bracha the way we do in Shalom Aleichem. Rather, he was speaking directly to Hashem, asking Hashem that the mal'ach should give the bracha. This would solve the problem of "Who was Yaakov praying to?", but not the problem of "Where do brachos come from?" If the mal'ach is capable of giving a bracha, that too smacks of avoda zara, doesn't it? All comments are welcome. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 03:08:38 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 06:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bircas Kohanim when when the Shaliach Tzibbur is a kohen Message-ID: . On Areivim, R' Sheldon Liberman asked: > I heard over Shabbos that in chutz l'aretz, during the chazzan's > repetition at shacharis, if the chazzan is a kohen, then during > bircas kohanim, there is an opinion that the tzibbur should > answer "Amein" rather than "Kein y'hi ratzon". > > Has anyone heard this? The critical words here are "there is an opinion". It seems reasonable that somewhere in a vast library of seforim, there might be a sefer that suggests such a thing. Whether anyone actually does this is another matter entirely. I don't remember ever hearing anyone actually do this. I'd even argue against it. It makes about as much sense as if one would answer "amen" during the third stanza of "Shalom Aleichem". In both cases we are asking for a bracha, but in neither case have we actually heard any bracha on which to answer "amen". (When we answer "kein yehi ratzon", it means "please give us that bracha" and not "I believe in that bracha which You gave".) Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 26 08:49:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:49:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shul Message-ID: Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points out. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 27 11:49:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:49:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Amoraic statements Message-ID: Anyone know of any writings on how to think about Amoraic statements that are not sourced but very basic (i.e., why weren't they recorded earlier)? Two quick examples: 1.) Shmuel - dina dmalchuta dina (the law of the land controls), 2.) Rav-Tisha achlu dagan vechad achal yerek-mitztarphin.(9 who ate grain and 1 who ate greens combine[for a zimmun of 10]} 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 Dec 27 11:50:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:50:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sukkah Yeshana Message-ID: <0ba366bf435347f8ac060c596a575ca0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The Mishna in Sukkah (9a) discusses Sukkah Yeshana which one would have thought meant an old sukkah (schach) yet the discussion in the gemara indicates that it is an issue of lishma (intent). Why didn't the Mishna use the language of lishma? The gemara then posits a pasuk as the source of Beit Shammai's position, then asks doesn't he need that pasuk for something else, and replies ein hachi name (yes) and so quotes another pasuk instead. What was the point of Ravina/Rav Ashi including the rejected pasuk as part of the record? 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 seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Dec 30 09:44:16 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:44:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, etc. Message-ID: > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on > Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me > Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. > Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points > out. That's not why they talk. They talk because they saw their parents or other adults talk. They learned that talking is perfectly acceptable. The fact that the Shul has not followed the Mishna Berura and appointed people to end the talking merely reinforces the talkers' understanding that talking is OK. It's like asking why people cheat on their taxes. They don't cheat because they're greedy. We're all greedy. But the tax-cheaters don't have a red line. I admit sometimes the davvening is too long for me, and I get restless. But I never talk. And bli neder I won't davven in a shul where there are talkers, even if it's the only shul in town. Ruins it for me. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 18:45:48 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 21:45:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine posted: > Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because > davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there > are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people > get restless. If there were people who can keep quiet during the weekday minyanim, and only talk on Shabbos, then I would consider it to be a reasonable explanation. But in my experience, the same people talk regardless. If someone talks during a weekday maariv, then shaving twenty minutes off of the Shabbos morning won't prevent his restlessness. The authors of the linked article suggested: > Not talking until the conclusion of Chazaras HaShatz, including > the time between when we finish our silent Amidah and we are > waiting for the chazzan, is doable, it is realistic, it is a > fair expectation of those attending and it is the minimum to be > respectful of our friends and neighbors. Sadly, IMO that's not doable, and not realistic. I'd like to think that I'd be satisfied if they'd be quiet merely from when we finish our silent Amidah until the chazan begins. THAT is a minimum for being respectful of our friends and neighbors. They don't even have to be silent for a noticeable improvement. Halevai they would hold it down to a whisper. (And it doesn't count as a whisper if they can be heard 20 feet away.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 03:22:36 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 06:22:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: I should have concluded my previous post with this: Despite my pessimistic tone, I praise those who are working towards a solution. I have seen many corrective attempts fail, but that doesn't mean there's no way to fix it. Talking in shul is a serious problem, and I apologize if my frustration made it sound otherwise. Akiva Miller From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Oct 3 08:32:16 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 11:32:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: <1db301d45b2e$43dda750$cb98f5f0$@com> Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz? (not sepharadim) I was surprised to see it done. Sources? Thanks, 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/ ======= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 2 22:30:47 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 01:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3e882718-3c29-80fa-6211-ff7172a97fba@sero.name> On 30/09/18 14:13, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. I think you meant the Ramban. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 23:18:08 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 09:18:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:23 AM Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. So > go figure out how /he/ understands the idea that 2 were not taught via > Moshe. > According to the Rambam, the first diber _is_ one of the 613, and this gemara is his proof text -- see Sefer Hamitzvot Mitzvot Ase #1. Assuming that "Rambam" is a typo for "Ramban", see his hassaga on the Sefer Hamitzvot. Ramban holds that the second diber includes two of the 613 (don't make idols; don't worship them). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Wed Oct 3 00:23:19 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:23:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:43:14 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine" > From Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra ... >> In 1921 the great bibliographer (and much more) Yitzchak Rivkind >> .... On Simchas Torah they would open the Aron Kodesh >> when saying Aleinu, both at night and during the day, and while singing >> the Niggun of Mussaf of Yom Kippur would bow on the floor exactly like >> we do on Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur. When he asked for the source of >> this Minhag he was told it comes from the Gra... Interesting. The Robshitse Rov had a similar practice, falling on his face during the hakofos. (It is reported that one year, after bowing during hakofos [the first time?], he commented that only he and his son Yaakov [of Melits] understand the secret. After Yom Tov, it became known that R' Yaakov too had participated in this rite.) (Another story tells of how the grandson of the Kosnitse Maggid, R' Elo'ozor, spoke lightly of this minhag [made fun?] to the Robshite Rov's son, R' Eliezer of Dzikhov, whereupon R' Eliezer protested vehemently, saying all his father's customs have a very high source. On his return, R' Elozor's wagon tipped and he was thrown out of his carriage, falling, as we do on Yom Kippur, on his face. He saw this as a retribution for having spoken lightly of the minhag.) From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Oct 3 09:16:33 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:16:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra Message-ID: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 01:17 PM 9/30/2018, R. Zalman Alpert wrote: >The kluiz of the GRaA in Vilna was essentially the only place in Vilna >and all of Lithuania that followed minhage HAgra to the kotzo shel yud >Chaim Grade a lost talmid of the Chazon Ish and a Vilna native mentions >this in his wonderful novels about shil life in Vilna > >Because the Jslm settlement in early 19th cen was started by disciples >of the GRAthe Rivlins,etc these minhogim becamr and remain the standard >for at least the yishuv hayoshen of Jslm and beyond that group > >And thats how we know these customs in realism rather than from seforim >The Litthuanian yrshivas did not follow these customs nor did kohol,and >certainly not the chassidim of Lithuania who after WwI played an impt >role in Jew rel life in greater lita including Vilna My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and are practiced by many there. Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the Torah? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 3 14:51:19 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 17:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For > example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the > Torah? Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim of the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 14:46:37 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:46:37 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >are practiced by many there. >Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >Torah? It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the original Minhag. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 3 15:32:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:32:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading : the Torah? While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does make a similar point. ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. 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 JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 3 15:42:28 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 22:42:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. > _______________________________________________ This is a description of the fact but not an explanation of why this was a halachically acceptable result (ie where is this exception to the minhag hamakom rule) Kt Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 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 Wed Oct 3 15:54:51 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <16705774-1a3c-c42c-0f78-317676dc6114@sero.name> On 03/10/18 17:46, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >> My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >> practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >> find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >> are practiced by many there. > >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >> Torah? > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. That is a different issue, and one that was once controversial and that one can still question. Here the issue is much simpler, because when Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 18:16:02 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:16:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> Message-ID: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. Because if there was, each returnee would have to adopt the Minhag Hamakom the moment he hit an inhabited city. In contrast, there were no religious Jews left in England after the expulsion, so the newcomers can (and should) follow their old minhagim. The same would presumably apply when Jews started coming back to Spain a few decades back, and unlike Moroccans in France a few decades before. But, as I wrote before, it seems that the Minhag is to follow whatever Minhagim you were used to, especially if you have enough landsmen to create a breakaway community. On October 3, 2018 2:51:19 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading >the >> Torah? > >Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim >of >the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they >now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those > >minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed >the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably >French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? > >-- >Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all >zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you >prosper >_______________________________________________ >Avodah mailing list >Avodah at lists.aishdas.org >http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 21:54:40 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 21:54:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 3, 2018 3:32:20 PM PDT, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. What does he hold about Sefardim moving to France or Germany (which had a continuity - Germany going back well, at least a thousand years and France, while it had a break, did have a religious Ashkenazi community before and after the war). On October 3, 2018 3:54:51 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >o Here the issue is much simpler, because when >Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local >minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in >England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed >them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, >there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to >adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 4 06:19:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:19:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. _______________________________________________ The gemara (Bava Metziah 83b) discusses what hours a worker gets paid for based on the Torah "standard." The gemara queries why not just find out what local practice is? The first answer is it's a case of a new city which was nkutai. Rashi defines nkutai as meaning its residents came from multiple other cities, with multiple other practices. Perhaps this is a model for minhag? New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care what we do? 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 Thu Oct 4 10:17:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:17:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181004171737.GA32625@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:19:57PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a : preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard : for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care : what we do? BM 83b is talking about norms for business, which is likely an entirely different use of the word "minhag" than in issur veheter. For example, when we say "minhag mevatel halakhah" in CM discussions, we are relying on the presumption that both parties would take compliance to local business norms for granted, and a deal can have any conditional both parties agree on. In this CM sense of minhag, there is no reason to assume that halakhah would have problems with other norms emerging, since they are based on the agreement of all parties. But that's a whole different topic than Ashk vs Seph differences in the other 3 Turim, which is where we started. That's minhag in the sense of: 1- Rgional pesaq when other regions hold differently (eg bet yosef meat); or 2- Extra-halachic accepted prohibitions or obligations (eg avoiding qitniyos). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 09:16:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:16:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: <20181003205226.GC17060@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181004161626.GF25881@aishdas.org> Moving this from Areivim. On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 4:28pm -0700, Rabbi Meir Rabi wrote on Areivim: : The Beis Hamikdash wasn't inclusive. More than that, (according to some : opinions) there were professions which weren't obligated to do Aliyah : LeRegel because they smelled bad and couldn't be Oleh Regel with everyone. The beraisa (Chullin 4a) says that dog fertilizer gatherers, tanners and copper smiths are "peturin min hare'iyah". The Rambam tells them get get cleaned up and go (Hil' Chagiga 2:2), the Mechaber (Kesef Mishnah ad loc) explaining that we hold like the Rabanan, not that beraisa. But even if we held like that beraisa that's whether they have a petur for not coming, not an issur to come. In fact, inclusivity might be the whole reason /why/ the Rabanan don't hold like the beraisa. But lo ra'isi eino ra'ayah, so to speak, so naniach someone else does take a harder line, what would that mean? Kehunah is not inclusive of all baalei mum. But attending... The BHMQ is inclusive on the basis of things not dependent on the person's own decisions. No one, not even a nakhri child of an eishes ish, is excluded by virtue of who he is. (In the nakhri's case, up to the soreg, but still, that's true of all nakhriim.) You're talking about someone excluded because of what they chose to do. (Again, given said "some opinions".) Admittedly, too many people lack options. But someone who really wants to be oleh regel who is still forced by circumstance to an unpleasant job would choose a different one. Or beg, if they value aliyah laregel more than the protection from sin offered by "yafeh salmud Torah im derekh eretz". My point is, it's a choice, and not the same kind of exclusion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call micha at aishdas.org life which is required to be exchanged for it, http://www.aishdas.org immediately or in the long run. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:46:34 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:46:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <1b84de96-ba9a-be08-b14f-3941c6ca49ec@sero.name> On 03/10/18 21:16, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the > Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. No, there was not. The First and Second Crusades utterly destroyed the communities that had survived the Roman and Arab occupations, and the communities that started resettling EY in the Ramban's day were all immigrants who brought their chu"l minhagim with them, including the minhagim of paskening like the Bavli, keeping two days of Rosh Hashana, and not benching lulav when the first day of Succos falls on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:51:23 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:51:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0f6cfe7e-6504-98a8-c784-c122f84a59ca@sero.name> On 03/10/18 18:32, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? > : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading > : the Torah? > > While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY > community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does > make a similar point. > > ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to > switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. > He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old > minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi > Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 4 12:10:49 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:10:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rabbi wrote: 'When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways.' Agreed. Yerushalayim didn't have continuity as we know via the Ramban finding less than a minyan there when he arrived, but Chevron AFAIK had continuity from Chazal to 1929. I think Teverya did too. The museum of the old yishuv in the Old City refers to the 'mustarvim' as one of the communities in 19th century Jlem, those who were culturally pretty Arab and claimed descent from the pre-crusades community. For more info this wikipaedia page: History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel is well footnoted. So if there's well documented continuous Jewish presence and even communities in EY throughout, how did the SA set minhagim in EY such that ROY held they were obligatory on new arrivals? What happened to pre-existing customs? Or is it that the disruption and wax and wane of communities over EY with continuous small scale aliya meant there was no such such thing as minhag hamakom? Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 14:48:15 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 17:48:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181004214815.GD14160@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:10:49PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not : countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume : such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? I think it has more to do with communication and transportation changes than a change in principle. The new metzi'us is that we're much more aware of what people five towns over are doing. On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 02:51:23PM -0400, Zev Sero replied to my post: : >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to : >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. : >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old : >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi : >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. : But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his : whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all : the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there : were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument : works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? Well, you might have a question about Edot haMizrach, but EY? Didn't you just write about how the Jewish settlement of EY in the 15th cent wasn't all that dense? But I don't think this is relevent, anyway. Let's say they were wrong to take their minhagim with them. Even if the change in minhag was wrong, the normal practice in EY did indeed change. Unlike the situation once that norm was lost and no new consistent minhag emerged (on all but a few issues). So, I could see ROY saying that right or wrong about its establishment, the SA's minhag still stands as the minhag hamaqom. OTOH, invoking the SA means that he is bringing a textual component to the establishment of minhag. IIRC, ROY frames it in terms of the fact that the SA was written in EY, not that the Mechaber got there due to one of the first large yishuv in centuries, nor the yishuv itself. So perhaps we need to know more about ROY's model of minhag before spending so much time on guesses like the one above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 20:13:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 23:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem Message-ID: On Areivim (subject line same as here), several people have bemoaned how difficult it is to use a wheelchair (and many other assistive devices) in the Old City in general, and the Kotel area in particular. In terms of absolute, quantifiable, objective fact, I can't imagine how anyone could dispute that. I am bringing the topic to Avodah in order to discuss what our feelings and attitudes should be towards this situation. Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I often remark that we are fortunate to live in a time when the technology has allowed us such efficient wheelchairs. Our economy has allowed us to make building codes that require ramps and such, which would have been laughably expensive just a few decades back. Ditto for "kneeling buses" and the like. But it seems to me that you don't need technology or wealth to realize that if the shul is built at a median altitude, it will be easier for *everyone*. And yet Chazal thought it is a better idea to make the shul look impressive. Surely I'm missing something here. Can someone please set me straight? Thanks Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 19:04:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 22:04:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim > on chol hamoed in chutz la?aretz? (not sepharadim) > I was surprised to see it done. > Sources? I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 21:10:16 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 00:10:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/18 15:10, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > > Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not > countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to > assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Perhaps the first post-Talmudic book on halacha was a booklet on the differences between minhag EY and minhag Bavel. So the concept of minhag EY goes back to at least the time of the geonim. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 05:01:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:01:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna?s instruction[1] and codified by the Shulchan Aruch,[2] world Jewry started reciting ?Gevuros Geshamim B?Tchiyas HaMeisim?, better known as the formulaic insert ?Mashiv HaRuach U?Morid HaGashem?, in the second bracha of Shemoneh Esrei. This addition, showcasing the Might of G-d by mentioning the fact that He is the only One who has the power and ability to make rain, is considered so imperative that one who forgets to insert it must repeat the whole Shemoneh Esrei.[3] As there are no vowels in the Gemara or Shulchan Aruch, an interesting question arises: what is the proper way to pronounce the Hebrew word for rain (???) in this sentence? Is it Ge shem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel; eh sound) or is it Ga shem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel; uh sound)? Although the word for rain is pronounced Ge shem when saying the word by itself, still, its proper pronunciation might be changed when part of a sentence. Contemporary halachic authorities used various rules of Hebrew Grammar (dikduk) to come up with the proper solution. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 5 05:28:54 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:28:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 8:01 AM >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 >> On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction... With all due respect for the many great g'dolim who weighed in on this issue and came up with explanations about what the proper pronunciation should be, they came late in the game, after grammarians had already started changing the pronunciation. The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 07:37:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 10:37:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:01:40PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 I have yet to see a discussion that starts at the beginning. Bemechilas kevod everyone who holds "gashem", and who am I to argue against the Gra, the Netziv, the CC, R' Aharon Kotler, R YS Elyashiv, or Rav Moshe? But this article gets closer, by mentioning Sepharadim and the Levushei Mordekhai. Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:28:54PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : they came late in the game, after grammarians had already : started changing the pronunciation. : The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the : rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, : Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be : no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. But this doesn't prove that our mesorah was necessarily that there was a significan pause after "umorid hagashem". Yes, the Teimanim say "Jafen" on wine, and yet still say "geshem" here with a segol. Their mesorah is that is is not a pause. But for Ashkenazim, those older manuscripts do not prove whether or not there is a pause, since the diqduq they used would have "geshem" either way. As for Nusach haAri, Lubavitch's Alter Rebbe liked R Wolf Heidenheim's (Ravah's) siddur and diqduq, so his Nusach Ari was one of the early adopters of these language innovations. Interestingly, this means that most Ashkneazim today are davening in a nusach that is primarily a haskalisher attempt to reconstruct an authentic nusach, that is based on some ahistorical assumptions of what "authentic" was, to boot. And R/Dr Mandel is the only person I know who unwound that shift from Mishaic to Biblical Hebrew across all of davening. Unless you're willing to take that drastic step ("sabe'einu mituvakh, vesamcheinu biyshu'asakh"), saying "geshem" when most of your Hebrew is Mishnaic could something different than it did in those manuscripts, depending if a pause was intended. And, depending on whether the phrase might even be an exception to the usual rules of diqduq. (See R Spitz's article.) We simply can't know. R' Spitz concludes: Postscript: This is just one of a number of places where the majority consensus of Poskim maintain that dikduk decides the proper reading of tefillos.[30] Although many Gedolim through the ages spoke about dikduk's importance,[31] unfortunately its study at present is much neglected. In the words of Rabbi Yisroel Reisman in his excellent book Pathways of the Prophets:[32] "The myth of the lack of importance of (at least) a minimal amount of knowledge of dikduk must be dispelled. This is an area where a small amount of time and effort go a long way. Let's do it!" But to some up this post, we also need to know *which* diqduq. To provide the footnotes for that last quote: [30] See at length Rabbi Yisroel Reisman's Pathways of the Prophets, "Rules of Dikduk" starting on pg. 312. [31] For example see the Rambam's Peirush HaMishnayos (Avos Ch. 2, 1), Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim 142, 1), Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah (Ch. 5, 3), Shu"t Chavos Yair (124), Shu"t Sheilas Ya'avetz (vol. 1, 10), and Bnei Yisaschar (Introduction to Igra D'Kallah and Mayon Ganim 13, 6), all cited in the aforementioned chapter. [32] Pathways of the Prophets (pg. 325). L'iluy Nishmas the Rosh HaYeshiva - Rav Chonoh Menachem Mendel ben R' Yechezkel Shraga, Rav Yaakov Yeshaya ben R' Boruch Yehuda, and l'zchus for Shira Yaffa bas Rochel Miriam and her children for a yeshua teikef u'miyad! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Fri Oct 5 07:14:32 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:14:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An interesting discussion on this is given here by Dr Shnayer Lehman https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm YUTorah Online Online study of the Jewish holidays, Parsha, Halakha and Talmud by Yeshiva University www.yutorah.org From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 5 04:54:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 07:54:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When Sefardi and Ashkenazim Meet Message-ID: <56.57.22391.E4157BB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Rabbi Eli Mansour discusses the convergence of Sefardi and Ashkenazi traditions in contemporary Israel. Please see the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgoo.gl%2FWT2Hjq&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C97625655127d4ae2115708d62aad6b61%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636743321668910329&sdata=qGd8srOfQuC0kDFzrWfAVXfNbcQiB%2BvvgPyGWe3HehQ%3D&reserved=0 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 04:45:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:45:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5310ADD1-3CFE-455E-A5FD-9847E3F075C7@sibson.com> > > I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. > > Akiva Miller > > > _______________________________________________ > But do they duchen at shacharit on yom tov? 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 Fri Oct 5 08:00:43 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:00:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> References: , <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 10:37 AM ... > Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal > form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs > "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, > or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei > Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). > The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because > they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And > Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. ... A slight correction to R Micha's post: as far as we can tell, Chazal Hebrew DID have pausal forms. But they were not based on trop, of course, nor even on on the end of a sentence. They are used consistently in a case of parellismus membrorum in L'shon Chazal, and I am pretty sure in some other situations as well, according to the evidence from the oldest mss. with vocalization, such as the famous Kaufmann ms. of the Mishnah. But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: ??? ???? ?????? ?????, ???? ?? ?? ??????? ...? ?????? ????? ???????? ??????, ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? [For those in digest text mode and therefore can't see the Hebrew, this quote begins "LaKeil Barukh, ne'imos..." -micha] To the best of my knowledge, all old nuskah'ot have "yittenu." Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 06:14:47 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 13:14:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3252f45264ff47778db42a4dcee99b7d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I---------------------------------- IMHO Thomas Kuhn?s thoughts on paradigm shift are applicable here. Western liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be (e.g. I might like to do the avodah but I?m not a cohain) So yes, it could really be (but I?m not qualified to say it is) 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 seinfeld at daasbooks.com Fri Oct 5 08:40:01 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:40:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: 7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY: 1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts scientific History, that?s not a kasheh on the Torah, it?s more like a sha?elah - ?Why did HKBH write this? What?s He teaching me here?? 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no significant debate about that. 3. We don?t know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek ? sounds a lot like the descriptions we have of the Big Bang. 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round. They really do look that way. So either HKBH made them looking old for some reason, or they really are old. A person can ignore the question and say, ?It?s enough for me just to believe,? but the Gemara (and plenty of Rishonim and Acharonim) says that we have an obligation to study Nature to the best of our ability. 6. There are plenty of things that the smartest scientists admit they don?t know. For instance, they think that right after the moment of creation (Big Bang), the entire universe inflated instantly, like someone blowing up a balloon. Just to make this clear. There are patterns in the universe that defy logical explanation. In order to explain these patterns, it has been proposed (and accepted by many but not all cosmologists) that from 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second until 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second after the Big Bang, the universe expanded at an exponential rate (in that short moment it got 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and then the expansion slowed down. They have good reasons for believing this theory. It helps explain some of the bizarre things that we see when we look through our telescopes, chiefly, the fact that the universe appears to be the same in all directions. Yet they have no idea what could have caused this inflation. Worse for them, the current rate of expansion has been proven to be accelerating, but again they have no idea what invisible energy source could be causing this. It would be far simpler to say, ?It looks the same in every direction because it was created at the current size; there was no Big Bang and no expansion and no inflation.? But wait, we see that it is indeed currently expanding. Doesn?t that prove the Big Bang? - Expansion doesn?t prove anything. It?s a fact that requires a theory to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously expand. - Maybe this bizarre things accelerating expansion that we see, along with hypothetical inflation, are just the artist?s signature on His artwork? For after all, the only thing that can cause acceleration is more energy. The best rational explanation for this invisible ?dark? energy is that Hashem continues to be mashpia on the world and wants us to know it, without being too obvious. But wait, we also know that the stars are zillions of miles away from us, and given the known speed of light, their starlight should have taken millions or even billions of years to reach us. Doesn?t that prove at least that the universe is mighty old? - No, it doesn?t: see #5 above. 7. Yet to constantly answer, ?Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, ?What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with ?Hashem does it? without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. So what?s the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, or was it just made to look that way? I don?t know, but I?m personally completely comfortable with either answer. Neither answer can (to my understanding) be proven nor disproven. I suspect they are both true. That, as my grandfather z??l would have said, is my 2-bits. Your critical feedback welcome. Good Shabbos Alexander Seinfeld jewishspirituality.net From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 08:25:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:25:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on Marriage Message-ID: The following are excerpts from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 1:28 28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. "????????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ????????????: 28 God blessed both of them, and He made both of them responsible for the fulfillment of mankind?s mission. ??????? refers to marriage, the union of the sexes for production of human fruit ? children. Just as the choice energies and saps of the tree become ?free? in its fruit as an independent germ (see above, v. 11), so the noblest traits of godliness and humaneness of the father and mother unite to produce an independent human germ. ?????? refers to the family. r'vah = to multiply. Begetting children is not sufficient in order for the human species to multiply. Even in the case of many species of animals, increase of the breed is dependent on care of the young; and in the case of the human species, such care is absolutely essential ? even if viewed only from a physical standpoint. A human child has no chance of survival at all, if his parents do not provide him with care from the moment of his birth and do not continually promote his bodily well-being and development. Not the birth, but the care is the true cause of human increase. But r'vah includes more than this. The parents are obligated to reproduce themselves through their children: They must recur in the image of their children; and the children are to resemble their parents ? not only physically, but spiritually and morally. The parents are to plant and nurture in their children the best of their spiritual and moral powers. In short, their duty is to form and educate their children spiritually and morally. Only then will they recur in the image of their children and fulfill the mitzvah of ?????? . ?????????? refers to property (see Commentary, v. 26). Man is commanded to master the earth and subdue it. His task is to acquire the products of the earth and to transform them, so that they become fit for his purposes. Acquisition of property is prerequisite for the tasks of home and society. Property serves as an instrument with which home and society achieve their aims. Thus, the acquisition of property becomes a moral duty. The mitzvah of ??????, however, is written here last, which implies a limitation: There is no moral value to property, unless it is devoted to home and society. It is a person?s duty to acquire material assets, in order to build a home and to further the society. He should not build a home and support the society in order increase his assets and his wealth. The mitzvah of ???????????? is given at once to both sexes; they are to collaborate in harmony so as to fulfill this mission of man. Nevertheless, before establishing his home, man must first acquire material assets, and this duty ? subduing the earth, so as to further man?s aims ? is primarily incumbent only upon the male. For this reason the duty of marriage and of establishing a home is assigned directly only to the man, and only to him is it given as an unconditional duty. To the woman it is given as a conditional duty; it applies to her, only when she joins her husband. (See Yevamos 65b.) These commands place the Divine imprint on every aspect of familyand communal life. The Torah does not recognize the compartmentalization of life into God-oriented or ?religious,? on the one hand, and profane, untouched by things Divine, on the other. God claims all of life for His service and for the fulfillment of man?s mission as adom. This applies, first and foremost, to family and communal life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 11:59:27 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:59:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <20181005185927.GB26105@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 02:46:37PM -0700, RMR wrote: : It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they : vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, : they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. : So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter : Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the : Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the : original Minhag. I think it's more that minhag hamaqom is about the community, not the geography. If so many new people move in that they overhwelm the old community, they also overwhelm the old minhag. However, when Edot haMizrach got to the US in the late 20th century, many of them moved into existing communities and neither drowned out the old minhag nor did they adopt it. I think they should have done the latter, since minhag avos is only a "thing" when there is no minhag hamaqom. (Except in places like Deal, NJ, which is predominantly Syrian) And for many minhagim, the existing community -- from Yekkes to Vizhnitzers -- did have a single practice. This gets me to an issue left unresolved in a previous discussion of minhag hamaqom: Does minhag hamaqom apply piecewise, or only when there are so many practices that are consistent that there is a general feeling of unity of pesaq. For example, we talk about there being a "minhag hamaqom" in EY about things like saying Shir shel Yom after Shacharis even when there is a Mussaf, or Hakafos after Hallel. But the list of things in which the vast majority of the observant communities of Israel agree upon is quite small. Heterogeneity is the norm. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 12:31:12 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:31:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99B66C72-E111-47AA-ABA5-8E2A753AE7A4@opengemara.org> On October 5, 2018 8:40:01 AM PDT, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: >7 things every Jew should know about Ma'aseh Bereishit, even if it was >not taught in BY: >1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras >Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts >scientific History, that's not a kasheh on the Torah, it's more like a >sha'elah -- "Why did HKBH write this? What's He teaching me here?" ... >4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the >descriptions we have of the Big Bang. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work -- according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). >7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit >facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, >"What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem >does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we >would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving >us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how >to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things >work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Oct 6 11:38:57 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 21:38:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:13 PM Mandel, Seth via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have > at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that > "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, > and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, > in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei gever" in birchot hashahar? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 15:42:10 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C9B4494-797A-437D-B042-3D7AAD5FEFBD@opengemara.org> 1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? 2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). 3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 7 05:56:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 08:56:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181007125626.GC4739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 06:22:12PM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they : also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla : for geshem. I think that's the usual. After all, in Tefillas Geshem we don't just continue the list "mashiv haruach umorid hageshem, mekhalkeil chaim bechesed..." The pause before "Livrakhah velo liqlalah" is less of a question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From isaac at balb.in Sun Oct 7 00:22:12 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 18:22:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I say Geshem (as per R' Soloveitchik et al) I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla for geshem. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sun Oct 7 12:30:33 2018 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:30:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] BDE Moras Shulamith Bechhofer Message-ID: Information from RYBG on facebook: Kevurah for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h,will be at Har HaMenuchos. My brother, Horav Yochanan Meir shlita sitting shiva for 2 days from Monday night after the kevura until Wednesday afternoon in Ramat Shlomo, number 37 Shtefenesht Street by the Schaefer family. Shiva for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h will be at my mother's apartment 146 Beach 9th Street, apartment 4D, Far Rockaway, New York. Beginning Monday morning, Shacharis at 7:30 am, Mincha and Maariv at 6:05 pm. Please try to come be menachem avel before 10:00 pm. I will be returning to Monsey for Mincha Gedola on Friday at 1:15 pm, Maariv Motzoei Shabbos an hour after shekiah, and Shacharis on Sunday morning at 7:30 am, at our house, 3 Zabriskie Terrace. Besuros Tovos. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Sun Oct 7 13:03:01 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 20:03:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message Message-ID: I thought Alexander Seinfeld?s post on this subject was very interesting. I would, however, make one small change. Instead of writing ?7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY,? I would say: 7 things I and some other Orthodox Jews believe about ....? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 01:34:52 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:34:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant past. For example, in the recent controversy over Judge Kavanaugh the following appeared in a world street journal article Christine Blasey Ford was believable and sincere when she told her story of being assaulted by a young Brett Kavanaugh. So was Judge Kavanaugh when he categorically denied her claims?and none of her purported eyewitnesses have any memory of the gathering she describes. They can?t both be telling the truth, but it is possible neither is deliberately lying. The article then goes on to describe how one's memory is affected by (unconscious) attempts to heal emotional wounds. This leads to repression of embarrassing memories or memories becomes less clear over time Furthermore, the adolescent brain (9 to 25) is not fully developed. Middle adolescence (14 to 17) is a time when teens have little connection to the past or future and think only of the present. (In Israel at least 14-17 year olds are very conscious of their future and especially army service at 18) ----------------------------- I don't personally agree with all the details of the article but the total impression is that two people in their 50s testifying about an event in their teen years should be taken with a big grain of salt. Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so would probably pass "drishot"; As an aside I am aware of dayanim questioning witnesses. Is their anyting in halacha about the defendant giving his version and being questioned by the dayanim? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Oct 7 19:16:55 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2018 22:16:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi thanks for your comments. >1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? Not necessarily. Meaning, at times it does, but not always in the way that secular people use the term History. So we should not compare the two. I?d rather say, ?It contains historical information? >2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as >the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no >plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and >there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or >you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the >world was created old). We don?t have to make it work. The point is that most people frankly have no clue what cosmology says about origins (other that it?s complicated and somewhat mystical), and they often dismiss Torah because it appears to them so unsophisticated. Peeking at the Rambam gives one a clue that we have a Mesorah of a extremely sophisticated, complicated and mystical Bereishis. >3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So >hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a >source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted >from Gan Eden)? No I don?t. But I believe I saw in Rav Hirsch that Adam was first created outside Gan Eden and only put in there for the test. From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 8 05:24:45 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:24:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46de6a96-5987-0a36-1097-b2c09f3d0ebd@sero.name> On 08/10/18 04:34, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note > that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so > would probably pass "drishot"; She certainly wouldn't. The most glaring problem with her claim was precisely that she could not fulfil the most basic drishot: "when and where did this allegedly happen"? Without being able to specify these it becomes "eidut she'i ata yachol lehazima" -- it's impossible to claim that the accused was elsewhere that day, let alone the witness. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 06:26:27 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:26:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700, Rabbi wrote: The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes > are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that > nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan > Eden)? *Yes, Chazal and the Rishonim all understood that the six day creation process was not a natural one.* ''All of creation was created fully formed''. At *ma?aseh b?reishis* the ox was created not as a calf but as an adult [Rashi in *Rosh Hashanah* 26a s.v. *shor sheh-hu par*]; and Adam was likewise created as an adult standing fully erect, the Talmud reports, within the same 24-hour period. The idea that Creation was anything less than a totally miraculous process, not conducted through natural processes at all, ''accelerated? or otherwise, is rejected by the *Maharal* (*Be?er HaGolah*, p. 83, *Be?er Four*): Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory?not by means of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. The *Rambam* explains in *Moreh Nevuchim *that it is illegitimate to base conclusions about the origin of the world by examining how the world looks now and assuming that the processes that would now produce such results were responsible, because the nature of things at their origin is different. EVERYTHING produced comes into existence from non-existence; even when the substance of ?a thing has been in existence, and has only changed its form, the thing itself, which has gone ?through the process of genesis and development, and has arrived at its final state, has now ?different properties from those which it possessed at the commencement of the transition from ?potentiality to reality, or before that time. Take, for example, the human ovum as contained in the ?female's blood when still included in its vessels: Its nature is different from what it was in the ?moment of conception, when it was met by the semen of the male and began to develop. The ?properties of the semen in that moment were different from the properties of the living being ?after its birth when fully developed. It is therefore quite impossible to infer, from the nature ?anything possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the ?condition of the thing had been at the time this process commenced. Nor does the condition of ?a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and ?attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually ?existing, you will fall into great confusion: You win reject evident truths and admit false ?opinions.? Let us assume, in our above instance, that a man born without defect had after his birth been ?nursed by his mother only a few months; the mother then died, and the father alone brought him ?up in a lonely island, till he grew up, became wise, and acquired knowledge. Suppose this man ?has never seen a woman or any female being: he asks some person how man has come into ?existence, and how he has developed, and receives the following answer: ''Man begins his ?existence in the womb of an individual of his own class, namely, in the womb of a female, which ?has a certain form. While in the womb he is very small; yet he has life, moves, receives ?nourishment, and gradually grows, till he arrives at a certain stage of development. He then ?leaves the womb and continues to grow till he is in the condition in which you see him.'' The ?orphan will naturally ask: ''Did this person, when he lived, moved, and grew in the womb, eat ?and drink, and breathe with his mouth and his nostrils? Did he excrete any substance?'' The ?answer will be, ''No.'' Undoubtedly he will then attempt to refute the statements of that person, ?and to prove their impossibility, by referring to the properties of a fully developed person, in the ?following manner: ? When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and remained alive, able to move?? ? If any one of us would swallow a living bird, the bird would die immediately when it ?reached the stomach, much more so when it came to the lower part of the belly; if we ?should not take food or drink with our mouth, in a few days we should undoubtedly be ?dead! How then can a human being remain alive for months without taking food?? ? If any person would take food and would not be able to excrete it, great pains and death ?would follow in a short time--and yet I am to believe that man has lived for months ?without that function?!? ? Suppose by accident a hole were formed in the belly of a person, it would prove fatal, ?and yet we are to believe that the navel of the fetus has been open?!? ? Why should the fetus not open the eyes, spread forth the bands and stretch out the legs, if, ?as you think, the limbs are all whole and perfect?!? This mode of reasoning would lead to the conclusion that man cannot come into existence and ?develop in the manner described.? We, the community following in the footsteps of Moses and Abraham, believe that the world came into being IN such-and-such a form, and BECAME such-and-such FROM such-and-such (*haya kach mi-kach *), and such WAS CREATED AFTER such. Aristotle comes to uproot our words, bringing proofs against us based upon nature in its stabilized, perfected and active state. As for us, we declare against him that this is legitimate evidence [for determining processes that must have occurred] after nature?s having settled down in its fully developed stage; but in no way does this correspond to something?s characteristics at its being brought into existence, and produced out of absolute non-existence (MN 2:17). Shabbos marks the cessation of a process that was ongoing beforehand. If G-d's method of development of the world was through the same natural laws and processes in effect now, what ceased on the first Shabbos? None of the things mentioned above [the creation of Eve from Adam, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge, the history of the serpent and the events connected therewith] is impossible, because THE LAWS OF NATURE WERE THEN [UNTIL THE END OF THE SIX DAYS] NOT PERMANENTLY FIXED (Ibid. 2:30). The Ralbag uniquely understands specific statements by Chazal to be saying that Hashem created virtually everything simultaneously and instantaneously on the first day, all in their fully developed form (with the exception of the growth of vegetation of the fifth day) and that therefore the ?days? of Creation are ?categories.? This makes the creation process even less natural. It is noteworthy that the approach of the Ralbag is to build the understanding through the teachings of *Chazal*, and not through rejecting them on the basis that they differ with the science of the day. Zvi Lampel > > > > > [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/08/18, 9:21:07 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Oct 8 07:38:02 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 10:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Noach An Interesting Insight Message-ID: Last week God created the world. This week (some 1,656 years later), God destroys the world. Interestingly, the Baal Hatanya (Shneur Zalman of Liadi) writes that the flood has never ended and continues until this very day. We are all subject to the floods in life. We are flooded with all sorts of problems, issues, conflicts, etc. ? some more, some less. The world is still chaotic but when we do our part to minimize our personal floods, we help to minimize the floods of the world. The flood of money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy. Theodore White (American political journalist and historian) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 11:37:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:34:52AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. : Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by : many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant : past. Chaqirah is the ability to answer specific questions about the when and where of the event: 1- Which shemitah cycle 2- Which year in the cycle 3- Which month 4- Day of month 5- Day of week 6- Hour of day 7- Where And the SA discusses what we do now when we don't use 1&2 as the primary means of identifying the year, if the person is off by a day in the month, but has the correct day-of-week so that it's an obvious calendar mistake not error, etc... There is also the regular notion of cross examination, derishah. Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, asked of each eid separately. And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. So let's talk more about dinei mamonos, where neither hasra'ah nor eid echad neeman be'isurim apply. Still, we confabulate memories. Especially emotionally laden ones like something a heated argument is churning over. But can two eidim confabulate identically when they can't hear eachothers' cross-examination? But I would like to really focus on is: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. If so, why would we hold terei kemei'ah? After all, if dozens of people say the same thing, why would we believe two holdouts equally? For that matter, what would eidus be more trustworthy than even "smoking gun" level evidence? I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. But I fear that more than one paragraph on this topic would annoy people who didn't go for the idea in prior iterations. So, unless there is interest expressed, I will stop here. 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 larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Oct 8 14:39:41 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 17:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben Shapiro's take on abortion. YL Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when he speaks and is being interviewed. On Sunday, at the conclusion of the latest edition of The Ben Shapiro Election Special on the Fox News Network, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro used the last segment of the show to mount a powerful assault on abortion that was unlike any seen on a network news show before. Shapiro showed pictures from ultrasounds and illustrations of babies at various stages in utero to support his case, aware that when women see ultrasounds of the babies they are carrying, they are much less likely to consider having an abortion. Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. The later the abortion takes place, the more brutal the procedure, but no matter the brutality of the procedure, it is obvious that abortion is not some mere optional surgery to be performed for convenience. And it?s even more obvious that those who want to protect the lives of the unborn aren?t trying to control women?s bodies. Those who cherish abortion are trying to control and dismember the bodies of the unborn. Think about that next time you see a radical feminist in a Handmaid's Tale outfit suggesting that you?d better respect her right to carve apart an unborn baby in the womb or you?re some sort of fascist. No more euphemisms. See https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F36835%2Fwatch-shapiro-gives-fiery-unprecedented-assault-daily-wire&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=%2Bqenj6TOK0BiMopCLwHGel5WMFGPn5BJJ7Onf2R6yuM%3D&reserved=0 and especially the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Ftime_continue%3D27%26v%3DpoB8aIXI0Yo&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=kLq3f6Bo%2F9X3rP4HXORP3uhB5Wo6hC1ifHM%2BVBGt9j4%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 19:50:38 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:50:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181009025038.GA29143@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 05:39:41PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: :> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of :> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. Well, Rav Moshe holds as much, but most posqim do not. Shapiro is conflating the fact that Yahadus considers abortion a serious avlah with Pro-Life rhetoric that the avlah happens to be retzichah. Halachipidia has the following list (my translitations): What is the Prohibition? 1. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein - abortion is considered murder. However, this murder does not come with a death penalty. There are some cases of murder when the murderer does not get the death penalty. One of these cases is someone who murders one who is terminally ill. [4] 2. Rabbi Issar Unterman - abortion is considered abuzraihu deretzichah akin to murder.[5] 3. It is a violation of the positive commandment of peru urvu Part of the commandment is to allow every potential soul to come into being, and if one does abortion, they cannot do this. [6] 4. Spilling the seed/Onanism. The fetus is more similar to the basic seed than to a human, so destroying the fetus would be like destroying the seed.[7] 5. Aborting the fetus is injuring the mother (Chavalah). Exodus 21 says that if two men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and there is no death, but the fetus is miscarried, then they have to pay a monetary payment. So the fetus is more a part of the mother than a separate life. [8] 6. It is a Rabbinical prohibition. There is no clear prohibition in the Torah, so our only real sources are the rabbinical sources.[9] 7. According to the Zohar, one who kills a fetus is guilty of destroying God's handiwork. [10] it is unclear if this constitutes a different view of the technical prohibition, or if this is just a reasoning explaining the severity of abortion. A punishment unlike that for murder is detailed. Notes: [4] Iggros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat, Part 2, Chapter 69 [5] I.Y. Unterman, Noam VI (1963), 1-11 as cited in David Feldman, Birth Control In Jewish Law [6] Yevamos 63b [7] Talmud Bavli: Niddah 13a; Chavos Yair, Siman 31 [8] Exodus 21:22 [9] Sanhedrin 72; Tzitz Eliezer, Jerusalem, 1963, volume VII, number 48, p. 190. [10] Hok L'Yisrael, Shemot for Monday, Zohar, Shemot 3b Note how most shitos do say the fetus is not a person. #5 in particular is based on the idea that the fetus is an organ of the mother. (Which is also consistent with pen paqua.) No.s 3, 4 and 7 are about stopping the process of later producing a person. Likely #2 (abuzraihu deretzichah) as well, although it could be some other near-retzichah connection. And as for #6, it depends which deOraisa the deRabbanan is supporting. But even so, not retzichah, no human life yet. As the Bach explains the Rambam's position... You can abort a fetus to save the life of the mother a moment before it would have crowned, because it is kerotzeiach -- LIKE a rotzeiach. But it's not actually a rotzeiach, which is why in the same situation but a moment later, once the baby did crown, one could not commit infanticide to save the mother. A fetus before crowning is not subject to the same issur as after. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 9 11:04:42 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:04:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 Message-ID: In June 1990 Light Magazine published an article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer dealing with "his life in perspective; what is Torah Im Derech Eretz? ; his attitude toward modern Hebrew; and his mida of emess and bitachon. The article is at Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 9 15:26:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> References: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181009222604.GA27505@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 02:37:57PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, : asked of each eid separately. : : And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim : had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they : had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. .... REMT, kedarko beqodesh, gently corrected me in private. The eidim testifying need to have witnessed hasra'ah, and didn't have to have given it themselves. Which means that the tail of my post applies to sin/crim as well, not only dinei mamunus (as long as it's not eid echad ne'eman be'isusim). I think what I said about confabulation vs indepent derishah vechaqira of each eid separately, and (more importantly) my argument for not assuming that the neemanus accorded eidus isn't because we necessarily consider it the least fallible both still stand. Chodesh Tov! 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Thu Oct 11 01:20:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:20:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom Message-ID: << But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? >> The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a sefardi community and ROY's claim is that the Ashkenazim should have followed the existing sefardi customs. Obviously the talmidei hagra and the chassidim didn't agree. How far one goes back is part of a responsa by RMF that one who davens "chassidic" can change to Ashkenaz but not the other way since the original minhag was Asjkenaz and changed by the early chassidim. So according to RMF the fact someonepnes great...grandather 10 generations ago davened in nusach Ashkenaz has halachic meaning As to minhag EY and minhag Yerushalayim most date back about 100 years ago and a few to the days of takmidei hagra and the early chassidim. Almost none to earlier than that. The minhag of having a single drummer at a wedding in Jerusalem has mostly been replaced by a single organ player that can simulate a whole orchestra. Others claim that it holds only in the old city or that it was established by the old yishuv some 100 years ago and they are not part of that community One widespread minhag EY from the talmidei hagra and hasidim is not to wear tefillin on chol hamoed. Even in this case I have heard of some olim who put on tefillin after they return from shul. One really ancient minhag in Yerushalayim refers to not leaving a corpse overnight and so having funerals in the middle of the night. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 03:01:59 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:01:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fish With Legs?! In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: In Parshas Noach, we read about how Hashem brought the Great Flood and destroyed all living creatures, save for those inside Noach?s Ark and the fish in the oceans, who were spared as well. It would be fascinating to find out on which side of the Teiva a ?fish with legs? would have been. Would it have been considered a fish or an animal? Far from being a theoretical question, this actually happened when... To find out the full story, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Fish with Legs?!" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 02:58:05 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:58:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach Message-ID: The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both immorality and dishonesty?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 09:49:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011164903.GC19398@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 09:58:05AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach :> It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality :> than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. : : I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both : immorality and dishonesty?" The Meshekh Chomah notes... Pausing here for a shameless plug: I am now giving a quick (15-20 min) talk on Facebook Wed nights 9:30pm EDT. This comment is from that. So, the MC notes... That the dor hamabul sinned both - sexually - ki hishchis kol basar; and - financially - chamas. And he writes about the opening pasuq, based on a Rashi on the Gemara (AZ 6a): tamim -- anav ushefal ruach tzadiq - [bemaasav -gemara] - belo chamas RMShK writes that Noach "bedorosav" -- his 2 doros -- had very different challenges. Living in the pre-flood dor, being a tzadiq bemaasav and not influenced by the general dishonesty and sexual license around him, was the greater challenge. (How often does someone cut ethical corners because "that's how business is done now?") However being tamim in his midos, his anavah, was easy. The culture didn't value his tzidqus. However, in the post-flood dor, everything existed becaus of him. And the people around him had learned from the experience of tending to the animals for a year. Little challenge from peer pressure, but a much bigger challenge keeping his ego in check. This is a point the MC makes on "Malki-Tzedeq melekh Shaleim" -- the year in the midbar was a lesson in sheleimus, and that's his part of the foundation of Y-m. Avrahama added "behar Hashem Yeira'ah" to make Yerushalayim. (And thus the "-ayim", pair, in the name.) See MC Bereishis 22:14. Back to the point, it would seem that chazal attribute both difficulties to Noach's pre-flood life. It too was an "age of both immorality and dishonesty". 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 llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 08:58:19 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:58:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood ? make the ark [to consist] of enclosures for animals ? and cover it inside and out with pitch. In any event, a tavah is shaped like a box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ has no relationship to the one Noach built. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 11 07:06:55 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:06:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/10/18 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole >> Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other >> countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing >> communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and >> not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? > > The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established > community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new > minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a > sefardi?community But this isn't the case. After the crusades destroyed the original EY community with its minhagim, a new community was established by olim, who brought their mihagim with them from chu"l, and by the time the grushei Sefarad arrived there was already an established community. And what about the rest of the Mediterranean, where there were thousand-year-old communities? Leshitaso shouldn't the Sefardim who settled in each of those countries have adopted the local mihagim? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 11 06:10:16 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:10:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices Message-ID: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were an ongoing situation? 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 Thu Oct 11 07:29:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:29:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching Torah to Women Message-ID: Although throughout the ages there were Jewish women who were learned and revered1 the concept of formal education for women is barely a century old.2 Before this time, they would learn whatever was necessary from their parents.3 Girls generally did not go out of the home, and were often illiterate.4 The modern school system teaches many subjects to the girls, including Chumash, Halachah, Navi and Mishnah. Some even teach Gemara.5 Girls learn Chumash in depth with Ramban, and study more halachah than boys in yeshivah.6 The Bais Yaakov movement was spearheaded by Sarah Schenirer with just twenty-five girls in 1917,7 as a reaction to many factors8 which had changed the status quo.9 Since then, hundreds of girls? schools have been created. For more on this topic Click here to download "Teaching Torah to Women" For information about the history of the Bais Yaakov movement see https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note the curriculum of the Bais Yaakov Seminary in Krakow starting on page 77. In particular, Five Books of Moses: This included the study of the Five Books of Moses in the original and in its entirety with the commentary of Rashi and Rabbi Samuel Raphael Hirsch. and German: Instruction in the correct oral and written use of the language. The goal of this course was to provide the teachers with the ability to read by themselves the important religious literature of Hirsch and others which were written in the German language, as well as selected classical works such as the poetry of Schiller, Goethe, Nathan the Wise by Lessing, Zweig, and Beer-Hoffman. Times have indeed changed, have they not! YL study times. of the Five -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 10:04:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:04:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: <20181011170422.GD19398@aishdas.org> I got to the Arukh haShulchan's discussion of Chazal changing the entire definition of qinyan. MideOraisa, paying would be the qinyan. But Chazal were afraid that sellers wouldn't properly safeguard the item between payment and handing it over to the buyer. After all, any loss or damage is the buyers, ownership was already transfered. So, chazal made various qinyanim that demonstrate the buyer taking the item. The Torah gives the halakhah. Chazal realize that given the low state of the people around them, the halakhah would have cons that outweigh the pros. So, they change it. Reminds me of pruzbul or heter isqa, cases where in order to help someone who needs a loan get one, we allow suboptimal loan arrangements. In each case, a different validation for doing so: - Qinyan in general allows custom and agreement by both parties override the default law. - Similarly heter isqa was always technically allowed; our rabbanim just standardized a means of utilizing this alternative financial arrangement. - Pruzbul is violating shemittah derabbanan. So, while the gemara requires the motive of helpoing the poor get loans to even violate the ke'ein deOraisa, tHillel didn't rewrite Torah. But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and limit the damage. So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:01:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:01:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011190137.GG27474@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 03:58:19PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 :> In any event, a tavah is shaped like a :> box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward :> the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut :> through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. : Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ : has no relationship to the one Noach built. True; it's just the reconstruction of some Xians, given the text and the assumption that it was build not to capsize. RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis for Noach et al not to have capsized. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Oct 11 13:34:12 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:34:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Again read RSRH's commentary and you will see how he arrives at his conclusion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:14:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011191454.GA19331@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:13:44PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else : being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. : I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a : location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and : elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities : of young folks. RJR suggests that the advantage to the tzibbur would indeed trump the disadvantage for the individual. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 1:14pm UCT, he wrote: : ... Western : liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish : thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role : and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be... The comment RAM was replying to (I think) was my discussion of the advantage to the majority of the community of being pushed to think about those who need more help. IOW, not accessible shuls for the sake of those who need accessibility, but for the sake of those who need practive remembering as they pursue qedushah they they must consider others. (Especially leshitas RSShkop, where qedushah is /defined/ as commitment "leheitiv im hazulas". Not exclusively so.) I think it's simply that the hill wasn't thought of as a major inconvenience. And perhaps an obstacle likely to keep someone from coming wouldn't be a proper place for your elevated shul. Or, possibly that yes, this halakhah was only speaking "when all else is equal". Tir'u baTov! -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 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 13:10:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:10:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 01:10:16PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan : once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), : which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were : an ongoing situation? I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood of feeling anything. 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 Oct 11 16:42:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 19:42:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 09:38:57PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei : gever" in birchot hashahar? I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing But look at the Kaf haChaim OC 46 s"q 18. So I know they did in 19th cent Baghdad. However, ROY is recorses in Qol Torah vol V pg 20 as promoting gaver and aved. But in the cases we started with -- gefen and geshem. Also, Rav Pa'alim vol II, OC #25. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 12 04:36:37 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 07:36:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. > >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, >including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is >where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the >fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when >you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below >with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis >for Noach et al not to have capsized. First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because HaShem kept it afloat. Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different before the flood than after it. In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the flood were the same as they are today? If they were different before the flood, then your physics analysis does not hold water! >:-} ( have no basis for asserting that the laws of physics were different before the flood, but it is possible in light of the different climatic conditions.) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 12 05:26:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:26:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7285ED0D-3270-486A-9AD2-8DBA569E7AF4@sibson.com> [Micha:] > I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. > Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give > priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning > to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. > But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all > that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can > have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. > Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an > abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood > of feeling The question of relative priorities is always complex. I don't think this question has an algorithmic response Other than if you say all other things are equal, Which of course they never are. Kt Joel Rich From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 12 05:33:15 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:33:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> , <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Transliterations mine, but I tried to be more consistent with RSM's already present transliterations. -micha] From: Micha Berger Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:42 PM > I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing Since my name was mentioned, I think R. Micha was inviting me to add my ha'penny's worth. The Ashkenaz mss. all have gover. As due Yemenite mss. I do not remember what most S'faradi mss. have. One thing that people are only partially aware of, including many rabbonim who decided to comment on grammatical matters without the necessary study, is that L'shon Chazal is a different language than Biblical Hebrew, but that Chazal grew up knowing T'NaKh by heart, and so sprinkled their language with Biblical quotations, just as English writers leaven their language with quotations from Shakespeare or the Bible. Those quotations are in the archaic dialect of English that was spoken in the 16th-17th Century when Shakespeare lived and the King James translation was done. and do not represent the language spoken by a 21st Century writer. Similarly the language of T'filla as composed by Chazal uses their spoken Hebrew, which we call L'shon Chazal, but it is as full of quotations from the T'NaKh as a raisin bun is of raisins. Which makes it often difficult to distinguish what is L'shon Chazal from what is a quotation. I am writing a treatise about this, which God willing I will publish one of these days, which will contain proofs and various strategems to distinguish what is what. But if the language is found in a posuk, you can be sure it is a quotation. And the phrase ????? ??? [mitz'adei gaver] appears twice, once in T'hillim 37 and once in Mishlei 20, once at the beginng of a phrase and once at the end. It seem fair to me to assume that they used the form at the end of a phrase to put in the b'rokho, and so I would argue that the b'rokho is incorporating the language of ?????? ?????????-?????, ??????? ???-??????? ????????? [MeiYY mitz'adei-gover, ve'adam mah yovin darko.] and so it would be "gover," as the mss. I saw have it. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com Fri Oct 12 07:20:01 2018 From: loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com (Looking ForInspiration) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: Hello! This is my first post to aishdas.org, so forgive me and direct me if needed. Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both? Thank you in advance. Mordechai From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 12 08:20:24 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181012152024.GE12524@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 07:36:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: : >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. : >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, : > .... It would be another neis : >for Noach et al not to have capsized. : : First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the : animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen : in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed : have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because : HaShem kept it afloat. Which I noted. However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compell him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about apparence except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. : Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the : flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that : there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a : much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different : before the flood than after it. : In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the : flood were the same as they are today? Saying the world had a different climate doesn't mean the laws of nature changed. It could mean the earth changed. There is no reason to believe science itself changed since; and in fact some reason to believe it hadn't. After all, "mikol melakhto asher bara E-lokim la'asos" was before the first Shabbos. The notion that the universe changed in a new fundamental way since isn't 100% in concert with that. Although I realize "nishtaneh hateva" has numerous explanations, I don't know if any require believing the laws themselves changed. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 12 09:57:31 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:57:31 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Welcome on board! I didn't look up that sugya itself, but it could be that it was a Mishna Rishona Mishna Achrona thing. Like the reason that the Halacha in Machlokes VeAchar Kach Stam is different than in a Stam VeAchar Kach Machlokes. Also, regarding who actually wrote the Mishna - it's a Machlokes Rashi (who said (in Eiruvin, in the Samechs on the sugya of More Halacha Bifnei Rabbo) that the Mishna wasn't written in the Gemara's time) and the Rambam (who said that Rebbi wrote the Mishna). I heard that it boils down to the two Girsas of Rabbi Sherira Gaon's famous letter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 19:31:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 22:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people > on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in > reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in > the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, > halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) I think your cases are great examples of how Hashem deliberately left room for us to "improve" the Torah somewhat, thereby partnering with Him, exactly as you've explained. > And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. > Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is > not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into > account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and > limit the damage. > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted > keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be > when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than > the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged > YhR? Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her (unless he follows the prescribed procedure). That's what is meant by "lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR." The only solution is the one prescribed by the Torah itself; there is nothing for Chazal to add. Alternatively: D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. Chazal can forbid shofar on the years when RH is on Shabbos, but they can't ban it entirely on Yom Tov because of musical instruments being muktzeh. So, given that the Torah DOES allow one to take the Yefas Toar (after following the prescribed procedure), how might you word your proposed d'rabanan? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 12 14:16:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 21:16:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which Actions Have Value Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:16 You shall make a light for the ark and finish it within one cubit of the top, and set the entrance to the ark in its side; you shall make it with lower, second and third stories. God chose one man who was to save himself, his family and the animal world; he would be able to save them and himself ? only if he would do everything just as God had commanded him.?Gadol ha-mitzuveh ve-oseh me-me she-aino metzuveh ve-oseh (Kiddushin 31a) is a fundamental principle in Judaism. Contrary to prevailing opinion, a person?s actions have value only if they constitute the performance of God?s Will. What a person does on the basis of his own judgment, and the like, is of secondary, uncertain importance. During the 120 years that passed between God?s announcement to Noach and the actual onset of the flood, Noach could have done so many things: he could have built a hundred arks, and so forth. Scripture?s sole intent, however, is to say that Noach did exactly as God had commanded him; the rest he left to God. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 14 09:02:01 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 16:02:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] In sight Into Korbanos Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 8:20 20 Then Noach built an altar to God and took of every pure animal and of every pure bird, and offered ascent offerings upon the altar. la Shem; our offerings are directed to the aspect of God?s rule that desires not destruction, but life. '? is the source of all life and of all future existence, and He is ready at all times to grant new life, new vigor, and a new future. Symbolically, one offers his own life in order to win new life from God; one offers oneself up to God in order to be consecrated by God and to be elevated to a holy life on earth. One does not bring an offering to a vengeful, angry, bloodthirsty god. Rather, one who brings an offering devotes to God?s Will every pulsebeat, every nervous impulse, all muscular strength. To make an offering means to win from God eternal life. One does not offer up an animal; one offers up himself through the animal. When a person offers an animal before God and leans his hand upon it; when he slaughters it, collects its blood, dashes its blood upon the altar, and surrenders its head, legs, breast, and carcass to the flames ? in doing so he offers to God his own blood, his own mind, his own muscular strength, and surrenders himself completely to the fire of God?s Will, as set down for Israel in the Torah. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 14 20:08:41 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 23:08:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lech L'cha "Go For It" Message-ID: <406EA56D-CA2C-4FE0-B5F1-5C237B5152BE@cox.net> 12:1 Vayomer HaShem el Avram: "Lech L'cha," etc. The gematria of Lech L'cha is 100. So Avram was being told that life is a compromise: 50/50. And if he lives with give and take (50/50), he ends up with 100%. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 00:53:35 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:53:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: < Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. >> Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. Killing a fetus is not murder and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 01:12:31 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:12:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: << I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. >> First anything I brought from the Kavanaugh case was simply it was that stoty that made me think of the issue. The details of that story are immaterial. The basic question was that recent studies demonstrate false memories and especially from years ago and when the wirnesses may have been teenagers when they are not yer completely developed. On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered neveilah. The Taz doesn't like such a scenarion but many others disagree with him. They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:45:24 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89a90ad8-4240-fb55-2d1d-fba96a91819b@sero.name> On 15/10/18 04:12, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to > death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Mon Oct 15 05:49:36 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <0A43202F-B23C-41DE-A4E7-8002ED599973@tenzerlunin.com> ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses. * * * They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport).? ISTM that there should be a significant difference between executing someone when you have definitive information (I won?t use the word evidence) that he is innocent and eating a piece of meat that, although it in fact came from a non-kosher animal, is treated halachically as kosher. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 07:16:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:16:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015141643.GA20844@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:12:31AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death : even though the facts might not be true. : More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of : modern techniques versus two witnesses I didn't think I was implying that. If there is evidence -- regardless of DNA's own issues -- but not eidim, the facts are not established to the point of chiyuv misah. If there are eidim to convict, but the evidence points otherwise, the dayanim can't close derishah vechaqirah until they resolve the conflict to their own satisfaction. Given the whole bit about "achas leshev'ah / leshiv'im shanah", perhaps their own satisfaction should be to a "beyond reasonable doubt" kind of standard. (Maybe the person had a mum exactly where the knife entered would probably be considered by most of us "beyond unreasonable doubt".) : I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In : particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem : was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it : can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of : the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered : neveilah... The case in the SA that I remember : They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif : and not the metzius. That is a misphrasing. I said that pesaq relies on how we perceive the world -- and in fact this perception is the meaning of the word "metzi'us". (Which, I will note again, comes from "matza", which doesn't imply theoretical objective existence.) The nearest I come to the way you put it would be to say that matters like probability go into how we think about an unobserved unknown. Evidence is a matter of changing the odds, not of establishing definitive metzi'us. ------------------ And my pet theory is an extension of R' Aqiva Eiger's teshuvah (#136) explaining the difference between kol deparish, where rov matters, and qavu'ah. RAE makes is a chiluq between rules of birur when the reality is unknown (kol deparish) and ones where the reality was established but the halakhah is unkown. Treating this as a very broad kelal, eidus changes a kol deparish type question into a qavu'ah. Which is why rov no longer epplies, and terei kemei'ah. Evidence without observation keeps it a kol deparish question, although it does shift the odds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:40:52 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:40:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15/10/18 03:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life.?>> > Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. > Killing a fetus is not murder According to some. > and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. And as Ronald Reagan pointed out, if you're not sure whether something is murder, then committing it is at least reckless endangerment. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 08:50:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:50:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 06:40:52AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is : : With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. Except that the Bach explains that's is NOT what the Rambam holds. Which is why Rotzaiach 1:9 distinguishes between aborting to save the mother before crowning, and not committing infanticide a fraction of a moment later after the baby crowns. If abortion were murder, there would be no shift in priorities between the mother's and baby's lives before and after birth. Or: A "KErodeif" (as the velad isn't doing anything itself to risk the mother) who isn't a full person may be killed, but once born, ein dochin nefesh mipenei nefesh. Rashi (Sanhedrin 72b "yatza rosho") says that the unborn fetus isn't subject to "ein dochin NmPN" because it isn't a nefesh yet. The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 09:01:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:01:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> References: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015160131.GB26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:50:59AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the : contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam : cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? The Arukh laNeir (Sanhedrin 72b) writes that the chiluq is that in the second case we cannot isolate whether the child (once crowned) is the mother's rodeif, or the other way around. The IM (CM 2:69) writes similarly. But neither deal with the Bach's question of how that means "ein dochin" is the principle in particular invoked to explain why we cannot kill the baby after crowning, but not the fetus a moment before. Also, how is it true that we always know before crowning that it's the fetus in the mother's way, but if the head is partly out, we don't? Balebatishe question.... Let's say it's the umbilical cord vs the mother's blood loss -- does that dynamic change with crowning? But in any case, my point was that the Bach means that we cannot say as a certainty that there is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam about whether a velad is a person. Just that some acharonim take him to say so. And once you look at acharonim, variants on the theme that is definitely Rashi's abound. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 06:48:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 09:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: *Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400* *From: Looking ForInspiration >* *To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org * *Subject: * *Hello!* *This is my first post to aishdas.org , so forgive me and direct me **if needed.* *Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that **when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, **it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this **mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author?* *I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, **Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone **can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible **as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it **would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, **the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba **Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of **Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write **the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both?* *Thank you in advance.* *Mordechai* This should be helpful: >From Rambam's Letter to R. Pinchas HaDayyan (In R. Sheilat's edition, Teshuva 140): ...every decision that he [Rebbi Yehuda HaNassi] presented without attaching an author's name originated [not with him, ?but] with other sages. And those other sages as well were not the originators of those decisions, ?but [merely stated how they understood what they] obtained from the mouths of others, and the ?others from still others, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. .. [T]hey ...explicitly stated in so many places, ?Rebbi ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue A, and presented them anonymously; but he ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue B, and presented them anonymously.".This ?openly states that whatever Rebbi endorsed as final halacha, and considered the proper ?practice to follow, he stated without associating anyone?s name with it. And in so many places ?the Gemora says, ?This anonymously-stated halachah is an individual?s opinion [and not the ?majority?s]?--Rabbeynu did not mentioned the names of any of them [--neither that of the ?individual whom the halacha followed, nor that of the majority]. ? ?[Only] when it came to matters that Rebbi did not consider settled, but still debatable, and ?about which he did not lean one way or the other, did he state both opinions in the names of ?their proponents (?R. So-and-so says this, and R. So-and-so says that?) mentioning the names ?of those sages, or of recently living ones, from whom he heard those opinions--but [still] not of ?their mentors or mentors?-mentors' names. For at the time, many people still followed one ?opinion, and many still followed the opposing one. Suffice it to say that he [himself] told us ?explicitly why, in some of the mishnas, he attached names:? And why do we mention the words of Shammai and Hillel only to negate them [by ?adding that the majority of sages disagreed with both and decided differently]??to ?teach the following generations....? ? And why do we mention the dissenting words of ?individuals along with those of the majority...???So that if a Beis Din will agree with the ?individual?s opinion and rely upon it....[R' Yehuda (ben El'ai) added:] And why do we ?mention the words of the individual together with those of the majority only to negate ?them??So that if a person reports receiving a teaching other than that which was ?accepted by the majority....?? ...it was only necessary to mention opposing opinions during those times ?that some practiced one way, and others practiced a different way, when some obtained the ?law according to one sage?s opinion, and some according to another sage?s opinion. End of quote from Teshuva. Regarding stam mishnayos that contradict, each mishna had its own author and, following Rambam, Rebbi placed them in the order he did. One explanation is that he changed his mind, and his pesak is identified by the rules of stam v'acher kach machlokess (machlokess meaning a mishna with an opposing view, not necessarily a mishna contaning two views), and vice versa. However, the majority of Tannaim in Rebbi's day did sometimes differ with him. And in cases where the Beis Din Gadol did not put the issue to a formal vote, later authorities, even Amoraim, did not necessarily follow Rebbi's decision. Regarding the last point, check out Rambam's payrush, followed also by the Rav MiBartenura, on the mishnayos at the beginning of Eidiyos, and see how it differs from that of the Raavad and Tosefos Shantz Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/15/18, 9:02:19 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Sat Oct 13 20:23:41 2018 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 23:23:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Moving this aspect of the discussion over from Areivim. Subject line is mine. -micha] On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM Micha Berger via Areivim wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 01:26:50PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: >: I am surp[rised that you did not suggest that men begin wearing >: tephillen the entire day as was apparently the custom in ancient >: times... > For people who had desk jobs. > Laborers didn't, for pragmatic reasons. And in an agrarian society, that > was most men most of the day, except in the winter. My impression was that the heter to not wear tefillin (issur to wear tefillin) only applied to particular cases, such as one who was carrying a burden (of a particular size or content, i.e., excrement) on their head, but that a normal farmer/craftsman/laborer would generally wear tefillin the entire day. A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did not wear tefillin, but it is critical of this practice, and although the gemara appears to give a justification of such (while still maintaining its objection to the reality), it is not along the white collar/blue collar axis. Josh From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 11:18:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015181859.GE5656@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 11:23:41PM -0400, Joshua Meisner via Avodah wrote: : A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did : not wear tefillin... The context is, any mitzvah, like milah, that people were moseir nefesh for when there was a government deceree is still muchzeqes beyadam. Tefillin was given an example where there never was such a history, and therefore our commitment remains less. It says "merupeh beyadam", not that people weren't wearing them at all, which is what you say here. Nor, more on-target for our discussion, that people were wearing them just for davening instead of all day. Possible referants: Tzeduqim wore their tefillin on the bridge of their noses (bein einekha). So many Jews were nikhshal. Or maybe there were sects who believed like the Qaraim or R that there are no physical objects involved at all to keep the ideas in sight and at hand. But it just struck me -- most likely, that they weren't careful to keep a guf naqi. After all the gemara reads: ... kegon tefillin, adayin hi berufah beyadam. DEamar R' Yanai: tzerichim guf naqi... What's that dalet doing there in "de'amar" if R' Yanai wasn't discussing said ripui? RGS writes : Here's a question for you: Why don't men wear tefillin all day long? The mitzvah is not just during morning services; it is throughout the day (cf. Tur, Orach Chaim 37). So why don't we wear them all day? The answer to this question is historical... There is textual evidence that already in Talmudic times there were many people who did not wear tefillin.... His argument here is the same as yours. ... The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 13a) specifically condemns those who never wear tefillin. This laxity by many on wearing tefillin continued into the Middle Ages. Tosafos (Shabbos 49a sv. ke-Elisha) write that one should not be surprised that at that time people were lax in tefillin, since they were in the times of the Talmud also. This is attested to in many other places, and in the times of the Geonim there are even implications that almost no one in the land of Israel wore tefillin. The Beis Yosef (Even Ha-Ezer 65) quotes the Kol Bo who suggests that in some communities ashes are not placed on a groom's forehead because the community members do not wear tefillin. There was even a responsum by R. Sherira Gaon, copied in many medieval works on halakhah, answering a question about whether it is yuhara (haughty) for a yeshiva student to wear tefillin when no one else does. It seems that in order to defend this practice, some rishonim utilized the idea that one who wears tefillin needs a "guf naki - clean body". The Shibbolei Ha-Leket (Buber ed., p. 382) quotes one view that "guf naki" means that a person is clean of sins.... Sefer Ha-Chinukh (no. 421) states that "guf naki" does not refer to someone who has no sins or impurity, implying that someone else had suggested that it did. The author explicitly condemns those who are strict on the holiness of this mitzvah and thereby deprive the masses of the mitzvah. Rather, "guf naki" refers to the ability to refrain from passing gas and thinking improper thoughts while wearing the tefillin. R. Moshe of Coucy (Semag, mitzvos aseh no. 3) tells of how he would travel around thirteenth-century Europe, preaching to people that they should wear tefillin during the morning prayers. Even if they cannot control themselves all day, people can certainly maintain a guf naki for the prayer services (that is the view of Tosafos [Pesachim 113b sv. ve-ein]; Rosh [Hilkhos Tefillin, no. 28 and Beis Yosef [Orach Chaim 37]; footnote 8 in the Schlesinger edition of Semag assumes the Semag agrees). Evidently, this practice of wearing tefillin only during morning prayer services took hold and the prior practice of widespread abandonment of the mitzvah slowly turned into minimal performance of it during the morning prayers. However, someone who cannot control himself and cannot maintain a guf naki may not wear tefillin. Despite the biblical obligation, someone in a definite situation such as that should not wear tefillin at all (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 38:1). For this reason, the Arukh Ha-Shulchan (Orach Chaim 38:6) rules that those who are not obligated in the mitzvah of tefillin -- such as women -- should never place themselves in even a doubtful position of not maintaining a guf naki. ... 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 Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il Tue Oct 16 00:45:18 2018 From: Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il (Ezra Chwat) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:45:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> References: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <85b0325c428741fcb0a9d98b30ef7206@Ex1.Nli.loc> [Micha] wrote: > Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the > water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the > fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity > is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Great insight, it's pshat in [Beresheet VII: Vateilekh hateivah al penei hamayim] meaning, all of it above surface, as in Gen I 2. Although there are a plenty (majority) sources in [lehon miqra] and [lehon chaza"l] where the meaning clearly infers partial immersion below the water surface. [Doq vetishkach] search and see. In any case this also sheds literary light on the two images presented for [lechem hapanim] (Menahot 94b): [sefinah roqedet] vs [teivah perutzah]. Why these images instead of description? Perhaps theres a message here about [teivat Mosheh] or [teivat Noach] Here's Rashi's drawing (source ) Dr. Ezra Chwat |Manuscript Bibliographer Department of Manuscripts The National Library of Israel, Jerusalem Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, P.O. Box 39105, Jerusalem 9139002 ezra.chwat at nli.org.il | www.nli.org.il From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Tue Oct 16 05:10:21 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:10:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Zev Sero commented: ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway.? What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 16 05:25:28 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:25:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: On 16/10/18 08:10, Joseph Kaplan wrote: > Zev Sero commented On Micha's remarks: >>> it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though >>> the facts might not be true. >> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, >> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. > What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the > value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel > Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Well, we *know* that it is indeed what He wants. That is surely beyond all question. All we can discuss is *why* He wants it, and what lessons we can draw from this counterintuitive fact. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:16:00 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:16:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> > RMB: > > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, > or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes > posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? > Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? It is in general true that the Torah prefers to regulate strong emotions (like greed and lust) rather than to extirpate them. See for example Hagigah 9b ?yaeh aniyusa liyehudaei ??, and yet the Torah doesn?t prohibit wealth (though see Parshas Shoftim 17:16-17), though historically several communities have enacted sumptuary laws. And see H. Deos 1:4-5 about the difference between a tzaddik and a hasid. The Rambam implies (at the end of 1:5) that he prefers tzidkus to hasidus but see H. Deos 6:1 that this applies only in a virtuous society. It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical level, however, I don?t see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. But there?s a more important point. What?s weird about war is that it?s not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say ?hasatan mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama? that?s partly because the soldiers don?t have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over his lifetime. So it makes a lot of sense that k?nagged YhR is specifically mentioned in the context of milhama. David Riceman From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:35:09 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42DB0493-2688-4FB1-B731-24A6D9C76BC7@optimum.net> [Corrected as per a follow-up email. -micha] RMLFI: > I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, > Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone > can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible > as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it > would be much appreciated. If you really mean that read through YL Epstein's "Hakdamah L'Nusach HaMishnah". Albeck wrote a (shorter) "Hakdamah L'Mishnah" and, IIRC, [Epstein also] wrote a "Hakdamah L'Sifrut HaTanaim". There's a mahlokes rishonim whether the mishna is a sefer peak or an encyclopedia of sources. This is related to the machlokes amoraim about whether halacha k'stam mishna. But it is possible for mishnayot with contradictory anonymous conclusions to have been edited by the same person. David Riceman From t613k at aol.com Wed Oct 17 20:57:38 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 23:57:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16685525a33-1ec3-bc74@webjas-vac183.srv.aolmail.net> In a message dated 10/15/2018 ? From: Micha Berger >> However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compel him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about appearance except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. << >>>>> ? ? ? The bottom may have been flat but not the top.? See Ber 6:16 "A window [tzohar] shall you make for the Ark, and to a cubit finish it from above...." (ArtScroll translation) ? I understand this to mean that the sides of the ark, at least the upper level, were slanted so that rain would run off (the reason most roofs of houses are slanted rather than flat).? At the top it only one square cubit wide, where the window (if the tzohar was a window, or possibly an LED light) was set in place. ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 18 03:08:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 06:08:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181018100847.GF26742@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:29:42AM -0400, Toby Katz wrote: : He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on : this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does : not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, : let alone the same as murder... This "let alone" undermines his whole thesis. Few akharonim take the Rambam to mean that abortion is murder, and of those who do, not all hold like their understanding of the Rambam. : We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these : issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians : recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that : Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. Or even to start with the assumption they are similar. It is best to just look up our views, and then see pragmatically which party to work with. Rather than identify with either camp and risk assimilating their values. 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 t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 17 21:29:42 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 00:29:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> ? From: "Prof. Levine" > IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an > abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben > Shapiro's take on abortion. >> Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is >> Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when >> he speaks and is being interviewed. ... >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... Ben Shapiro is a brilliant commentator and makes a powerful case against abortion. He also makes a Kiddush Hashem by publicly identifying as an Orthodox Jew and always wearing a yarmulka. However, I am troubled by this statement of his: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, let alone the same as murder. If a young woman is raped c'v the very best and most prudent thing she should do is take the "morning after pill" which prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum. To many Christians the morning after pill is exactly the same as abortion or infanticide, but the Torah does not view it that way. When a certain couple with whom I am intimately acquainted were undergoing IVF treatment in order to have children (which they ultimately did, B'H), they asked their most serious shailos of a very prominent posek in Baltimore. One shaila was what to do with excess embryos that were created in the lab. An embryo is just a fertilized ovum that has developed into a tiny little ball of cells, could be just eight or sixteen cells at first. When you hear that embryos are created in a lab and sometimes frozen to be thawed and implanted at a later date, please do not imagine that little babies are in the freezer. (Only in Lakewood are young humans put in the freezer.) Since multiple pregnancies are hazardous for the mother and often do not have a good outcome for the babies, as a rule no more than three embryos are implanted in the uterus at one time. In IVF powerful hormones are given which often result in the release of multiple eggs at ovulation, which in turn result in multiple embryos at fertilization. But if you are not going to implant more than three, what do you do with the extras? The posek told the couple that they could do what they wanted -- freeze the extras for a later attempt, or discard them. Catholics would consider the discarding of these little balls to be the same thing as murder, and possibly they would consider putting them in a freezer to be child abuse. We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. I suspect that Ben Shapiro is not aware of a very important distinction. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 05:40:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:40:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" Message-ID: >From https://goo.gl/7m1UWj Halacha L'kovod Shabbos - "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" One is permitted to spray one's hair (e.g. sprinkle or hand-pat water on frizzy hair) on Shabbos as long as it is not very wet, because the Melocho of Melabain (cleaning or scouring) does not apply to the human body. (If the hair gets very wet it may not be squeezed out since hair is subject to the prohibition of S'chita - squeezing). However, the use of hairspray which will stiffen the hair and form a structure may involve the Melocho of Boneh (building). If one sprays the hair first and then styles and shapes it; this would be prohibited on Shabbos because it is similar to Boneh. However, some poskim permit the use of hairspray if one is careful to first style and shape the hair, and then only afterwards add the hairspray. When done in this manner the loose hair is shaped at the time of styling, and does not resemble Boneh because the hair is loose. The subsequent spraying merely acts to retain a pre-existing shape. Once the hair has been sprayed it can no longer be shaped, styled, or touched. {We mentioned previously that the use of hairspray on Shabbos does not involve the Melocho of Zoreh.} Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah 302, Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa 14:50:131, Kitzur Hilchos Shabbos re:Gozez:5:16, Biur Halacha 303:27, Hilchos Shabbos R' Shimon Eider, Minchas Yitzchok 6:26, Sefer 39 Melochos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 19 05:31:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:31:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hirhurei tshuva Message-ID: <7e7b234b4f3d4d51bc22ea4cdc8114d5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The Artscroll Yom Kippur machzor has the following comment (I could not find the GRA's statement in Aderet Eliyahu). "David replies with just two words: "I have sinned to HASHEM." Nathan answers, "[If so] God has removed your sin and you will not die. "The Vilna Gaon notes that according to the Masoretic text there is a space after David's brief confession, even though it is in the middle of a sentence. This implies that David wanted to say more - he felt that he should go into more detail about his sin and the sincerity of his remorse - but was so overcome by remorse that he could not speak. He didn't have to. Nathan broke in to tell him that he had been forgiven - because his confession, brief and incomplete though he thought it to be - was utterly sincere." Me-Do you think this thought coheres with the following insight from R'YBS: "In response to this Divine verdict, R'Yehudah HaNasi cried, marveling at how some individuals merit the World to Come only after a lifetime of effort, while others acquire such reward after only brief effort. The Rav emphasized that the executioner not only earned a share in the World to Come, but achieved the same level as did R'Chananya in this regard. "Why did R'Yehudah HaNasi have such an emotional reaction to the afterlife destiny of the executioner? The answer is that although prior to this incident R'Yehudah HaNasi had certainly understood the redemptive power of teshuvah, he had not previously appreciated the redemptive power of hirhur Tshuva, "awakening" of teshuvah. If teshuvah is indeed a multistep process, involving sin recognition, remorse, and resolve, how can an individual possibly be considered righteous after only a moment's thought? Only through hirhur Tshuva, which is spontaneous, instinctive, and sudden. In one second, an individual can live the jarring experience of awakening from spiritual slumber." 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 Fri Oct 19 07:03:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:03:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Most Profound and Far-Reaching Vision of the Future Ever Permitted a Mortal to Behold or to Utter Message-ID: In his commentary on Bereishis 9:25-27 25 He said: Cursed be Canaan; he shall be a servant of servants to his brothers. 26 And he said: Blessed be God, the God of Shem; may Canaan become their servant. 27 God will open [people?s] emotions to Yefes, but He will dwell in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be a servant to them. RSRH provides deep insights into a number of important topics. He writes 25?27 We have here what may be the most profound and far-reaching vision of the future that God ever permitted a mortal to behold or to utter. The entire history of mankind ? past, present, and future ? is contained in these three verses. and then later on The spirit of Israel does not produce ecstatics who lose their grip on reality and go mad. Judaism yearns for God?s closeness, but requires of man clarity of thought, a composed and sober mind. Ecstatics who ?merge with the divine? lack freedom of choice; they imagine that they themselves do nothing, but that God acts through them. This is not the way to serve God. Our task is to make use of the intellect and the freedom God has given us, in the earthly sphere which He has assigned to us; to serve God faithfully, conscientiously, and with a clear mind. Only thus will we attain the highest perfection a person can reach; only thus will our actions be sanctified, and will we be worthy of God?s closeness. IMO there is so much of import in his commentary on these verses that I have taken the trouble to post it at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/profound_far_reaching_vision.pdf If you take the time to read this, you may well find insight into what we see going on in the world today as well as what has happened in the past and will happen in the future. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 21 07:14:12 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 10:14:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayera "We have to teach empathy as we do literacy." (Bill Drayton) Message-ID: <0D74D2E3-332B-4E5B-9E58-56B4273FC281@cox.net> 1) The following is a beautiful reflection of Jewish sensitivity. The original source of the story is not known. See Bamberger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 1939), p. 209, note 17/ "Once, Abraham's love of strangers clashed with his zeal for God. He invited a wayfarer to his home and, finding the wayfarer praying to his idol, chased him away. God reprimanded Abraham severely: 'I have borne with him these many years although he rebelled against Me, and you cannot bear with him one night?!' Abraham had realized his sin and did not rest until he had brought the stranger back.? (Benjamin Franklin composed his "Parable against Persecution" on this very theme). 2) The Sidrah opens by saying that God appeared to Abraham [Gen. 18:1], but when Abraham applies the vision to his own world he suddenly sees three men standing before him [Gen. 18:2]. Abraham is the religious man par excellence for he sees God in the human situation. Franz Rosenzweig Based on the puotation in On Jewish Learning, ed. Nahum Glatzer (New York: Schocken, 1955), p. 124 3) 18:2 "And he lifted up his eyes and he saw, and, behold, three people....." Who were these three people? Michael, Gabriel, and Rafael. Michael came to inform Sarah that she would bear a child; Rafael, to heal Abraham; and Gabriel, to overturn Sodom. (Bava Metzia 86b) 4) The sin of Sodom consisted not only in what the people did but in what they failed to do. Thus, no one raised a voice in protest when the crowd molested Lot's guests. Failure to protest is to participate in the sins of a community. (Gen. R. 50:9) This is reminiscent many years ago of Kitty Genovese, a woman in Queens, N.Y., who was screaming for help at the top of her lungs in a major apartment complex, and not one person lifted a finger or even phoned the police. This woman was killed due to the negligence of every person aware of her screams. Are we raising our voice in protest when we witness people being hurt? "The dew of compassion is a tear." Lord Byron (1788-1824) One of the greatest British poets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 21 16:38:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 19:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:18:17AM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : I don't understand why it would need such long : deliberation or a long teshuvah to demonstrate what every school : child knows, that a mumar remains a Jew. You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein's "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity". (Reprinted in Leaves of Faith. ch 3 pp 57-84) http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage (When I hit that URL, the article was available on Google Books in its entirety.) It isn't as open-and-shut that "Yisrael, af al pi shechat'ah, Yisra'el hu" is as universal or as much as a given as most of us were taught in school. We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the qiddushin are chal. But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking Hoacheia 17a. Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim even though their conversation had been accepted for generations before then. RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. Including, RAL writes, Brother Daniel or any other meshumad applying for citizenship under the Law of Return. 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 rabbi at opengemara.org Mon Oct 22 02:45:07 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:45:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> References: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 21, 2018 4:38:17 PM PDT, Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein... > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage ... > We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to > practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the > qiddushin are chal. > But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a > non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, > Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking > Hoacheia 17a. > Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim ... I didn't learn that sugya in a while, but I was under the impression that it's a machlokes Rishonim how to learn the Aseres Hashevatim (I think it's the Meiri there). Some learn that they were a horaas shaah. Others learn like you wrote, that one who is a min is considered completely not a Jew. The thing is that the Halacha doesn't follow those Rishonim, as we're still Choshesh for the Kiddushin of a Min (who does give up their Jewish identity). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Oct 23 23:02:52 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:02:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters Message-ID: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim B:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to harvest because? they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. The Radbaz explains that since the workers aren't experts, they will either give too much pe'ah or too little.? Meaning, the issue is technical, not that they aren't chayav to give and therefore they can't do it. What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or twice with them. Ben From eliturkel at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 07:51:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:51:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: << RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. >> RAL is the most persuasive essentially after several generations. It is hard to believe that someone who converted to Xtianity in the middle ages would have descendants who are Jewish through the mothers when all connection to the Jewish world is lost. I once read that there are 80 million descendants today from the Jews in Spain that left Judaism. While we only count those through the maternal side this would still give a lot of "halachic" Jews for people who might be strong anti-semites today. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 25 06:33:46 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:33:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: Message-ID: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we say lo palginon (we don't split)? 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 Oct 26 11:06:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:06:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026180609.GA18376@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:40:01AM -0400, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no : significant debate about that. Quibble: +/- 168 years during Galus Bavel, and perhaps other issues. Also, the Seder Olam, R' Yossi bar Chalafta (acc. to Yavamos 82b & Niddah 46b), is only one tanna among many. For that matter, he is "only" the primary author, as it quotes people who lived later than RYbH. Of course there are machloqesin about many of his positions. (Our calendar is Sefer Olam chronology with a different year 0. Seder Olam numbers the year of Adam's creation as 0, and we use year 1 for the week before Adam, so that our numbers are SO + 2. But the same age.) But in a much smaller scale than you intended to, there are numerous debates. I have a pet theory that these factors are the reason why shetaros, and in particular gittin, explain the year is only as "beminyan she'anu monim kan ba'ir Ploni-ville..." But in any case, since lemaaseh no din relies on the year, pesaq doesn't apply, and machloqesin neither have to be nor even can be resolved. : 3. We don't know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam : HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a : day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. The Ramban is clear -- a yom was 24 hours on a hypothetical clock, the way we measure time now. R' Dessler explains the Ramban as equally saying that a yom was 1,000 years. Which wouldn't be long enough to help, but it gets weirder -- not just any 1,000 years, but a millennium of the 6,000 of world history. According to REED, the Ramban correctly holds that time is non-linear. (Michtav meiEliyahu vol II pp 150-154, Yemei Bereishis veYemai Olam, I paraphrase it paragraph by paragraph at ) R' Dessler writes that the arrow of time and the whole concept of a time-line is specific to how human beings perceive reality, and even that only as people have done so /after/ the cheit. Which gives him the room to say that the scientific age of the universe is not so much wrong as choosing a less than optimal way of viewing a problem that doesn't admit any one answer. The age of the universe is 6 millenia or so plus 6 days as seen from the perspective the Torah advises us to adopt. But that doesn't make some other answer less correct, or less useful for some other purpose. : 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the : descriptions we have of the Big Bang. : 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny : that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round.... Well, the Ramban on bara mentions hyle, which is the Greek for chomer in chomer vertzurah (which they called hylomorphism). So Hashem first made substance without form. Or maybe, less hard to imagine, the current substance, but in forms that no longer exist. Now, Quantum Mechanics is nothing at all like hylomorphism, but... According to Big Bang theory, in the first fractions of a second after yeish mei'ayin, things were so hot that individual particals had no identity. What now appears to be four kinds of particles, for kinds of fields, mediating forces was just one mush, not so mention the particles we think of as matted. As things cooled, the symmetry split again and again until the types of particles and forces we know today differentiated. Does sound like chomer beli tzurah. : - Expansion doesn't prove anything. It's a fact that requires a theory : to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made : the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously : expand. How do we explain "Shakai"? That He said "dai" and the expansion ended, no? : 7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit : facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, : "What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem : does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, : we would be much poorer... But there is no way to disprove "the universe is young and Hashem had His Reasons for doing it that way", reasons we can't identify. We might want answers that feel less facile, but that doesn't make it false. Might just be human hubris, to need a universe we can understand. That is different than what you're talking about, which is more similar to separating a scientific study of cause with a Torah study of purpose. But it does raise the question of whether "a bit facile" is a meaningful RELIGIOUS problem. You want to know the science, fine. But life's values doesn't rest on it. Nor should you assume science can't his a wall. : So what's the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, : or was it just made to look that way? REED says both. Because, in his typical Kantian perspective, he has science address the world as humans perceive it, believing the world as it exists "out there" is actually unknowable. And so, the world before eitz hadaas and observation by human consciousness of our sort is amenable to different descriptions. Each capturing a different shadow of the basic unknowable. On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. That natural is just a term we use to describe the patterns by which Hashem usually acts. It is all "by Himself". >From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> + When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. :-)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 From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:41:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:41:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters In-Reply-To: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> References: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181026184149.GC20611@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:02:52AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim [2]:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to : harvest because they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. ... : What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here : and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or : twice with them. I assume you're llimiting your question to pei'ah. Because leqet requires getting out of a habit when you're in the middle of gathering. And for the same reason, why not worry about shikhechah? I would think that even with instructions, it's leqet and shikechah that's hard to get used to and get right. :-)BBii! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:36:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:36:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026183619.GB20611@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:20:01AM -0400, Looking ForInspiration via Avodah wrote: : Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that : when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, : it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this : mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? It didn't. The mishnah took a 3 generation process: R' Aqiva, R Meir and Rebbe. Stam mishnah is usually like R Meir, although the gemara at times proves a different maqor, not even the final redactor. (Stam Sifra keRabbi Yehudah, even though the Sifra is not by Rebbe, but by his student, Rav.) You have statements like on RH 19b, where you're told the mishnah is not in accord with R" Yehudah haNasi. So the notion that the opinion of the mishnah is necessarily the opnion of the redactor is not a given. Nor is the stam mishnah always R' Meir. Therefor conflicting opinions isn't proof of multiple redactors. (Although,as I wrote, redaction was one school, not one person.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:05:56 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:05:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20181028150556.GB10183@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:10:21PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : Zev Sero commented: :> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, :> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. : What, if anything, does this teach us -- about Halacha or morality or : the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Perhaps it tells us that more die when the appeals process is endless? And thus, once the case is closed, it's closed. And we trust G-d to insure that any miscarriage of justice in the case is just in the broader context. Just thinking out loud to keep the topic going... It needs more discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 28 05:04:29 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:04:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:19:23 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:19:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf : The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of them a couple of decades ago. Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an artificial evolution of halakh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 10:09:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 13:09:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: At 11:19 AM 10/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: Please see >http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. > >And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >them a couple of decades ago. > >Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an >artificial evolution of halakh. I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that RYBS said this. In any event see http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf From there The findings in this article seem to confirm the judgment of some scholars that the rabbinic sources cited by R. Epstein should not be taken as accurate and that they require independent confirmation from the original sources.61 Certainly the inconsistencies found in MB cast serious doubt as to its value as a completely accurate historical account. We will never know what lies behind the puzzling inaccuracies in R. Epstein's oeuvre, nor is it for us to speculate. R. Menachem Kasher, after setting severe strictures about the reliability of R. Epstein's citations, nevertheless expresses a charitable understanding of the circumstances that may have brought this about. Noting R. Epstein's statement in MB that he lived a "life of suffering" (hayyei tsa)ar), R. Kasher writes that R. Epstein was a "great man" (adam gadol) whose )) is "a monumental work" (avoda anakit), and he attributes the many inaccuracies in the work to R. Epstein's difficult and inordinately busy life which did not permit him to check his sources as carefully as he should have. One old lesson emerges reinforced from all this-a lesson for researchers in any field, especially the field of Torah scholarship. Primary material must be carefully examined, and if only secondary sources are available, their veracity must be meticulously ascertained. Rayna Batya seems to have been an extraordinary woman, but the inaccuracies in R Epstein's telling of her story cloud our ability to know her and her absorbing story. We close this article, which is written in sadness rather than glee, by noting one final irony. When Mesorah Publications published a translation of R. Epstein's MB, tided My Uncle the Netziv, it deleted certain key words.64 The passage in which we learned of Rayna Batya's scholar- ship was one of the changed passages. The original passage, for example, mentioned the venous books she used and included, among others, Mishnayot and books of aggada. In the English translation, these books were deleted from the list, causing much indignation in the scholarly world at this attempt to revise history. How ironic it is that this effort to "sanitize" R. Epstein's reputation should have inadvertency hit upon the truth: that the story of Rayna Batya lie many other elements in MB and Torah Temima are in fact in need of serious revision. _________________________________ In light of all this can we really be sure that the Netziv read newspapers on Shabbos? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:25:15 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 12:09 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the > accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that > RYBS said this. > > In any event see > http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition article would Certainly qualify. HM From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 14:35:04 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 17:35:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 05:25 PM 10/28/2018, Harry Maryles wrote: >FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical >of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to >R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition >article would Certainly qualify. IIRC Rabbi Meir Fund is the one who told me that RYBS said that there are many inaccuracies in the writings of the Torah Temima. Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be well documented. YL From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:49:03 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:49:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <5E34DB8F-9432-4A3B-BD90-808E37069230@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be > `well documented. I glanced at it. But I did not read it. All I was doing was saying what my rebbi told me personally HM From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 19:06:13 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 22:06:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage > ... > RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends > up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who > reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who > goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed > not be Jews. One must be wary of the phrase "would indeed not be Jews". As RAL reiterates there, over and over, "Jew" can mean different things in different contexts. For example, Please see what he wrote there on pages 66-67, distinguishing between "shem Yisrael" and "kedushat Yisrael": > If we ask, in purely descriptive terms, whether anyone born of > Jewish parents is a Jew, the answer must be yes. As an epithet, > the term "Jew" remains applicable to any individual who was > ever endowed with Jewish status - even to a mechumad. Hence, he > is obligated to pursue a Torah life, and should he decide to > return, he would perhaps require no new conversion.[38] > However, if we ask whether a meshumad has anything of a Jewish > personality and character, and whether, therefore, he continues > to be endowed with the personal status of a Jew, the answer is > a ringing no. He remains a Jew without Jewishness. What he > retains is simply the descriptive epithet: shem Yisrael. Of > kedushat Yisrael, however - of the sacredness of the Jewish > personality, that which essentially constitutes being a Jew - he > is bereft. > [38] The first point, that the obligation remains, is certain. > The second, that reentry would not necessitate gerut, is open > to question. One might argue that even for one who is endowed > with shem Yisrael, the recovery of kedushat Yisrael requires > gerut. It may also be contended that gerut would not be required, > but only because the return to the fold would retroactively > cancel the earlier renunciation. My point is that - according to RAL - even the very most extreme meshumad, who severs his connection to the Jewish people so completely that he has totally lost his kedushat Yisrael, still has shem Yisrael, and IS STILL OBLIGATED IN MITZVOS. This is a critical distinction. To refer to such a person as a non-Jew would easily mislead people to think that he is now relieved of his Jewish obligations. It would be most tragic if the meshumad himself was led to such a conclusion, for it would divest him of the last shred of motivation to return. He would think of himself as an ordinary outsider, for whom gerut is totally optional. (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say about the next generation. Suppose we are talking of a woman meshumedet, who still has shem Yisrael, but abandoned her kedushat Yisrael. Do her children have shem Yisrael or not? It has always been my presumption that her children (and the children of her daughters, etc etc ad infinitum) would be obligated in mitzvos, but this article makes me wonder about that. To phrase it in more technical terms: For a newborn to have shem Yisrael, does it suffice that his mother has shem Yisrael, or must she also have kedushat Yisrael?) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:03:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181029190301.GE13649@aishdas.org> So, here are the three shitos RALichtenstein discusses about how to resolve the apparently conflicting gemaros. 1- The Rashba (Yavemos 22a) takes the case of the marriage of a backslid geir (Yevamos 67b) as primary. And the gemara about Kusim does not mean that Chazal reject their attempt at conversion. Rather kol demeqadeish al daas chakhamim meqadeish gives Chazal the power to deny the validity of their attempts to marry (other) Jews. Variant on this theme: 1b- The Ittur (quf, Qiddishin 78a) says that R' Yehudai Gaon says that Chakhamim DO allow their marriage to a Jew, and that the statement is about stam yeinam, shechitah, and other laws that are limited to maaminim. Th SA (YD 159:3) similarly says that we may not pay a Kusi ribis, but we may charge him. 2- HaGahos Mordekhai (Yevamos 107) holds that the person is literally not a Jew -- but. Because we cannot know the extent of someone's apostacy, we aren't mindreaders, for something as major as eishes ish, we recognize lechumerah his marriage to a Jewish woman. 3- R' Chaim Solovei[t]chik notes that the Rambam WRT seider nashim (Ishus 4:15, Issurei Bi'ah 13:17) as following Yevamos, like #1. And yet WRT taharah, Peirush haMIshnayos (Nidda 7:4) says a Kusi's body is not metamei tum'as ohalim, because nakhriim don't. R' Chaim says that Yevamos refers to a geir who returned to his old practices, in RAL's terms "an apostacy of action". But the Kusim and the 10 Shevatim not only changed behavior, but also ceased identifying as Jews. The opinion I mentioned earlier as R' Aharon's was his following his wife's ancestor. The quote RAM provides from Leaves of Faith pp 66-67 I saw more as a subject - object distinction. In his own eyes, he has the din of a Jew. But in the eyes of how others are supposed to relate to him, he does not. And it's the latter -- how are we to classify others -- that was under discussion. To quote RAM on another point: : (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on : the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say : about the next generation... RAL writes a little later: > It might be be argued that it only applies to a mass secession, whereby > not only an individual but his whole social context becomes uprooted. Or > one might contend that only the children, born in complete ignorance of > their origins, are affected, whereas the apostate, paradoxically, might > remain a Jew. 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 emteitz at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 09:17:40 2018 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:17:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: RMicha Berger wrote: >>And yet, the Netziv spen[t] Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >>One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >>the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >>them a couple of decades ago. To which RDYitzchok Levine responded: >I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the >accurateness of his writings. Even granting RDYL's source, there is quite a difference between accuracy in the quoting of sources and accuracy in conveying an eyewitness account. The former would attribute carelessness and imprecision to R. Boruch Epstein; the latter would accuse him of being an intentional liar. Even granting the inaccuracy of his writing, it has no bearing whatever on the accuracy of what he attests to having seen. However, even if the N'tziv did read the newspapers, it is may have no relevance to the current discussion. As RMB cited, it was the haskala press. The Netziv may have been reading it for the purpose of "v'da ma shetashiv," which I believe would render his reading permissible on Shabbos. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:54:42 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:54:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: In-Reply-To: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181029195442.GF13649@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 01:33:46PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for : accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not : guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but : have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we : say lo palginon (we don't split)? QLbdRM applies to chaivei misos shogegin. Because it's shoegeig, BD doesn't kill him, but because he violated a law that carries dinei nefashos, he is off the hook for paying a plaintiff as well. Although in the case of shogegin, the Maharshal says he is chayav to pay midinei Shamayim, even if the court can't force him to pay, and the Qetzos questions this. REWasserman (Qoveitz Shiurim 93) says there are two issues -- which crime to try and which punishment to give. Because in the case of shogegin, there is only the first -- we try for the worse aveirah, but HQBH still holds him accountable for the onesh of the lesser one, since that's the only onesh he is up for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 18:40:39 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 12:40:39 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Toivelling a flower vase more used for food Message-ID: Is the classification of Kelie SeUdah determined by the manufacturer or the user? The Gemara (AZ 75b) rejects the proposition that scissors acquired from a G require Tevillah, only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. The reason we may have thought scissors do require Tevillah - since once Kashered, all food taste is gone, it's like a new device. In fact that's how the Gemara knows that new utensils do require Tevilla. Now, if new devices require Tevillah then it's got nothing to do with the food of the G. In that case scissors should also require. The Gemara rejects that because only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. Meaning it's got something to do with food, at least in the potential. The Ritva however, is troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food of a G. He explains that nevertheless, since they will be used eventually for food they have some connection to food, therefore even new utensils of a G require Tevillah, and he adds, because they're going to a sacred (kosher or Jewish?) use. But why was he troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food? Could this mean that if the G never intend to use it for food, but as a flower vase for example, but the Y chooses to use it for food, that it does not require Tevillah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 30 09:04:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:04:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Freshly Brewed Coffee- on Shabbos? Message-ID: >From the article at http://cor.ca/view-891-freshly-brewed-coffeeon-shabboshtml.html It is well known that there are various grades of roast of coffee beans, from light roast to dark roast. When does a coffee bean become fully roasted to the extent that halacha would allow for it to be cooked on Shabbos? Poskim have expressed doubt as to whether roasted coffee beans have the status of a food that is baked or roasted.8 Due to this doubt, we are not prepared to provide the heter to use microground coffee on Shabbos, even in a kli shlishi.9 ee the above URL for much more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Oct 29 14:12:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 21:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: Pasuk 24:4 in Bereishis says 4 But you shall go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son, for Yitzchak. RSRH comments: Eliezer is to be guided by two considerations: First, l'vni; she should be worthy of being the wife of my son; she should justify my hope that she will become my daughter even as he is my son. This is the general requirement regarding her character. But two people can each be of the most excellent character and still be incompatible. Hence, l'Yitzchak; Eliezer should make sure that the woman is compatible with Yitzchak's individual character. Avraham rejected the daughters of Canaan, preferring an Aramean woman for his son. Let us bear in mind, though, that the Arameans, too, were idolaters. Thus, the reason for Avraham's decision was not the idolatry of the Canaanites, but their moral degeneracy. Idolatry is basically an intellectual error, and that can be corrected. Moral degeneracy, however, takes hold of the whole individual, heart and soul. Hence, even a man such as Avraham could not hope to find among the Canaanites a modest, morally pure woman as a wife for his son, a woman who would bring with her a nobility of spirit and the purity of morality, as a pearl for his home. [Email #2. -micha] Someone who is a rabbi with broad based knowledge sent me the following in response to my earlier message with this subject line. It is amazing how RSRH always can find something so very thoughtful and true. The Rambam alludes at the same matter: that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo, and so he will lose his Chelemer in the Olam HaBo, while it is very possibly that he might do t'shuvo for hillul Shabbos, even if only on his deathbed. RSRH was indeed the kind of very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations. YL From t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 31 00:16:31 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 03:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> From: "Prof. Levine" >: Please see >: http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. My father asked me not to read novels on Shabbos. He didn't say anything to me about reading non-fiction. I was a teenager at the time. I said he asked me, not he told me. I understood that novels were not Shabbosdig. Secular novels, that is. There were almost no Jewish novels back then. It is possible that he phrased it as a request rather than halachic statement because he did not want to impose on me some stricture that might turn me off. Possibly we are now discussing chinuch advice for parents of teenage daughters rather than hilchos Shabbos. From: Micha Berger > And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. > One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from > the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of > them a couple of decades ago. > Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an > artificial evolution of halakha. Not Friday night and not maskilishe papers. I have a copy of the letter that was sent out by the Lakewood Cheder School, recalling the book <> which it had sent out as a fundraiser. The letter does not say what is wrong with the book. All it says is, <> There seems to be a little dig there at the Torah Temima, R' Baruch Epstein, who was the Netziv's nephew and also a ben bayis in the Netziv's home and of course a talmid of the Netziv in the Volozhin yeshiva. But apparently because he thought his uncle was human, a very great man but still human, he somehow didn't <> know his uncle. After the death of his first wife, the Netziv married the sister of the Torah Temima (yes, married his niece), thereupon becoming not only the uncle but also the brother-in-law of the TT. Who nevertheless never really knew his uncle/brother-in-law, according to Lakewood. My father (R' Nachman Bulman) wrote a haskama for the book My Uncle the Netziv, which is a translation (by Moshe Dombey) of parts of the TT's memoirs, called in Hebrew <> The book came out in 1988. To quote part of my father's letter, which is the first page of the book: > The experience of Torah life derives first and foremost from Torah > learning. But the impact of Torah learning is immeasurably richer when > the lives of living Sifrei Torah, of Torah Sages, become educative models > for our people. Further, such lives are vital links in the chain of Jewish > historical knowledge. Mekor Baruch is a matchless compendium of biography, > memoirs, and lore....A glowing portrayal of Volozhin and its last central > figure, the venerable Netziv, is a major part of the work.... I ran into a friend of mine in Brooklyn shortly after Lakewood recalled the book, and he asked me, <> At that point I had no idea who the Netziv was and had never heard of the book or of the Lakewood recall, but I knew my father. <> was my instant reply. I called my father up and asked him for the lowdown. He said that some people in Lakewood were upset because the TT said his uncle read newspapers, but it was because Lakewood was unfamiliar with the papers mentioned in the book. My father actually laughed out loud as he told me this. <> (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was amused by this, too. <>) I will quote a couple of paragraphs from My Uncle the Netziv, to give the flavor of the book and of the humanity, the depth and breadth of the Netziv's personality. He used to say that he considered the newspapers like greetings from the entire world and therefore waited expectantly for their arrival. [They were weeklies that arrived on Friday.] He would not look at the paper Friday night as that time was set aside for reviewing [his Torah learning]. He would save his perusal of the paper for Shabbos morning [after kiddush]. It upset him greatly when one newspaper slandered another....My uncle's wrath was particularly provoked by his favorite papers--the Magid and Levanon--who could not seem to talk about each other with any sense of dignity and derech eretz....The owner of the Levanon, Yechiel Brill, had unilaterally decided that his paper would be the sole voice of the rabbinical community and Torah outlook on all the issues of the day....to his great chagrin, he found out that many rabbonim and members of the Torah community were also avid readers of his arch rival paper, the Magid... The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe newspapers! I recently heard, by the way, that My Uncle the Netziv is once again being sold openly in Lakewood seforim stores (apparently it has been reprinted) and no one remembers that old controversy anymore. They will sell you the book without putting it in a plain brown wrapper, and I wouldn't be surprised if some people read the book on Shabbos. -Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From micha at aishdas.org Thu Nov 1 10:11:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:11:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181101171103.GI32359@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:16:31AM -0400, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the : book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to : learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was : amused by this, too. <>) Also, Zionism. The Netziv supported Chovevei Tziyon. I enjoy pointing out to people that although Zionism was a hotly contested issue in 19th cent Eastern Europe, it was not a communal division line. And so the Netziv's yeshiva had no problem having R' Chaim Brisker as its segan RY. (We really don't see Zionism opening up as a community-defining matter until sometime during or shortly after WWI. The Agudah's first attempt to have a Kenesiah Gedolah was interrupted by that war. Many rabbanim were stranded on the way to it. Including RAYKook, who spent WWI in Switzerland and then England. On their second and successful attempt, in 1923, being a Zionist made you ineligable for membership in the Agudah, and RAYK wasn't invited.) : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic ways.) Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Nov 1 04:37:27 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:37:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: ?that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo,? This is, indeed an intelligent and worthwhile statement. Yet it also is, as I see it, basic common sense that does not require a ?very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations.? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Nov 2 06:29:57 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:29:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Between Eating Meat and Milk Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I know that there are various customs as to how long one must wait between meat and milk. Is waiting between meat and milk a Rabbinic obligation or is it a custom? A. The Gemara (Chullin 105a) states in the name of Rav Chisda that one who eats meat is forbidden to eat cheese afterwards, but one who eats cheese may eat meat. Mar Ukva qualifies that when he would eat meat, he would not eat cheese until the next meal. There is disagreement among Rishonim as to how to understand the ruling of Mar Ukva. * Rambam held that Mar Ukva was teaching us that one must wait approximately 6 hours, the length of time between meals. Shulchan Aruch follows the opinion of Rambam although he states precisely 6 hours. * Tosfos understood that Mar Ukva meant that once one eats meat, it is forbidden to eat cheese until the meal is concluded by reciting Birkas Hamazon. In addition, the mouth must be cleaned. The Rama follows the opinion of Tosfos, but writes that there is a minhag to wait one hour and that the custom of those who are careful is to wait 6 hours. Interestingly, the common German custom is to wait 3 hours. So while all agree that there is a definite Rabbinic obligation to wait between eating meat and milk, there are different opinions as to how long one must wait. For Sefardim who follow the ruling of Shulchan Aruch, waiting 6 hours is an absolute obligation. For Ashkenazim, who follow the ruling of the Rama, the obligation ends once one cleans out one?s mouth and recites a bracha acharona. Waiting one hour, three hours, or six hours are different customs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Nov 4 06:33:48 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 14:33:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Asking a Non-Jew to Perform Melacha Part 1 Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Amira%20l'Akum%20101.pdf The author is Rabbi Shmuel Stein, originally from Brooklyn, is a talmid of Mesivta and Yeshiva Torah Temimah, Yeshivas Yagdil Torah in Eretz Yisroel and Bais Medrash Govoha. Rabbi Stein teaches the popular Wednesday evening In Hilchos Shabbos Shiur and writes a review sheet which is disseminated each week before Shabbos. He organizes the Kollel?s youth programs including Masmidei Erev and Miami Masmidim program. Rabbi Stein is the new resource director at Yeshiva Elementary school and teaches at Mechina of South Florida. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Nov 4 21:03:58 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 07:03:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: [Micha wrote:] > On 11/1/2018 7:11 PM, [RnTK] via Avodah wrote: >: The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the >: Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe >: newspapers!> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos Haskalishe newspaper. > About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist > papers. I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content is like. If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content In addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based content. I don't think of these papers as being Torah publications, rather they are party newspapers that include some Torah". I would ask a different question though: What constitutes a Torah publication? Does it have to deal with parshat shavua, Gemara, mussar, exclusively? Would reading about an opinion piece, written by a rabbi, on world affairs constitute Torah? Rav Kook regularly wrote news columns. What about a mixture of Torah and news? How much of each? Is the content of each article reviewed to make sure that it doesn't violate the laws of lashon ha-rah? From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 09:22:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 17:22:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 25:27 27 When the lads grew up, Esav was a man who understood hunting, a man of the field, and Ya?akov was a totally dedicated man, living in tents. Our Sages never hesitate to point out to us the errors and shortcomings, both great and small, of our forefathers, and precisely thus they make Torah great and glorious, heightening its instructiveness for us (see Commentary above, 12:10). On our verse, too, an observation made by our Sages indicates that the sharp contrast between the two grandsons of Avraham was caused not only by their natural tendencies, but also by mistakes in their upbringing (Bereshis Rabbah 63:10). As long as they were little, no one paid attention to the differences in their hidden natures (see v. 24); they were given the same upbringing and the same education. Their parents overlooked the cardinal principle of education: 'chanoch lanar al pi darco, ?Bring up each child in accordance with his own way? (Mishlei 22:6). Each child should be guided in accordance with the path intended especially for him, the path that suits the qualities and tendencies latent in the depths of his personality, and thus he should be educated, both as a man and as a Jew. The great Jewish task is basically one, but the ways of its fulfillment are manifold and diverse, as human character traits and paths of life are manifold and diverse. Precisely for this reason, each child must be brought up al pi darco; educate him to the one great goal, according to his own unique way, in keeping with his potential. To attempt to educate a Ya?akov and an Esav together in the same classroom, in the same routines and in the same manner, to raise both of them for a life of study and contemplation, will inevitably mean to ruin one of the two. A Ya?akov will draw from the well of wisdom with ever-increasing interest and desire, whereas an Esav will hardly be able to wait for the day when he can throw away the old books and, together with them, a great life-mission, of which he was taught in a one-sided manner, totally unappealing to his nature. For much more on this topic see Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 12:49:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 15:49:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah Message-ID: <20181105204918.GA15965@aishdas.org> The AhS discusses length a few times, but I just passed CM 218:1. It ends: And know that according to the measure in our country of Russia, every 4 amos in the gemara is 3 arshin of ours, which is 7 regel ["fut"] which is one sazhen. And every tefach is 2 vieshoks. Well, there is the translations from wikipedia's page on "Obsolete Russian Units of Measurement" >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete_Russian_units_of_measurement>. 1 fut = 30.48 cm (= 1' British Empirial) = 3/7 arshin 1 arshin = 71.12cm = 2-1/3' 1 sachen = 3 arshin = 2.1336m = 7' So, 4 amos = 3 arshin 1 ammah = 3/4 arshin = 3/4 * 2-1/3 ft = 1.75' = 21" 1 vershok = 1/16 of an arshin = 4.445cm = 1-3/4" Meaning a tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 ammah) Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). Given the round numbers the AhS is working with -- 3/4 of a local unit of measure -- RMF and the AhS could differ only by rounding tolerance. 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 llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 13:16:27 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 21:16:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? Message-ID: RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf For more on this see https://www.ajol.info/index.php/samj/article/viewFile/157422/147034 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 13:35:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 16:35:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181105213511.GA31108@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:16:27PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See : http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf There was a 1979 paper by [Dr?] Philip Lanzkowsky in the American Academy of Pediatrics Journal on the topic. The AAP Journal even cites RSRH! Abstract: Polycythmia as a result of twin-to-twin transfusion in monozygotic twins has only been recognized as a clinical entity in the last few decades. The first recorded case of polycythemia in the newborn due to twin-to-twin transfusion, however, was reported in the Bible: "And when her (Rebekah) days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first came forth ruddy, all over like a hairy mantle; and they called his name Esau...". Genesis XXV, 24-26. A ruddy newborn twin is a clear description of polycythemia in the newborn presumably due to twin-to-twin transfusion. According to Hirsch,[1] despite the contrastrating differences between Esau and Jacob, they were identical twins with complete exterior similarity. Twin-to-twin transfusion occurs in 15% of identical twins. One may further speculate that because of the marked intellectual and emotional differences between Esau and his brother Jacob, that Esau's intellectual restrictions might very well have been evidence of brain damage due to cerebral sludging as a result of polycythemia or kernicterus due to uncorrected hyperbilirubinemia pursuant to polycythemia. "... nothing is new under the sun.... It has already been in the ages before us."[2] The article itself is behind a paywall, though. The problem is that Rabbeinu Chananel quotes R Yosi that Yaaqov was conceived first. And R' Yosi is an amora. As my kids and I each learned in our respective parashah classes in elementary school, Yaaqov was allegedly really the bechor, because the pebble that comes out of the vessel last was the one put into the vessel first. It's the one nearest the exit, after all. I say allegedly, because bekhorah doesn't really go to the second twin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Nov 5 13:36:32 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 16:36:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] RYS and His Son Going to College (was Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: <38.4E.22391.2E7B0EB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:17 PM 11/5/2018, R Micha wrote: >HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, >they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch >Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in >math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it >happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. >And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic >ways.) He did not agree with nor approve of his son's decision to get a college education. >> From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 1 pages 313 - 314. >>R. Israel, however, was deeply distressed that his son had >>abandoned the study of Torah, since the son had excelled so well in >>it in his youth. The father derived no comfort at all from the >>son's remarkable achievements in the world of science, and cut off >>his support during all the son's student years. R. Israel exerted >>every effort to restore his son to Torah study. When Hamaggid >>reported in 1865, that "Mr. Lipkin was on his way to Koenigsberg to >>engage in advanced research, "the editor added that this was the >>son of R. Israel of Salant, and that he was "a pride to his saintly >>father, the Gaon, as well, may he live, who did not prevent the son >>from attending lectures at university, and so to integrate Torah >>and science, for the greater glory of the sons of our people." A >>few weeks later the same periodical (No. 11) carried a letter over >>the signature of R. Israel with these remarks: "Since Truth is the >>lamp at the feet of the righteousness that goes about on earth, I >>find it my duty publicly to proclaim that no glory accrues to me, >>as the slip of your pen would seem to indicate, in respect of my >>son. On the contrary, to me this is a 'bitterness of the spirit'. >>My heart grieves at the path which my son has wanted to set for >>himself. Whoever loves his soul and has the power to persuade him, >>to turn his desire not to run counter to my will and wishes, will >>do a great favor to one as depressed in spirit as I am today". >>Nor was there any contradiction between R. Israel's personal >>attitude and his simultaneous efforts to spread Judaism in academic >>circles. There was nothing in his views to prevent him from trying >>to infiltrate Torah inside the walls of the university and to >>influence students. Furthermore, he employed every means at his >>disposal to guard his son against straying from Judaism. He >>journeyed specially to St. Petersburg to extract a three-fold >>promise: that his son would observe Shabbat, refrain from eating >>trefah food, and not shave. [27] He would say that were he able to >>disguise himself as a woman, he would go to work in the restaurant >>patronized by his son, so as to supervise the kashrut. He also >>requested R. Isaac Blazer, then rabbi in St. Petersburg, by mail, >>to keep an eye on the son. [28] In this way, it is said, the son >>remained a loyal Jew. >>[27.] As related by Rabbi A. D. Berkovsky. Presumably this was the >>journey to St. Petersburg undertaken that year, 1872, as mentioned >>above, in connection with his political activities. R. Naftali >>Amsterdam is reputed to have related that, when R. Israel was in >>St. Petersburg, several of the university professors remarked to >>the son that they would want to see what made his father so great. >>The son suggested that they ask his father the most difficult >>question in geometry they could propound. They submitted a problem >>which had engaged their minds at that time. R. Israel studied it >>for a few minutes, and solved it to the astonishment of all the >>specialists in the field (told by R. Abraham Braude). >>[28.] R. Israel's last letter to R. Isaac Blazer concerning his >>son's conduct elicited the reply that the son had not tasted >>gentile baked bread for the past three months R. Israel understood >>this to imply that his son had been dead for three months, since no >>other bread was available in the capital. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t613k at aol.com Mon Nov 5 19:18:40 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:18:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> From: Micha Berger : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! [--old TK] HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. ? ?>>>> ? You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? When we speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a secular intellectual and academic movement and of? people who were not religious and who were often virulently anti-religious.? Wissenschaft des Judentums types. There definitely were secular, anti-religious journals being published in Europe in the 19th century, some in Hebrew, others in European languages.? These were not the journals that the Netziv was reading and discussing with his talmidim on Shabbos morning after kiddush. ? You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. ? The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were definitely Orthodox.? However, the use of words like modern, worldly, charedi, Orthodox and Zionist is anachronistic.? Those terms weren't used in the 19th century as they are today.? Nineteenth century Europe was not 21st century America.? Yechiel Brill, the editor and publisher of the Levanon, was a <> only in the loosest sense of having worldly interests and being a little bit on the modern side of the frum spectrum, but he was anti-Haskalah and anti-Reform.?? ? I don't know why you want to paint the Netziv as an avid consumer of secular newspapers.? That is just not accurate. ? Now, Ben Waxman wrote: ? >> I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content >>is like. >>If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah >>publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their >>content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all >>write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content. In >>addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based >>articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. >>So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, >>he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based >>content. Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view.? The letters to the editor could be long, weighty essays themselves.? You can't really compare them to Hamodia or Yated.? They were more like an Orthodox version of today's _Commentary_ magazine, but with more flame-throwing. ? The main thing they had in common with today's charedi newspapers is that they did not carry pictures of women.? But then again, they did not carry pictures of men, either. No pictures of anything!? Just pages and pages of words.? ?:) ? Ah, I remind myself of that song from <>?? ? Words Words Words I'm so sick of words I get words all day through First from him, now from you Is that all you blighters can do ? All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the far side of the moon. ? ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 23:28:59 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 09:28:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles Message-ID: This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgluck at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 6 05:10:10 2018 From: mgluck at mail.gmail.com (Moshe Y. Gluck) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 08:10:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sent: November 6, 2018 5:37 AM Cc: marty.bluke at gmail.com This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and obligatory on both parents? KT MYG Sent via the BlackBerry Hub for Android From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:35:51 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:35:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday, November 6, 2018, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not > mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and > obligatory on both parents? > > I didn?t understand this point either as this is not an inyan of chinuch but pikuach nefesh which would apply to the mother also. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:07:42 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:07:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Toby Katz via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive > today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with > access to old library archives. > > > All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the > far side of the moon. > This is not quite true: together with lots of other Hebrew journals, they are all available online at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/JPress/English/Pages/default.aspx I doubt if that site gets as many hits as the New York Times, so basically you are right, but at least anyone who cares can judge for themselves what these newspapers were like -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Nov 6 10:59:09 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 20:59:09 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <5b8a21c0-a020-2f8a-c85c-af2e6568db4e@zahav.net.il> If no one has seen them, how do you know what was in them? You did a research paper? Ben On 11/6/2018 5:18 AM, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one > alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic > researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies > and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's > intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the > issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 6 12:04:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:04:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181106200428.GC28629@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 10:18:40PM -0500, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : From: Micha Berger :> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... :> Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of :> whose paper.) : You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way. When we : speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a : secular intellectual and academic movement and of people who were not : religious and who were often virulently anti-religious. Wissenschaft des : Judentums type... This is revisionist. When Beruriah David's PhD paper talks about the Maharatz Chajes as a Masekil, she was indeed talking about Wissenschaft types, but certainly not unobservant, never mind "virulantly anti-religious". In any case, the modern parallel to what we're talkiong about is if one of today's "yeshivish" rashei yeshivah, who happens to also be a Zionist, read a newspaper -- not a Torah magazine like JO -- put out by a LWMO "Academic Orthodox" type institution. : You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were : pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to : Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. I think you misunderstand the history. This is Chovevei Tzion, the people who brought you Achad haAm. These were Orthodox Jews who aligned with Secular Zionism. The people who founded Petach Tiqva in 1882. Bilu was also well on its way by the Netzi's hayday. But that has little to do with haMad. : The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, : moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were : definitely Orthodox. Nope. This is also revisionist. At least "moderate chareidi" is. : Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one : alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers : with access to old library archives.... Or Google. http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=tab&tab=browse&pub=MGD&_ga=2.44647777.412515131.1541534577-590544565.1541534577#panel=browse 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Nov 7 07:15:12 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:15:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0e8301d476ac$adf40550$09dc0ff0$@com> > Meaning a AhS tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 > ammah) > Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an > ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). You meant to say: RMF (IM OC 1:136) tefach is 3.54" (9cm) and ammah 21-1/4" (53.98cm). [Yes, I typoed -- 3 and 4 are adjacent keys. Which is how the error didn't reach my times-6 result for the ammah. -micha] From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 7 07:16:46 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:16:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1a5d3f60-a1f2-d250-1c3d-fc81959fdb40@sero.name> On 6/11/18 8:10 am, Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm > not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek > and obligatory on both parents? My guess is that these decisions are usually left to the mother, and the anti-vaxx nonsense has spread mostly among women, so he's now telling the men that it's their duty to insist on vaccinating the children even if their wives are opposed. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 7 11:25:01 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:25:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn Message-ID: I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" be to daven first, then learn? 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 Tue Nov 13 10:06:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181113180654.GA7634@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 07:25:01PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven : (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning : starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" : be to daven first, then learn? Perhaps it's because of Berakhos 31a: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven neither from din, nor from devar halakhah, ela mitokh halakhah pesukah. And what is halakhah besukah like? Abayei said, like what Rabbi Zeira said. ... and then quoting a settled halakhah that Rabbi Zeira said once. ("benos Yisrael hichmiru al atzman...") Rava said, like that which Rav Hoshia said.. But I think you get the idea. So, maybe people assume 1,600+ year-old discussions in the gemara qualify. I don't think that's shitas Rashi, though. Rashi ('halakhah pesuqah") says the gemara is worried about topics that a person would continue thinking about during davening. (The Be'er Heitev holds like Rashi.) But in any case, looking a little more meta: The gemara's assumption is that one is supposed to learn before davening, and the gemara then discusses what it is one should be learning. Later on in the sugya: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven from within sorrow, nor laziness, nor silliness, nor chatter, nor qalus rosh, nor devarim beteilim ela mitokh simchah shel mitzvah. Perhaps the learning is indeed seen as a prep for davening. (In addition to talmud Torah.) See OC 93. In the SA, that second TR is in se'if 2, and the first, in se'if 3. Se'if 4 amos, "Ha'oseiq betzorkhei tzibur ke'oseiq baTorah", because there is similar simchah shel mitzvah. 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 zvilampel at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 13 17:07:16 2018 From: zvilampel at mail.gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:07:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:13 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality > : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means > : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are > : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem > : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature* Just to be clear, that was a quote of the Maharal. > While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your usage. > the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent. Rambam teaches that during maaseh breishis, Hashem put the normal properties and behaviors into the natures of the things He created and formed. He also instilled in them the potential for certain aberrational behaviors, to be actualized upon certain conditions, such as the staff turning into a serpent. But such changes open can only last temporarily. But then there is the constant reaction of natural events to mankind's good and evil deeds, which is a neis nistar. This, Rambam explains, is nevertheless the greatest miracle of all: > "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with > loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a > continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of > metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". > (Rambam's Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end]) This view as well is shared by the Ramban. And this is his point in the passages in which he is mistakenly understood to be saying that "there is no 'it' to nature." As an example, in Toras Hashem Temimah, he cites the Rambam approvingly and says, "Most people think that the Alm-ighty does not constantly enact miracles, that the world proceeds in its way, and many of the chachamim think so, too, but the Rav (Rambam) curses them....All our affairs are entirely miracles, there is no nature and way that the world proceeds, for behold the promises of the Torah are all absolute miracles ...The fact of "And I shall give your rains in their time [if you keep the mitzvos]," Hashem will open for you his good treasure-house, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its time an d to bless...is the same as the plague of the firstborn, the dever and arov, and the drowning of the Egyptians in the sea...the only difference is that between the hidden and the open...." So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago shel olom, no "it" to nature. > From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? >Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? >See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam. The Ralbag demonstrates he was well acquainted with the Rambam's writings on the subject, and he himself states that none of his fellow rishonim before him "realized" that this was what Chazal were saying. The two issues raised in this post, the issue of time with the issue of miracles and ha-olom beMinhago noheig, actually tie together. Rambam in the above mentioned payrush on Avos famously maintains that it was on erev Shabbos that Hashem instilled potential aberrational behavior in the nature of the 10 things listed. However, the potentials for aberrational behaviors were instilled in the natures of all other creations ON THE DAY THE TORAH INDICATES. E.g. one example he gives is that the nature of water to split was instilled on day 2. So he is understanding the days as units of time, in which there were days 1-7 and a 6th day bein ha-shemoshos. If one were to attempt imposing the concept of "step of logic" on the use of the word "day" in this passage, the passage would not make sense. Moreh Nevuchim 2:30 does not differ. In MN 2:30, Rambam emphasizes that time itself is something Hashem created. It is a result of the turning of the sphere, which itself is something that was created. Thus, creation did not happen after a certain amount of time, because time could not exist before creation. This is the meaning of his saying that creation, the initial creation ex nihilo, happened "outside of time." (See Abarbanel ?(p. 8, left-hand column, middle), Crescas and Ephodi. Shemtov does attribute the "levels" peshat to Rambam.) But then he poses a question: If the sphere and heavenly bodies were first created the fourth day, how were the first three days measured? He is obviously assuming, in his question, that the creation days of the Torah are units of time. The question is how could there be a first, second and third day, if the thing that produces time, the revolving sphere, did not exist until day four. The question includes the assumption that each day of maaseh breishis witnessed a new creation ex nihilo of the rakia, the vegetation, the creatures, etc., so the heavenly bodies that determine units of time did not exist until the 4th day. He answers that day does not mean a unit of time, but a step of logic. No, wait, he doesn't. He answers that Chazal teach that despite the impression one may get from the pesukim, there was not a new creation ex nihilo each of the 6 days. There was one creation ex nihilo of everything, and then a "revealing"/separation/extraction of each component. What occurred on day 4 with the heavenly bodies responsible for time was not their creation. Their creation and behavior of determining time began at the instant of creation ex nihilo. He cites the Chazal comparing the process over the six creation days to that of various types of seeds. Even though they were all planted one day, each one sprouts later, on a different day. Repeat: later, on different days. The question of how there was time and days 1, 2, and 3 before day 4 is answered with the principle that the heavenly bodies responsible for time existed from the moment of creation. Nothing in the Rambam's words (either here or in his treatment in the first chelek of word meanings) about days meaning levels. "The particle "ess" in the phrase "ess ha-shamayim ve-ess ha-aretz ("the heavens and the earth") signifies "together with." Our Sages have explained the word in the same sense in many instances. Accordingly, they assume that God created, with the heavens, everything that the heavens contain, and with the earth, everything the earth includes. They further say that the simultaneous Creation of the heavens and the earth is implied in the words, "I call unto them, they stand up together" (Tehillim 48). Consequently, all things were created together, but revealed (nisgalu) / were separated from each other (nivdelu) one by one (rishon rishon). Our Sages illustrated this by the following simile: We sow various seeds at the same time; some spring forth after one day, some after two, and some after three days, although all have been sown at the same time. This outlook, which is undoubtedly the correct one, solves the problem of... how the first day, the second day and the third day were determined.... This is explicit in the words of our Sages in Bereshis Rabba. They said, regarding the light the Torah says was created on the first day. They said it as follows: These [lights of the luminaries mentioned in the Creation of the fourth day] are the very same lights that were created on the first day, but were not hung in their places until the fourth day. Behold, they explicitly stated this idea." All this would be an awful way to express the simple idea that by "day" the Torah means not a unit of time but a logical step. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 14 09:01:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:01:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Did you intentionally reply off-list? Or should I copy your email and this one onto Avodah? On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, : Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your : usage. A lot resided in the word "hypostasis", and a reason why I couldn't find a more apt word among normal English ones. :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. But it's minhago shel olam. Not an "it". The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH. It is this direct causality that people mistake for his saying there is no teva. According to the Rambam, nature is the product of the Seikhel haPo'al, which is acted upon by mal'akhim, which, if you chase the chain of causality up to the start, is a product of hashgachah kelalis and Divine Da'as. But there is an "it" there. Teva is a metaphysical object, not a pattern. See Moreh 2:11-12 (ch. 10 may be a useful prelude.) (Nevu'ah is also mediated through the Seikhel haPo'al [2:35], but that's a different subject.) A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a person, and thus to that extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH delegates his fate. I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to nature". But you apparently took me to mean there is no nature. Rather than no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on. That's what I was talking about, and most of your reply doesn't actually address the chiluq I'm making. : So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. No, but he does mean there is no such "thing" as nature. It's not a hypostatis. : His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago : shel olom, no "it" to nature. : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. See also the Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. The Abarbanel specifically endorces the Ralbag's "yesod" in understanding the Rambam. https://www.sefaria.org/Abarbanel_on_Torah%2C_Genesis.1.1.10 This is how the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian like R' Yitzchaq Arama. RYBS too, Mainodies between Philosophy & Halakhah, pg 187. In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of time. His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before the sun. And it's not a problem we modern people would face, anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 14 21:37:51 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:37:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli Message-ID: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html Me-Yet R' Ellman would not ( at least when I asked him) say that any of these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food for thought 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 Nov 14 21:35:38 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:35:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions Message-ID: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? Do we see this same propensity in prior authorities who were not writing codes in this manner? Other reason why different authorities might deal with this issue differently? 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 Nov 15 10:52:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:52:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> References: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20181115185222.GA28484@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 10:31:20PM -0400, R Akiva Miller replied to my post: :> So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted :> keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be :> when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than :> the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged :> YhR? : Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal : encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to : the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate : the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the : fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But that's the converse of my question. I didn't ask why Chazal found the taqanos they did. Or in the case of ribbis, engineered a solution using a pre-existing loophole. I asked why the RBSO didn't. If Chazal knew that people couldn't keep up the moral standard, obviously the Author of the deOraisos did too. And therefore, why didn't He allow ribbis for the same "lo diberah Torah ela keneged YhR" reasons as eishes yefas to'ar. Once we have G-d making compramizes for EYT, why did He leave ribbis to Chazal? Why did Hashem make it that money is qoneh? He knew better than chazal that it would create situations where a seller is still holding something he no longer owns, and sometimes that will mean carelessness in how the item is guarded. Why did Chazal need to invoke hefqer BD hefqer and totally rewrite how sale works? (That said, I am almost satisfied with RDR's answer, below.) : But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. : The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her : (unless he follows the prescribed procedure)... Today's militaries assume otherwise. Avoiding ribis is less of a problem when "money" is primarily a metal or contract to swap, only a half-step beyond barter. One is "only" losing opportunity cost. But once we got prime rates etc... so that there is a difference between present and future value of money can be done in some settings, avoiding ribbis became something not enough lenders could afford, and the poor suffered. Eishes yefas to'ar is similarly situational. Whether it is "unwinnable" at best depends on the kind of war one is fighting. Maybe when fighting barbarian tribes. But not as a general rule. : Alternatively: : D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. But they can allow things explicitly denied by the Torah? If you can engineer heter isqa into something that covers most of the situations where ribbis is needed, they could have engineered and issur. But I also recently encountered while learning Arukh haShulchan something that may be a counter-example. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that there are no shevu'os when the dispute is over qarqa. So, while modeh bemiqtzas (e.g.) about money or metaltelin requires a shevu'ah deOraisa, if it is about real estate there is no shevu'ah deOraisa. However, Chazal still require the nitba to make a shevu'as heises in order to retain his chazaqah on the land. And on Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:16:00AM -0400, R David Riceman replied to the same post: : It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it : is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical : level, however, I don't see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah : prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. I am sure the same was said before heter isqa. Chazal were a bunch of rabbis capable of finding 49 ways to be metaher a sheretz. Our inability to figure out how they would have created a law like eishes yefas to'ar doesn't prove it impossible. For that matter, the gemara apparently concludes that pruzbul was only enacted because shemittah today is derabbanan. Although I think it's left open whether pruzbul would not work when shemittah is deOraisa. Or whether hefqer BD would meant it would work, but they question the hava amina that Hillel would circumvent a deOraisa like that. What kind of "you don't" the gemara is talking about would impact your answer. That said, I like RDR's "more important point". Repeated here, since it's been nearly a month -- an eternity as list-time goes: : But there's a more important point. What's weird about war is that : it's not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between : civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those : different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say "hasatan : mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama" that's partly because the soldiers don't : have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. : But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to : rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person : to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over : his lifetime. : So it makes a lot of sense that k'nagged YhR is specifically mentioned : in the context of milhama. The reason why I said above I am only "almost satistfied" is that it borders on explaining too much. We aren't looking only for a chiluq between EYT and my sample dinim derabbanan. But also between deOraisa and derabbanan. You are left saying there is a whole set of dinim on a tightrope -- they are lifelong challenges and therefore controllable enough for HQBH not to want to compromize for human nature, and yet history evolved the situation to the point where they pose impossible challenges that chazal needed to accomodate. Well, not necessarily "impossible". At least: by Chazal's day these grew into challenges that are so rarely met, the usual outcome is more costly than the din -- such as the poor not being able to get a loan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 14:57:30 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:57:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli In-Reply-To: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119225730.GA28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:37:51AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: : https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html : : Yet R' Ellman would not (at least when I asked him) say that any of : these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food : for thought I like RARakeffetR's mashal (and recall, he is a RIETS RY with a PhD in Jewish History): You can ask a historican how the electric refrigerator was invented, and you will hear about the social forces involved, the wiring of the American home for power, etc... None of which tells you how the refrigerator actually works. (He might even give you the history of the application of thermodynamics and the Carnot cycle without ever explaining that particular bit of science.) Similarly: Knowing that a particular area of halakhah was mined in response to a given situation doesn't change the fact that the halachic principles had to be there and had to be applied. And the knowledge does little to teach you the principles themselves. 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 15:06:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 18:06:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions In-Reply-To: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119230604.GB28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:35:38AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan : aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority : opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach : rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? ... I think the SA tried to reach conclusions. For that matter, he tried to follow majority of his short list of major posqim. I think for him it was just a way of dealing with not being sufficiently convinced; and not having his triumverate answering the question for him. For the MB... Not sure I want to reopen that whole "the MB was written to help posqim, and its 'rulings' are lehalakhah velo lemaaseh" -- not always even followed by the CC himself. (Who was author of most of the book, and editor in chief of the rest.) : Other reason why different authorities might deal : with this issue differently? The AhS has enough confidence in toras imekha that he would use it to say that lemaaseh we pasqened like a minority, or like (what seems to me to be a) dachuq peshat. There are exceptions, where he holds that common practice is just too dachuq, but they're rare. So, for the AhS, being stumped means that not only is there no clear textual winner, there is no clear minhag (accepted practice) either. So holding out in fear of a mi'ut isn't likely. Holding like a mi'ut because the tzibbur already does, much more comomn. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 20 09:08:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181120170828.GA27185@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, ... :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. Actually, it's real, but I think you misunderstood what I meant. (As I said in the previous email.) Relevant is this excerpt from a recent shiur from Gush's Vitual Beis Medrash. Rav Bednarsh gives 2 chiluqim that are orthogonal to the one I mentioned (whether there is an "it" behind teva, or if nature is "merely" a pattern of Divine Action): 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. About fn #4... I spoke to RDBerger about his paper. I can ask a parallel question on RAB's article to introduce the same answer, so I will do so here. RAB writes (below): > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The > Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only > the principle of hashgacha pratit. > Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these > two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more > nuanced. > In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise > of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God > and not to doctors for healing.... ... > For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) > that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on > a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, > to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or > punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in > the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence > and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness... > In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that > his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh > Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and > tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully > on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the > Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order... Okay, so it's much more nuanced, but then what does he mean in the two places we started with? What I pointed out, that the Ramban is denying teva as an it -- that even teva is through the same direct Influence as neis -- adds the same nuance without ignoring those two more famous comments of the Ramban. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Yeshivat Har Etzion PHILOSOPHY > Topics in Hashkafa > Shiur #06: Divine Providence and the Natural Order 1 Rav Assaf Bednarsh Adapted by Leora Bednarsh Should one attempt to provide for one's needs in this world by working through the natural order, or should one do so by keeping mitzvot and trusting in God to provide? Are the events of this world caused by direct Divine Providence or by the natural scientific order? This question has tremendous practical significance and is the subject of much debate in the contemporary Jewish community. This topic is often portrayed as "hishtadlut (effort) vs. bitachon (trust)." ... The Position of the Rambam No Jewish philosopher can entirely deny the doctrine of hashgacha pratit. There are many examples in Tanakh that very clearly indicate that God miraculously takes care of the righteous in this world in accordance with His Divine plan.[1] However, almost all the cases in Tanakh deal with exceptionally righteous and spiritual individuals. That may be because most of Tanakh deals with these great individuals; these are the people we need to learn about in order to learn to be good Jews. The Rambam, however, maintains that this is not coincidence. It is not simply that these happen to be the main characters in Tanakh. According to the Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim III:18), hashgacha pratit is not something that God automatically utilizes in running the world. God relates to us when we relate to Him. When we open the channel, God's bounty flows through that channel. If we don't bother to create those lines of communication, then He does not communicate with us either. Those who have achieved philosophical sophistication, who have studied what the Rambam understands to be the Jewish mystical philosophical tradition and focus their thoughts on God, enjoy the benefits of Divine Providence. According to the Rambam, not all people enjoy equal Divine Providence. Those who are pious and good and religious enjoy more Divine Providence because of their understanding of God, which fuels their piety and goodness. Those who are prophets enjoy a higher level because of their deep understanding of God. Those who are on a very rarified level of philosophical spiritual achievement can be assured that God looks out for them in this world. The wicked and the religiously ignorant, however, have no such promise of Divine Providence. Even regular people who may be reasonably religious and try to think about God quite often still have not achieved that level of understanding at which they can assume that they are beneficiaries of constant direct Divine Providence. For the Rambam, then, most people do not enjoy the benefit of direct Divine Providence all the time. Accordingly, it makes perfect sense that we are expected to work through the natural order. The natural order is the default. When we change the rules by achieving philosophical knowledge of God, our lives begin to be run by the principles of Divine Providence. But much of the time the world is run by the natural order and God does not involve Himself. Thus, we should be expected to provide for ourselves and to achieve whatever goals we feel the need to achieve by means of the natural order. The natural order is the one thing that is guaranteed. God created the world and created the scientific order as the way in which the world will run until God decides to get involved because someone let Him in to his life.[2] And even then, God is only involved partially, to the extent that someone partially perfects themselves and meditates upon God. Of course, this does not mean that God has no part in our lives when we do not enjoy Providence. There is still hashgacha klalit, general Providence. God still arranges the world generally in such a way that our needs are provided for. We say blessings, thanking God, for example, for creating fruits of the tree, but not because He created this particular fruit for me to eat today, rather because He created a wonderful world that provides for much of our needs. It is our job to appreciate that. But when I stub my toe or win the lottery, is that God's direct intervention? According to the Rambam, most of the time it is not. Rather, it is the natural order. The Position of the Ramban It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only the principle of hashgacha pratit. Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more nuanced. In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God and not to doctors for healing. He states that when the masses of the Jews are perfect, their lives will not be run by the natural order, but rather directly by God; He will be their doctor. According to Ramban, that is what the righteous did in the days of Tanakh, during the era of prophecy. Anyone with access to prophecy does not need a doctor, and in case of illness should turn instead to a prophet, who will tell him which of his actions needs to be improved; he will then repent and repair those actions so that God will heal his disease. "What business do doctors have in the house of someone who fulfills the will of God?" asks the Ramban. Although the Rabbis interpreted the verse "ve-rapo yerapeh" (Shemot 21:19) as evidence that the doctor has permission to heal, the Ramban restricts the significance of this inference. If someone asks for help, the doctor should heal the patient - but Chazal never said that the patient should seek medical care, only that the doctor should provide it. The patient should ideally put all his trust in God and not in the natural order. However, if the patient has already put his trust in the natural order, the doctor has no choice but to heal him, because that is the only option left. When someone puts his faith in the natural order, his live is unfortunately run by the natural order. But when someone puts his faith in God, his life is controlled by direct Divine Providence. Similarities Between the Ramban and the Rambam The Ramban here seems to take an anti-Maimonidean stance, focusing on Divine Providence. However, on closer analysis, he does not deny the existence of the natural order. He acknowledges the existence of teva. Of course, he believes that it is far preferable to live by faith in God and not by teva, but once our spiritual level fell and we became accustomed to using medicine and working within the scientific order, God "abandoned us to the happenstance of teva." If we read the Ramban very carefully, we notice that the examples he uses of those who should not seek medical help but rather turn directly to God are limited to a time when the masses of Jews are righteous, during the time of prophecy. The Ramban is referring to people on a very high spiritual level. They enjoyed the benefit of constant Divine Providence and therefore had no business working through the natural order. The implication is that the situation is quite different for regular people in regular times. Even righteous Jew nowadays, when, unfortunately, the masses of Jews are far from perfect and when prophecy has not been restored to us, are not on the same high spiritual level. Therefore, they cannot have a reasonable expectation of constant Divine Providence in their lives, and perhaps they should visit doctors. Although everything that happens in the world is subject to Divine Providence, God has decided to abandon us - regular people in the contemporary era - to the workings of the natural order. We no longer merit constant Divine Providence. This is, in fact, explicitly the opinion of the Ramban in several places. For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness. But Yaakov himself was not sure that he was righteous enough to enjoy Divine Providence, which is why he prepared using natural means to make peace, or if need be, war, with Esav. He made various preparations using the natural order because in his humility, he was not certain that he was on the level to expect Divine Providence. If Yaakov Avinu questioned whether he deserved Divine Providence, the clear implication is that we can certainly not rely on it! In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order. We are instructed to conscript an army and go out and fight in the event of war, not just to sit and pray and wait for God to fight for us. We cannot always expect to be on such a high spiritual level that we enjoy constant Divine Providence. Rather, we must work under the assumption that we may not always be experiencing Divine Providence, and we must therefore work under the natural order. The Ramban tells us that if God wants us to win a war, we will win without an army, and if, God forbid, He wants us to lose a war, no matter how strong our military is, we will lose. But sometimes, when we are neither completely righteous nor completely wicked, God does not want any particular result, because He is not exercising Divine Providence at that point. That is why it is so important that we work through the natural order. The Ramban in this commentary seems to be in line with mainstream religious Zionist ideology. We work through the natural order because not everything always is decreed by God.[4] Differences Between the Ramban and the Rambam As much as the Ramban claims to agree with the Rambam, there is still a significant difference between their philosophies. The Ramban in a number of places, including his commentary to Iyov, tells us that Divine Providence can be either positive or negative. If someone is truly righteous, then God watches and guards him all the time. If someone is evil, God will intervene in the world to punish him. Those in the middle, neither wicked nor righteous, are left to the natural order. The Rambam, on the other hand, holds that Divine Providence can only be positive, not negative. It is purely a function of one's connection to God. Therefore, the more connected one is to God, the more Divine Providence; the more disconnected one is, the less Divine Providence. Punishment only occurs in this world because when God removes His Providence, one is exposed to the many perils of the dangerous world that we inhabit. While the Ramban has a volitional model of Divine Providence, in which God decides to exercise Providence when a person deserves reward or punishment, the Rambam has a more mechanistic model, under which Divine Providence is an automatic result of spiritual achievement. What the Rambam and the Ramban have in common, however, is their belief that while Divine Providence is an ideal to strive for, it is not the default, automatic way in which the world works. God sometimes involves Himself through the principle of hashgacha pratit, but often does not. The natural order is the authentic way in which God created the world to run when He doesn't decide to get involved and change things. For the Ramban and the Rambam, then, the answer to the question of faith (bitachon) versus effort (hishtadlut) is clear. We are expected to take care of providing our needs in this world the best we can using the natural order. None of us are arrogant enough to assume that we are so holy and righteous that we have constant Divine Providence. Of course, we strive to be more holy, spiritual, and righteous. We strive to enjoy more Divine Providence. And, at least according to the Ramban, perhaps our ultimate goal is to reach the highest spiritual levels and abandon the natural order. Nonetheless, in regular life, the Rambam and the Ramban would have us work in the natural order because we can never be certain that anything that happens to us in our lives is the result of God's direct intervention. Our success or lack thereof may be purely a function of the natural order. Therefore, we must take care of ourselves. God is not always taking care of us, as we may not be sufficiently righteous. _______________________ [1] For example, the Exodus and figures such as the Patriarchs, Daniel, and Chananya, Mishael and Azarya. [2] Even in this case, Rambam nowhere states that one who enjoys Divine Providence should not work within the natural order. In the next two shiurim, we will present various explanations of why even one who enjoys Divine Providence might be required to work within the natural order. [3] The Ramban understands God's "knowledge" of Avraham as constant Divine Providence [4] Many attempts have been made to resolve the apparent contradiction between the Ramban's statement in his commentary to Shemot 13 and his sermon Torat Hashem Temima and his formulations in his commentaries to Bereishit 18 and 32 and Iyov 36. It seems likely that the Ramban intended to claim not that everything that happens is a miracle, but that miraculous Providence ultimately controls everything. Since even nature was created by God, Providential intervention can override the laws of nature, but the laws of nature do not restrict Divine Providence. When Providence chooses not to intervene, however, nature still follows its course. For further reading, see the original texts, as well as David Berger, "Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmanides," in Isadore Twersky (ed.), Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuosity (Harvard University Press, 1983), available at https://www.biblicalnaturalhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/MiraclesNahmanides.pdf. From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 06:41:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:41:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yaakov and Esav Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32:8. 8 Ya?akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. In Ya?akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya?akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya?akov?s attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 08:24:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:24:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? Message-ID: One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the ?Medina shel Chessed? is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic issues of this very American holiday... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 22 04:30:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? Message-ID: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is it equivalent of free will? What does it mean to have free will without consequence? How then do we understand the medrash in Breishit that the trees were punished for not following HKB"H's direction? The dogs being rewarded for not barking? 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 zvilampel at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 09:30:07 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:01 PM Micha Berger wrote: > > RMB: > :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. > > ZL: Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no > less > : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of > : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that > : minhag permanent. > > ... > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. Where does Ramban say this? As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent at maaseh breishis. See, for example, on Shmos 6:6. ''The posuk says 'Vay-hiH khein'' because that is the teva that was instilled in them forever...and they will remain with the first teva that was instilled in them at the time of their formation (Vayamdual haTeva haRishon asher hussam bahem bEis yetsirasam). And on Vayikra 26:11, in the passage about refuah, he uses the phrase, VaHashem Heeneecham lemikrei haTivee-im, Hashem leaves them to the natural mikrreim. How is this insisting that, contra Rambam, ''those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH''? Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. RMB: [According to RambaM:] A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a > person, and thus to that > extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva > (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH > delegates his fate. > ZL: You are making a distinction that you attribute to RambaM, between teva and minhago shel olam. Teva is something that a daas-lacking person is left to. Through it, Hashem delegates his fate. Minhag shel olam is something else. I don't follow. Where is such a distinction made? And I thought you maintained that contra RambaN, RambaM does /not/ hold that HQBH delegates the fate of lesser people. Only ''the RambaN talks about nature being a pattern in events... /directly/ caused by HQBH. Is there also a distinction between ''directly causing'' and ''delegating''? Do you mean RambaM holds Hashem HAD delegated their fate (by setting up the mechanisms at Creation)? RMB: > I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to > nature". ... no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on... there is no such > "thing" as nature. It's not a > hypostatis. ZL: Where do you see what you are trying to explain in Ramban? Regarding the shiur by Rav Bednarshom, and the point that 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. The last sentence should be about RambaN, right? And here's something to ponder: As I wrote previously, the Rambam writes that the greatest miracle of all, is nature's responding to man's behavior, favoring good behavior and punishing bad behavior. Granted, favoring good behavior is miraculous. But l-fi Rambam's shittah, what is miraculous about leaving the practitioner of bad behavior to the wiles of nature? Also, regarding: > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. Obviously, this is just the hava amina. The Ramban did not write that ''everything that happens'' is a miracle. His wording is that the whole [teaching of the] Torah [about reard and punishment] is a miracle. Meaning, as the maskana is, that the Torah's system of award and punishment is miraculous. Secondly, the Ramban does not say that everything is a miracle,without causation, except reward and punishment. The causation between behavior and reward and punishment is an explanation of, not in contrast to, his statement that the whole teaching of the Torah is that there are miracules. > > > :ZL: His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a > : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the > forces > : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, > : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no > minhago > : shel olom, no "it" to nature. > > : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand > : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is > : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified > model, > : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. > > : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, > > : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, > note > : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? > > : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and > : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being > in > : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya > : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? > > :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. > > : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given > : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say > : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. > But > : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... > > It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. It is not his peshat in the Rambam. He does not mention Rambam, much less attribute to him, the ''levels'' peshat, neither in his Torah commentary nor in his Milchamos Hashem. If you can find such a passage, please locate it for me. On the contrary, here is how he addresses the question of how there could be days before the fourth day when the sun materialized. He gives two possibilities. And he gives the ''levels'' approach as an /alternative/ explanation to the answer that the sphere, by which time and days are produced, was in operation from the moment of creation.They are two /different/ ways of answering how there could be days one through three before the existence of the stars, although both answers are predicated on the Chazal-based view that everything in the universe and earth was instantly and simultaneously created in its complete form (besides vegetation and Adam and Chava). And if the virtually identical verbiage to that of the Rambam is an indication that Ralbag was intending to give peshat in the Rambam, note that he is explicitly using that verbiage in the answer granting that ''days'' are units of time, in /contrast/ to the notion of ''days'' meaning ''levels''. And also remember, as I have noted before, that Ralbag explicitly says (Torah commentary, on VaYchulu) V-im nim-tsi-u rechokim meod mei-hakavana asher matzanu kahn, kmo shetireh mimah shebier bazeh haRav HaMoreh besifro hanichbad Moreh HaNevuchim, ViHachcham R. Avraham Ibn Ezra.... that his new approach is /very far/ from that of the Rambam. And he repeats this in Sefer Milchemes Hashem, Presentation VI, ?Part II, Chapter 8, Conclusion. Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. This is how > the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian > like R' Yitzchaq Arama. > But you see, you have to resort to secondary sources to support the claims about what Rambam and Ralbag held, whereas we have the first-hand sources in front of us. The fact is that the Ralbag does not attribute the ''levels''approach to the Rambam, and in fact considers the ''levels'' approach as an alternative to what the Rambam wrote.. Abarbanel is known to repeat ideas of his contemporary, R. Y. Arama. He is also known to have a very eclectic style. You are of course correct that in his 9th shayla he attributes the ''levels'' approach to the Rambam. But look how he does it, and explain to me how it makes sense: > The 9th shayla concerns what is mentioned in the Moreh Nevuchim. Rambam > notes that time ?cannot exist without the movement of the celestial > spheres, the sun and moon. However, this raises ?the question as to how > there could be time before the fourth day on which the celestial spheres > and sun were ?created. The Rambam answered this question by asserting that > in fact the spheres and the sun were ?created on the first day. Thus time > existed for the first 3 days in the same manner as it existed on the > ?subsequent days. He explained that in fact everything ? both the Heavens > and the Earth ? were created ?on the first day. Stop here. Do you not see the Abarbanel explaining Rambam as holding that the days of Breishis were units of time, and not ''levels''? Let's continue: The Rambam cited Chazal that the word ?es? indicated that the creation on > the first day ?included everything associated with the Heavens as well as > everything associated with the Earth. He also ?cited the gemora (Chulin > 60a) that everything that was created was created in its final form. He > also cited ?another statement of Chazal that the Heavens and Earth were > created simultaneously. Thus the Rambam ?believed that the work of Creation > happened all on one day and was not divided amongst six days. He ?claimed > that in a single moment of creation everything came into existence. And of course, the Rambam continues (and Ralbag includes it) that whereas all was created ex nihilo from the first instant of creation, following that was a process of separating the components of the universe, forming things, as he says elsewhere in the Moreh, kach mikach. How then does the Abarbanel say in the next breath: > He explained that the reason ?for the Torah stating that there were six > days of Creation was to indicate the different levels of created ?beings > according to their natural hierarchy. Thus the Rambam does not understand > the word day to be a ?temporal day and he doesn?t read Bereishis to be > describing the chronological sequence of creation?. Kasha reisha al sefa! And note that in shayla 5 as well Abarbanel had written: That which the Torah mentioned of the creation of the stars on the fourth day, made HaRav haMoreh answer, as it seems from his words, in that chapter 30 of Part Three, that on the first day the sphere was created with the stars and light. But their actions had affect on the fourth day upon the vegetation.Such is apparent from the words of the Rav...Perhaps RambaN too meant this, since he mentions this approach in the name of yeish meforshim. And if one is to treat this as Abarbanel changing his mind, well then consider another about-face over 80 pages later (p. 85 in our editions) Behold you see that the opinion of the Rav was ...that all that is mentioned regarding the activity of the six days, ?from the creation of the heavens and the earth, and all of the phenomena, and the creation of Adam and ?his wife, up until ?vayechulu? have no allegory whatsoever, for everything was ?literal to him [the Rambam]. Therefore you will see that in this very chapter, no. 30 in the second section, ?in all which the Rav has explicated regarding the activity of the six days, he did not make an allegory or a ?hint at all. Rather, he did the exact opposite, for he made a concerted effort to support the doctrine of ?creation ex nihilo and accepted all of the verses literally?? Obviously, Abarbanel was not consistent as to whether the Rambam understood the creation days to be ''levels'' rather than units of time. So he should not be cited with such certainty that he held so. ?I would also caution against uncritically accepting A?s description of B?s opinion if A goes on to ?lambaste it, as the Abarbanel did with his original reading of the Moreh Nevuchim. ?(The question presents itself, then, how did the Abarbanel?s contemporary, the Akeidas Yitzcahk, ?and the commentary of the ShemTov?who is not regarded as a rishon?as opposed to the ?commentary by Crescas), and the Abarbanel himself in his second take, get from (a) the Rambam?s ?classical rendition of a six-day meta-natural development of potential created on day one, to (b) ?seeing the Rambam as promulgating that ?the six days are a metaphor for six levels in the hierarchy ?of natural objects: light/darkness, water, minerals, flora, fauna, man??? My theory is that the earlier commentators of the Moreh, such as Narboni, greatly influenced by ?the Aristotelian academia of the time, anxiously imposed their radical views on the Rambam. (We ?see that in the Rambam?s own time, he complained of people radicalizing his views?including those ?who as accused him of (or ?complimented? him for) denying techiass ha-meisim). They hijacked the ?Moreh so efficiently that it became popular to think the Rambam thought like Narboni. This ?became the starting point from which later commentaries saw the Moreh (similar to, l?havdil, Rashi?s ?commentary being one?s first impression of what the Chumash says, and one?s natural thinking that ?what Rashi says is necessarily what the Chumash undoubtedly means.)? > In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, > following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, > there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which > processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the > Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of > time. > Not my issue. > > His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before > the sun. > *In the words of Ralbag the **problem is with zeman before the sun. His answer is that the sphere, even without the sun, produces zeman. * The problem that bothered the early ones, with what were day one, day two and day three measured? Behold, the light-bearers were not in existence until day four! [The answer is that even though the light-bearers did not appear until day four], the heavenly sphere was in existence on day one, and each revolution of it formed approximately one day. Abarbanel puts it that the problem is zeman before the sphere, sun and stars. The answer is that they all existed and formed zeman from the first act of creation. ???"? (?????, ??? ?) (?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? (?, ?-?) ...??????, ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? (??? ? ??? ?), ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???, ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?????; ???? ???? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?):... ??????? ??????: ?? ??? ???? ?????, ?????: ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????, ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? (?????? ??, ??). ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????: ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??????????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? (?, ?) ?* ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ???.* ???? ?????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??????,??? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ????, ????? ???? ???? ??? *.??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? .* *??* ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???, ????? ?? ????? ?????? *???? ??????*, ?? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ??? ????? *???? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????*; ??? ????? *??? ????? ???????,* ?? [??"? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????, ?"?] *?**??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????, ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? *? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??. ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???????, ??? ????? ?????. *???? ????? ????? *??? ???? ?????, ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?????. ??? ?? ????????? ??????? ??? ??????: ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?), ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?????. ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? (??? ? ????? ???? ????), ?????: ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??. ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????, ?? ???? ?????? ??, ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???????, ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? > > But the bottom line,to which we both agree, is that traditional Judaism holds that Creation, regardless of our issue about zeman, was not a natural process. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162531 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 23 02:58:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. : : : Where does Ramban say this? ... This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, it directly from G-d. : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag : permanent at maaseh breishis... Which is not in contradicction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain ways. To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel hapo'el, but still thimk you can reach what the rishonim are talking about? :-)BBii! -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 zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 15:37:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 18:37:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those > events > : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. > : > : > : Where does Ramban say this? ... > > This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > from G-d. Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or uses intermediaries. > > : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times > that > : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag > : permanent at maaseh breishis... > > Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern > of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that > behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain > ways. I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures. Yes, Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but they would be in agreement that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM, and just as much not a ??thing?? ?to RambaM as to RambaN. The disagreement would be whether Hashem at Creation set up intermediary steps ?in creating the world?s components and their behaviors. According to both of them, at the end of the Creation period Hashem established what the normal behaviors (patterns) would thereon be, and up to then the nature of the world was not stabilized. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but both agree that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. RambaM cites Chazal that ?Hashem at Creation also imbued in the things of the world the potential for aberrant behaviors ??(miracles) to be triggered when Hashem so decrees. I do not see RambaN disagreeing, but even if he does, I do not see framing it in terms of a dispute over whether nature is a ??thing.?? It would be a dispute over whether the miraculous natures were imbued at Creation or first initiated at their enactment, and in view of the Chazal cited by RambaM, RambaN would have some explaining ?to do. And of course, although the Rambam strongly objects to the idea that Hashem is constantly recreating the world, he also famously states that Hashem is constantly maintaining it, and that if He would remove His maintenance, the world would cease to exist. ? And if one insists on inferring from RambaM?s words an issue of Nature being considered a ????thing??, as opposed to a mere normal pattern of behavior, consider this quote:? http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=38545&st=&pgnum=14&hilite? The One Who created it [the world] made its general properties as a kiyum gadol. ??...This is what it means when it says, ??I know that all that G-d will make, IT will be ?forever.??...The yesodos ... all these are kayamim l-olom. It is impossible to add upon or take away from them, for it says, ??And G-d MADE [things] so that [people] will be in awe before Him, for ...these [things] stand forever. The above are the words of RambaN, in his Drasha on Kohelles. One could argue therefrom that he considers the general properties of the world as ??things?? that are permanent. Or not. > To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. To the Rambam, as well. > > : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to > : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. > Especially > : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. > > You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel > hapo'el, but still think you can reach what the rishonim are talking > about? No. You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? Zvi Lampel -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban Drasha on Kohelles.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 500027 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 25 17:29:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:29:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the Destruction of Sodom? Message-ID: <20181126012932.GA7767@aishdas.org> See https://www.sciencenews.org/article/exploding-meteor-may-have-wiped-out-ancient-dead-sea-communities or . I am including just a teaser. I intentionally ended with the note that the researcher works at a Xian university, as that does speak toward objectivity. We'll see what peer review says of the evidence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Science News Archaeologists at a site in what's now Jordan have found evidence of a cosmic calamity An exploding meteor may have wiped out ancient Dead Sea communities By Bruce Bower 10:00am, November 20, 2018 Preliminary evidence indicates that a low-altitude meteor explosion around 3,700 years ago destroyed cities, villages and farmland north of the Dead Sea (shown in the background above) rendering the region uninhabitable for 600 to 700 years. DENVER -- A superheated blast from the skies obliterated cities and farming settlements north of the Dead Sea around 3,700 years ago, preliminary findings suggest. Radiocarbon dating and unearthed minerals that instantly crystallized at high temperatures indicate that a massive airburst caused by a meteor that exploded in the atmosphere instantaneously destroyed civilization in a 25-kilometer-wide circular plain called Middle Ghor, said archaeologist Phillip Silvia. The event also pushed a bubbling brine of Dead Sea salts over once-fertile farm land, Silvia and his colleagues suspect. People did not return to the region for 600 to 700 years, said Silvia, of Trinity Southwest University in Albuquerque. He reported these findings at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research on November 17... From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:49:35 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:49:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Weight of a Shekel Message-ID: <20181126204934.GA12575@aishdas.org> No, they didn't find a sheqel, they found something just as good -- a beqa from bayis rishon, as in machatzis hasheqel "beqa lagulgoles". Just multiply by 2 to get a sheqel haqodesh. (Ie a beqa is a plain old sheqel.) (There apparently weren't 1/2 sheqel coins during basyis rishon.) See or https://www.timesofisrael.com/straight-from-the-bible-tiny-first-temple-stone-weight-unearthed-in-jerusalem/ The Times of Israel Straight from the Bible: Tiny First Temple stone weight unearthed in Jerusalem By Amanda Borschel-Dan 21 November 2018, 12:57 pm Volunteer at City of David sifting project finds rare `beka' measure, used by pilgrims paying half-shekel tax before ascending to Temple Mount, in dirt from dig near Western Wall [Picture of weight, bearing the word beqa in kesav Ivri in mirror writing. The caption reads:] A First Temple period weight measure called a 'beka' was unearthed in a City of David excavation in the Davidson Archaeological Park and discovered in the wet sifting project in Jerusalem's Tsurim Valley. (Eliyahu Yanai, City of David) An extremely rare, minuscule biblical stone weight inscribed in ancient Hebrew script with the word "beka" was discovered in rubble taken from excavations at the foundations of the Western Wall. Only a handful of similar stone beka weights have been unearthed in Jerusalem, said archaeologist Eli Shukron... Unlike several hundred years later, during this era, there was no half-shekel coin. Pilgrims brought the equivalent weight, a beka, in silver to pay their tax, which would have been measured out on scales in the very spot under the Temple Mount where the tiny stone weight was unearthed. Shukron said in a press release, "When the half-shekel tax was brought to the Temple during the First Temple period, there were no coins, so they used silver ingots. In order to calculate the weight of these silver pieces they would put them on one side of the scales and on the other side they placed the Beka weight. The Beka was equivalent to the half-shekel, which every person from the age of 20 years and up was required to bring to the Temple." According to the release, the biblical shekel weighed 11.33 grams.... To give you an idea of where that stands halachically, the Rambam's (H' Sheqalim 1:2) 384 se'or. A barleycorn is 0.044 and 0.05 gm, so the Rambam's sheqel would be at least 16.9 gm. Rashi (Shemos 21:32) says that a sheqel is half of a the ounce used in Cologne. Which today we would call .5 troy oz, or 15.55gm. The CI holds it's .51 troy oz (15.86 gm). Once again, the evidence about shiurim from Har haBayis is below even the Rambam's shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:26:21 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:26:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly :> from G-d. : Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or : uses intermediaries. Except that he calls it a neis. It can't both be Divine Intervention AND left to metaphysical mechanics. I mentioned that RDBerger et all never go around back to the first Rambans they discuss to explain what they do mean after all. He does deny teva in the famous comment at the end of parashahs Bo (13:16) (where he refers you back to comments on Beresishis 17:1 and Shemos 6:2). For that matter, he even denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. We have to close the circle somehow. Teva = nisim nistarim. Nistar through allowing patterns, minhago shel olam. ... :> Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern :> of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that :> behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain :> ways. : : I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that : it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow : apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the : behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". (I think this description of the Ramban is the belief most of us leave yeshiva day school with.) : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. Physics does not inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His Action to be hidden by routine. : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim in the usual sense. ... :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : : To the Rambam, as well. To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. To the Ramban, a person who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from Him as needed. Tir'u baTov! -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 llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 27 06:18:44 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:18:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why Didn't The Brothers Tell Yaakov "Yosef is alive"? Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 37:35 35 All his sons and daughters arose to console him, but he refused to accept consolation. He said: I shall go to my grave, mourning for my son. Thus his father wept for him. (?His daughters? probably refers to his daughters-inlaw.) All of them ?arose? to console him. They did not ?go? or ?come?; they ?arose? to console him. ?To arise? in order to perform an act implies that the act is born of resolution, an act one must bring oneself to perform. Until this point, they themselves were immersed in grief. No one feels so much grief as do those who must console a mourner. To see one?s aged father inconsolable, viewing every cheerful thought as a sin, would move even a heartless scoundrel to agonized remorse. He would be too distraught to offer consolation, because he would be in need of consolation himself. But why didn?t any of them attempt to sprinkle soothing balm upon the wound? Why didn?t they reveal to him: ?Yosef is alive!?? The answer: because that would have been the greatest cruelty of all. In the minds of parents, a child who was torn by wild beasts is never lost, but a child who is wicked is worse than lost. Therefore, he who would not aggravate the father?s grief a thousandfold would have to remain silent until the day when Yosef would return and the joy of the reunion would mitigate in the father?s mind even the crime that had been committed by his other sons. Had they told Ya?akov at that time the truth about what had been done to Yosef, Ya?akov would have felt as though he had lost not only one son, but ten sons at one time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 06:39:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gradations of Lifnim miShuras haDin Message-ID: <20181128143951.GA12638@aishdas.org> Surprisingly, not a subject I've thought about before. Apparently, there are different kind of lifnim mishuras hadin callings. See Arukh haShulchan CM 222:8. The SA (se'if 2) talks about the case where someone buys something from one of 5 people, doesn't recall which, and each of them are tov'im for payment. The money is held in escroe by BD until the claimants come to agreement or Eliyahu arrives and sorts it out. And if he is a chassid, he should pay each of them, kedei latzeis yedei Shamayim. The AhS adds: And a chassid adif miyarei Shamayim (YS) because a YS does not want to be mevater his own property in a business matter, and a Chassid is mevater. (Shabbos 120b). Presumably a YS is the person concerned latzeis yedei Shamayim (or else I can't understand the AhS). And this goes on to the case of the yoreish of one of the potential sellers, claiming he would be patur even LYS (Sha"kh, Ramban, Ritva.) Whereas the Qetzos says that while he is patur even LYS, chassid, ra'ui lo la'asos kein mimidas chassidus. So, there seems to be two kinds of lifnim mishuras hadin involved here, and there is a nafqa mina lemaaseh: the YS who is concerned LYS, and the chassid who is pursuing his midas chassidus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 11:48:46 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:48:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Baalus and Chameitz (was: help with 2 sugyot) Message-ID: <20181128194846.GA21056@aishdas.org> On 1 May 2013 (v23n74 ) I replied to a question by RAM with (in part): > But I think the key here is the word "property". I suggested in the past > that there is no such thing in halakhah. (With a probable exception of bal > yeira'eh bal yeimatzei.) There is baalus, but that's a different concept. > Returning to bal yeira'eh as an example... A son does not inherit chameitz > from his father who dies while owning it on Pesach. The issuer hanaah > means a lack of baalus. Even though it's the father's in the sense of > being chameitz she'avar alav haPesach (for the part of Pesach the father > was alive to own it). > As is implied in what RAM writes, baalus is more like custodianship than > what we think of when we hear "property". Which is born out in the word > "baalus" as well. Baalus revolves around control and responsibility, > not an abstract principle of how the world is divided up among people. > My previous thoughts on baalus and qinyan, as shaped by prior conversations > here, are at . Well, Arukh haShulchan Yomi adds another data point -- CM 245:10. Someone gives another a gift and the recipient uses a language of bitul (bitul, mevatel, mevuteles hi, tivateil, etc..) to reject the gift after it reached him, if it's metaltelin, the item is hefqer. The AhS notes the connection to bitul chomeitz that renders it hefqeir. However, he says this is no raayah because chameitz on Pesach isn't in his reshus, it's only made "ke'ilu hi birshuso" by bal yeira'eh. And that's why gilui daata is enough to get the chameitz out of his reshus. But (citing the Ran, beginning of Pesachim), something that is mamash his is different. The AhS concludes that bitul only makes the gift hefqer because it's a gift, but if it were actually his nekhasim, it wouldn't be sufficient. (Now that I wrote all that, I seem to recall someone did along the years mention that bitul chameitz only works because we're talking about quasi-baalus, and not real baalus. But I invested too much to what to skip sending this email now. And besides, I added another maqor.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 28 21:29:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 05:29:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. Message-ID: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to both monetary and spiritual liabilities. I was wondering, according to those who said you can waive the spiritual liability, whether that would also work retroactively (e.g. would somebody escape lashes for less than a penny's worth of damage -if the aggrieved party waived the spiritual damages after the fact of the hit) 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 Nov 30 10:19:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links Message-ID: <20181130181913.GA25124@aishdas.org> Einstein and G-d: http://nautil.us/blog/how-einstein-reconciled-religion-to-science Eistein said things about G-d that appear to contradict -- he both speaks of the Designer of existence and belittles the G-d of religion. Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's -- not emunah in a Borei but our standards, but far from atheism in their self-perception. --- Stephen Colbert explains his faith to Dr Neil de Grasse Tyson https://www.facebook.com/michael.bernstein.86/videos/10100134331341237/ He says that his faith doesn't come from a place of evidence, it comes from gratitude. Until they can explain why we exist rather than not exist, we need some basket to put that gratitude in. A little too Gcd of the Gaps. He could have made the same point using a more Non-overlapping Magesteria approach. IOW, he shouldn't be talking about belief until Dr Tyson and others in his profession can explain why we exist. Rather, he should point out they can't -- "why we exist?" isn't even a scientific question. Science doesn't cover all of human experience. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 18:36:04 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 21:36:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:26 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> RMB : This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > :> from G-d. > > : ZL: Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the > : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas > : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at > : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or > : uses intermediaries. > > RMB: Except that he calls it a neis.... ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' from Hashem than RambaM did. denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: > From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, > all our things and everything that happens to us is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago shel olom. It can't both be Divine Intervention > AND left to metaphysical mechanics. > Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine intervention manipulates but does not undo. The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force .'' > And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits > sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." > > Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. > We have to close the circle somehow. > ... According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". ZL: You are basing a lot on the Ramban using the expression ''hakol begeiras Elyon.'' But that expression, as well as ''neis,'' is no indication of disagreeing with the idea of Hashem intervening and conducting a neis nistar working through intermediaries to manipulate but not undo minhago shel olom. Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim has a chapter on this. And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own through the control of the angels over the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force . And behold the control was /from the time of their coming into being until forever more, *a gezeyras Elyon* [another girsa is Elyonim] that He placed in them/.'' The correct translation of ''gezeyras elyon[im] may even be ''a gezeyra about the upper world(s)/beings/forces,'' with elyon not being a reference to Hashem, just as it obviously is not in the first sentence of this passage. The gezeyas Elyon is what He placed into the forces that produce nature, the minhago shel olom. In the passage where Ramban declares that all that occurs to us is neis and not minhago shel olom or teva, he is contrasting our belief that Hashem, through neis nistar, manipulates minhago shel olom according to our deeds, with that of those who hold that nature runs mechanically with no connection to human behavior. Realizing this answers all that you proceeded to write: > > ...ZL: > : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem > : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... > > RMB: You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. ZL: I cited his repeated explanation of vayehi chein, and now his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12. RMB: [Ramban holds, contra RambaM, that] Physics does not > inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His > Action to be hidden by routine. > > ZL: : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that > : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and > : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of > : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. > > RMB: But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras > Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim > are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? > ZL: This is again your unwarranted inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras Elyon. > > ZL: : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you > : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a > : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much > : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... > > RMB: Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other > says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim > in the usual sense. > > ZL: This is again your inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras > Elyon, which I showed is incorrect. Rambam speaks in terms of Seichel > HaPoel setting up the world's machinery of spheres that influence matters > on earth. Ramban speaks in terms of Hashem creating influencing spheres > controlled by angels. Ramban considers Nature no less an ''it'' than > Rambam. Rambam considers Nature no more an ''it'' than Ramban. > > ... > RMB: :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. > : > ZL: : To the Rambam, as well. > > RMB: To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah > necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. > And RambaN (Devarim 18:13) speaks of Hashem redirecting the normal course of the spheres to act in favor of those who draw close to Him through their avodah. (In fact, Rambam in Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end], too, puts it terms of avodah: "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". According to both, Hashem intervenes to manipulate the machinery of minhago shel olom based upon man's closeness to him. > ZL: : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without > : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? > > RMB: The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is > saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, > he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. > > Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is > hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. ZL: I'll concede that point, although I'm still left with the question that the Rambam refers to minhago shel olom oneshim, too, as the greatest of nissim nistarim. How is abandonment to nature a neis? And he also refers to, for example, the Egyptians being punished for volunteering to fulfill the role of persecutors foretold of in the bris bein habesarim. The plagues were not a mere abandonment to nature... Tsaruch iyun.... > To the Ramban, a person > who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from > Him as needed. > ZL: That's an interesting twist on how to look at oneshim as a chessed. > > Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/03/18, 8:45:33 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban on astrology Devarim 18, 9-13.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2384560 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 4 09:31:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:31:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181204173107.GC16262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 09:36:04PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the :> : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas :> : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at :> : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or :> : uses intermediaries. :> RMB: : Except that he calls it a neis.... : So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar.... Different "it". The Ramban calls everything a neis. The fact that that doesn't imply what you would think if you only looked at those 2 comments doesn't change the fact that to the Ramban, teva is a neis. So: The Rambam acknowledges sekhar va'onesh via neis nistar, for those who earn such HP. (Hashgachah = both sekhar va'onesh.) And yet normal teva is the action of the Seikhel haPo'al, a metaphysical automaton "preprogrammed" by the Borei. The Ramban holds that all of teva is neis nistar, whether it's hashgachah (leshitaso: hashgachah = sekhar), onesh, or minhago shel olam. Again, but in significantly different words: To the Rambam, teva follows minhago shel olam because the Seikha haPo'al has a single mission and lack bechirah. According to the Ramban, teva is a word that means the subset of Divine Action that follows minhago shel olam rather than being selected by HP. I believe you agree that rishonim understand the Rambam's position on teva and the Seikhal haPo'al the way I explained it. I am not clear how you can insist they got it wrong. : ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, : > all our things and everything that happens to us : is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the : manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or : non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day : behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and : everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago : shel olom. Right, but that's not HP. According to both Rambam and the Ramban, not everything that happens to every person is HP. And yet they are all neis. You are also incorrectly deducing from the Rambam's talking about that whih happens to us that he means to exclude things that don't impact human life, such as the growth of a tree in the middle of the Amazon where it possibly effects no one. However, he is saying the Torah is founded on knowing how to view what happens to me personally. Not abstract knowledge about how the world works. That tree in the Amazon isn't on topic. ... : ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling : it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' : from Hashem than RambaM did. Even before we get to our point, not really. According to the Rambam, sekhar is a neis nistar. Onesh is almost always abandonment to teva. (Similarly, to the Rambam on Cheileq, gehenom is kareis is a lack of olam haba, and not suffering in olam haba.) Suffering as onesh is usually just what happens to a human being trying to fight what we would call today the law of increasing entropy. (It's easier to break things than make them.) On rare occasions, there is a Makas Bekhoros, but those are nissim geluyim. After all, leshitas haRambam, sin causes a lack of knowledge of the Borei, and thus a disconnection from Him, and thus a lack of hashpa'ah. HP itself is causal, leshitaso. Just as nevu'ah is causal, and it take a neis for Hashem to hide information from a navi who has enough yedi'ah to be connected up to be able to "look" for it. So, they disagree about whether onesh is HP / neis, even before we get started with our dispute. (Something also mentioned in the shiur from Gush I pointed you to.) :> It can't both be Divine Intervention :> AND left to metaphysical mechanics. : Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem : created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar : v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In : contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine : intervention manipulates but does not undo. And to repeat myself, you're nmistaken. The Rambam has a delegate Hashem gave nature to, and when there is a break from minhago shel olam, Hashem (via mal'akhim, beings higher than the Seikhel haPoal) is intervening. The Ramban does not have such a delegate. When there is a break from minhago shel olam, it's because someone earned Hashem making another kind of decision; another priority rose to the top in (kevayakhol) how He Chooses what to Do. Your reasserting otherwise still doesn't explain why you feel the Abarbanel and Narbonni got him wrong about this idea that a separate seikhel was created to do teva, that just runs minhago shel olam. And in fact, further down you stop denying this and instead argue from the Ramban in Devarim that the Ramban also has such sikhliim. I am not clear where exactly you stand. : The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm : of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each : ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago : shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. Runs like a machine, ie following a minhag. Whereas the Rambam gives it an actual metaphysical machine. : To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing : astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created : the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the : spheres. You are literally quoting a Ramban that says that even though there are kokhavim, mazalos, mal'akhim and sarim which has a nefesh, one cannot worship them or use astrology to tell the future (kesoa'avos hagoyim haheim) because they're only responding to His Will. A navi, who is looking at His Will, can know the future. : ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim : controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and : constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the : stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force : .'' Manhig = controller? : And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that : very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own : through the control of the angels over the spheres. Not on its own. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 04:19:47 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 07:19:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 > From: Micha Berger > > Einstein and G-d: > > ...Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's He said so explicitly ''I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... '' New Times, April 25, 1929, in answer to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/04/18, 7:16:09 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Tue Dec 4 08:24:16 2018 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 18:24:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Tuesday evening) begin Prayer for Rain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Tuesday evening), December 4, 2018, corresponding to the evening of 27 Kislev, 5779, the third night of Chanukka. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: https://www.lookstein.org/professional-dev/veten-tal-u-matar/ (Thanks to Russell Levy for suggesting the article.) In unrelated news, here's what keeps me busy: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/ Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky Post-doctoral Fellow Department of Mathematics Ariel University Ariel 4070000, ISRAEL ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Tue Dec 4 11:25:15 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One clear difference between the Rambam and the Ramban is the value of miracles as evidence; see H. Yesodei HaTorah 8:1 vs. Toras HaShem Temimah Ed. Chavel pp. 146, 150, 152, etc. I think the explanation is hinted at in the Ramban in Shoftim you cited. The Rambam holds that miracles are ad hoc, but the Ramban holds that miracles also follow laws and those laws echo creation. David Riceman Sent from my iPad From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 6 05:32:53 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 13:32:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] seuda shlishit Message-ID: <1c08882303fd4627b3659b0785fb9331@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> It is certainly preferable to either eat bread or stop eating before shekia (or close to it - beyond our present scope). If you partake in a full meal but refrain from bread for a certain reason, leniency has strong grounds. If you are picking at food according to your mood, and even more so if you previously fulfilled seuda shlishit, it is difficult to allow eating as night approaches. (Me- Is this generally followed?) 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 Thu Dec 6 14:45:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:45:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Havdalah or Menorah on Motzai Shabbos Which comes first? Message-ID: Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos - Chanuka? Not a recent question, this situation of competing halachic principles has been the basis of the centuries-old debate regarding which mitzvah has priority and should therefore be performed first. In other words, on Motzai Shabbos Chanuka this annual halachic dispute, simmering since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up... Please see https://goo.gl/oV2gpg YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 7 11:21:41 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 19:21:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: Q. I will be traveling to New York from my home in New Jersey for a Chanukah party at my parents? house and won?t be returning home until late at night. I have the following options: I can light at home at 4:00 PM (which is before sunset); I can appoint an agent (shliach) to light in my house for me at the proper time; I can light at my parents? house; or I can light upon returning home late at night when there are no longer any passersby. What should I do? A. The Mechaber rules that if one will not be able to light the Chanukah candles at the prescribed time, he may light them any time after Plag HaMincha (Shulchan Aruch OC 672:1). Plag HaMincha in the winter is approximately an hour before sunset. However, if one must leave immediately thereafter, it may not be advisable to leave candles unattended. The possibility of using an agent is questionable, since Mishnah Berurah (675:9) rules that when an agent lights for him, the person must stand next to the agent and hear him recite the brachos; obviously, this is not feasible in this case. The third possibility, lighting at one?s parents? home, is not acceptable. One must light where he lives (i.e. the place where he eats and sleeps on a regular basis). Since he does not live in his parent?s home but is merely eating a meal there, he may not light there. One should follow the fourth option and light upon returning home. As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. Therefore, one may light even if it is late and there will be no passersby to see the menorah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 8 17:32:58 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 20:32:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49e62b3e-cb2d-9d77-dbff-c94f400def1e@sero.name> > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit > primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising it, if not to the passersby? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 18:33:18 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:33:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: . Someone quoted the OU's Halacha Yomis: > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. R' Zev Sero asked: > What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising > it, if not to the passersby? I don't think the OU meant to suggest that one isn't yotzay if his family doesn't see the neros. When danger caused us to move the menorah indoors, *everyone* lit indoors. No exceptions were made for those who live alone. It seems clear to me that one is yotzay even if he is the only one to see them lit. Come to think of it, one is yotzay Pirsumei Nisa if no one hears him read the Megilla, or if no one sees him drinking Arba Kosos. Why should Ner Chanuka be different? It is true that the Mishne Berura 672:11 says that if everyone at home is already asleep, then he must either wake someone or light without the bracha. But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants to act like that, we don't stop him." Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 12 21:41:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:41:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music and literature: As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the better strategy? 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 Dec 12 21:44:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? 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 Dec 15 19:22:45 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 22:22:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: <4EBAA25A-8790-4673-AAFF-7E2AC74B5C9A@cox.net> With an extremely unusual exception, all professionals will tell you that the first time your husband assaults you must be the last time. Furthermore the law is clear and unequivocal: Any incidence of a domestic crime must be dealt with by arresting the guilty party, be it husband or wife. I can tell you that any call we get involving a domestic always results in an arrest. Dina D'Malchusa Dina This is the law and we are mandated to follow it. I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve your spouse. Mechila or no mechila, the consequences are serious and the law must be followed. Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 16 11:13:33 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot Message-ID: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of chutz l'aretz. Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? Ben From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 16 12:56:05 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 15:56:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? First thought, just to help the ball rolling. Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? So, there are people actually eating challah in the Rambam's world. Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both being deOraisa. (In particular, it can be taken retroactively; you can eat before hafrashah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Dec 17 08:28:25 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:28:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Asara b'Teves Message-ID: The message of this commemoration is that after the destruction, we must trace its sources and mark its stages; we must look backwards to events that are not earth-shattering and perceive how the seeds of the destruction on the Ninth of Av were planted on the Tenth of Teves. The more we study history, the more we learn that we should not concentrate only on the final act itself, but also on all the stages that led up to it. This also applies to the Holocaust which is probably the worst tragedy in Jewish history. Along these lines we also recite Kaddish on the 10th of Tevet for all those whose date of death is unknown, who perished in the Holocaust. Apparently, the tenth of Teves is "the Day of God" about which many prophets spoke ? the tenth day of the tenth month. (The 10th of Teves is the only fast day that can fall on a Friday). The number ten in kabala is related to the sefira of malkhut, and therefore, the very essence of the day is appropriate to the theme of God's kingship. Chazal teach that at midnight a north wind would blow, rousing King David from his sleep to serve his Creator. It is in the middle of the night, specifically in the depths of the darkest part of the night, that the sovereignty of Israel awakens, and the kingship of God is revealed in the world.May the Kingship of the Almighty finally rule all mankind thus fulfilling the vision of the prophets: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall men learn war anymore; for all men, both great and small shall know the Lord.? Amen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 17 09:09:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:09:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 16/12/18 3:56 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that > : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? > > First thought, just to help the ball rolling. > > Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. I assume Sefardim also, though I don't know this for certain. But the SA certainly says to do so, and only the Rema says the minhag is not to. > They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem > with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump > actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? AFAIK it's got nothing to do with chinuch; the reason it's given to ketanim rather than gedolim is because they have never experienced tum'ah that comes from their own bodies. It can also be given to an adult cohen who has been to the mikveh. The Rema says this is not our minhag because since it's not eaten in EY there is no need for it to be eaten in chu"l. Other acharonim suggest that it's because we have no cohanim meyuchasim, so we're not even certain this child is a cohen in the first place, or because we're worried that the child won't be careful with it and it'll get into people's food, or just that if it's not burned immediately it will somehow find its way to someone who shouldn't eat it. > Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both > being deOraisa. Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan. (Nowadays even chalah of EY is midrabanan, but it has an ikkar min hatorah, whereas in chu"l it's entirely midrabanan.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:25:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:25:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181217172541.GA5532@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:09:38PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both : >being deOraisa. : Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan... Sorry, chalah of crops made from chu"l that were brought into EY are indeed deOraisa, and yes those aforementioned qulos still apply. (Similarly, challah from Israeli grain that was needed in chu"l is only chayav miderabbanan.) 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:14:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181217171454.GA25337@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:33:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the : brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the : opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar : Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants : to act like that, we don't stop him." Going back to the SA (OC 677:3) the mechaber says that *yeish omerim* that if you light at home alone after others have lit there without you, you make the berakhos. Interestingly, the se'if opens "yeish omerim", it's the only opinion quoted. The Rama quote the Mordechai that this is because he is obligated to see the neiros, vekhein nohagim. Ateres Zeqeinim ad loc quotes the Maharash: veyeish cholqin. So, if you want to be machmir to light, (he calls it "rotzeh lahchamir") light without a berakhah. The Maharil says that once you light on your own, you showed you didn't want to be yotzei with the earlier lighting, so you weren't. And that's why it's not a berakhah levatalah. The picture I'm trying to show here is that the discussion about the berakhah appears to be because this is after someone else lit for the home. Not because you're alone. And, if I understand the Mordechai correctly, he appears to be saying that whether or not the purpose of the mitzvah is pirsumei nisah, the actual mitzvah includes just seeing the lights. Perhaps because even internalizing the neis I myself already know about intellectually qualifies as "pirsum". But that's not how R' Moshe discusses it. He simply says that pirsum isn't me'aqeiv. 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 09:05:16 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:05:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] lighting the menora Message-ID: As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. My impression is that most modern poskim certainly in EY disagree and that many/most light outdoors for the public -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 18 09:24:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:24:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Comedy -- is it good for the Jews? In-Reply-To: References: <49f57ed6-82ab-b6eb-2210-00930742efaa@sero.name> <20181211154507.GB6212@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181218172413.GB29597@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:02am EST, R Moshe Y. Gluck replied to me on Areivim in a conversation about a stand up comic at a venue that lost their hekhsher over it: : One can argue that comedy, in it of itself, is assur, independent of : subject matter because of Assur L'maalos Piv Schok B'Olam Hazeh (Berachos : 31a). This gemara makes an interesting contrast to the rather famous gemara (Taanis 22a) about Rabbi Beroqa Choza'ah and Elihahu haNavi in the marke of Bei Lefet. Elihahu points out two beduchei as among those there who would merit olam haba, eiuther because they chear up the depressed or bring peace to those arguing. Given the first "i nami" in Taanis, where's the chiluq to be drawn? Another problem I have understandign the gemara in Taanis. The market in question was full of Jews. (Another person Eliyahu pointed out was noted for not dressing like one, but turned out to be employed by the prison system and he protected the women in his jail.) And "kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq". So why are just these people being pointed out as being "bar alma de'asi"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:28:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:28:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. In-Reply-To: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182837.GA18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:29:12AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability : (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to : both monetary and spiritual liabilities... Does it work at all? You can be mochel nezeq when it's mamon, but corporeal? Wouldn't Shim'on be a rasha for lifting his hand to Re'uvein either way? Related: Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? 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 micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:34:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:34:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] culture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181219183447.GB18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:41:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music : and literature: :> As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even :> the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from :> the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness :> of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. : My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the : better strategy? It has to be slower, when you think you haven't yet assimilated culture and you're trying to hold the line, than when you consciously choose to have a strategy with regard to acculturation, and expect the line to move. One will only have unconscious motion, the other will have conscious change as well. So for the masses, it means less assimilation. Then we have to ask if cultural assumilation is a bad thing. Does Hashem not want us to sing our tefillos to the kosher elements of the sound of our era? Is there a Jewish aesthetic to begin with? Way deep wading in this issue. However, for the yechidim who realize it's going on and that everyone is fooling themselves.... I see a big OTD risk as cynicism is bound to creap in, as well as (including?) a loss of respect for any authority figures who are fooled or caught blindfolding others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:20:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:20:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? In-Reply-To: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182054.GA6255@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting : the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), : animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get : no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) This is the end of OC 1:1. (AhS Yomi for 4th. Yes, cycle 2 is starting in just 4+ months! The first Tur for the AhS to write on was CM, which is why you find the haqdamah there. So "beginning" was ambiguous. Or I'm just a nitpicker.) : Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is : it equivalent of free will? .... I took the se'if to mean that angels have no YhR and therefore lack free will. Animals have no *capacity for* knowledge, and therefore couldn't possibly have a YhT, and thus also no bechirah. Only people, caught in tention between YhR and (properly applied?) da'as have bechirah, and that's why only we get both reward and punishment. : The dogs being : rewarded for not barking? There is an interesting implication from the AhS that animals do get sekhar, and angels do get oneshim. Perhaps it makes sense even without presuming they have bechirah if we take a causal approach to sekhar va'onesh. The animal that does the right thing, even through no credit of its own, is still thereby a superior being than before. Especially if it is more likely to repeat behavior done once (or more likely to refrain if refrained once). And similarly in the reverse, for angels that fail. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Dec 19 22:03:14 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 01:03:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: >I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >your spouse. Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? From isaac at balb.in Wed Dec 19 22:57:07 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:57:07 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Re Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2CC046A4-B9E6-4853-A683-179A213256CC@balb.in> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu---theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively more authentic version of the next Baal HaMesora. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Dec 20 08:12:18 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:12:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You are asking a loaded question so I will have to answer it on a few layers. First of all, I?m not sure what YOU mean by a verbal assault. The legal definition of assault varies from state to state but generally: Simple assault is an attempt to do a serious bodily harm to another person, or actually committing an act to put another in fear of serious bodily injury. Simple assault is usually classified as a misdemeanor. So if by verbal assault, a husband or wife (without touching each other), puts the other in fear of being hurt, then it meets the criteria of a crime (misdemeanor) and in most states mandates an arrest. With that scenario, yes, I would say the same for a spouse who verbally assaults the other. What most lay people confuse assault with is a BATTERY which is any unlawful offensive physical contact with another person, with or without his or her consent. ... Unlike the crime of assault, battery requires that actual contact is made, while assault charges can be brought with only the threat of violence. Though it may seem extreme to say that you don?t deserve your spouse if you commit a simple assault or battery, our own sages have said that if your wife burns your food, you have every right to divorce her. I think it boils down to the specifics and whole picture of each case. I believe your question may have meant what if a spouse speaks disparagingly to his/her spouse. In other words, what if a husband demeans his wife and calls her stupid or ugly, etc. My feeling is that you are dealing with the tip of the iceberg and most likely you have a bad marriage and a dysfunctional relationship. > On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: > > >> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >> your spouse. > > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 20 12:31:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:31:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181220203131.GB27441@aishdas.org> On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: :> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who :> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve :> your spouse. : > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? Hezeq and onaas devarim are different issurim. But they both are forms of harm recognized by halakhah. (Maybe I mean all three are recognized: hezeq haguf and hezeq mamon are different things, with different dinim.) And if the ona'as devarim gets to the point of halvanas panim, it's compared to retzichah. BM 58b lumps OD and pinning a nickname on someone together with eishes ish as sins that cause gehennom to be permanent ("sheyordim ve'ein olim") and ein lo cheileq le'olam haba (59a). And of course, "noach lo le'adam shayapil es atzmo lekivshan ha'eish, be'al yalbin penei chaveiro." (Mar Zutra, BM 59a) Which is taking seriously, not exageration, in discussions of yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. So to ammend my first paragraph, verbal abuse is far MORE vilified by the din than hezeq. I would consider answering: lo kol shekein! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 20 21:43:37 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:43:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer Message-ID: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From a write-up on borer and peelers: "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] Me-1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex county, us, world...............) 2.Is a sieve a sophisticated fork??? 3.No doubt that minhag yisrael includes many who do it-it's just not clear to me how that developed (i.e a priori first principles seem to lead to prohibition) - perhaps a good example of mimetic tradition? 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:22:47 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:22:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: <> Indeed I am always bothered by those who claim that they are not influenced at all but outside culture. Even if not directly we are all influenced by outside forces. There is no such thing today as Jewish music since anything the leviim sang has been lost. Living in Israel sefardi music is much different than ashkenazi music simply because Arabic music is different than Hungarian music. Anyone who learns Rambam is influenced at some level by Greek philosophy. Read rishonim on the reasons for dina demalchuta and compare it to the old defenses of the rights of kings - just happen to be identical. Many rishonim were familar with secular philosophy and even the Ramah knew philosophy. In spite of appearances Chatam Sofer had a broad background and spoke German. All of this without referring to RAL who has a spirited defense of much (certainly not all) of modern literature and parts of modern culture. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:30:25 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:30:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports Message-ID: << Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? >> Certainly mechila works on some level. There are stories of RAL in his younger years playing basketball with the students. Once a student complained that it wasn;t fair because they could not block their rebbe. RAL answered that in playing ball not to treat him as a rebbe. Certainly we are talking about minor contact and not severe wounding Kibud Av ve- Em is a step beyond ordinary treatment of others especially causing a loss of blood. From what I have seen the standard psak is that a doctor should preferably not treat a parent for anything requiring incisions or blood. However, for anything serious that the child is better than others than certainly, he is the doctor of choice. I recall that RMF allows cosmetic surgery only foord "god reasons". This incliudes feeling embarrased by one's appearance and also improvements especially for women for shidduch persons. I assume he would not be happy with various facial "improvements" for senior citizens -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Thu Dec 20 17:33:08 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 12:33:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively better version of the next Baal HaMesora. From mcohen at touchlogic.com Fri Dec 21 06:48:04 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:48:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma Message-ID: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means increase. Therefore not 'blessed is the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever' (artscroll) but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his kingdom be increased forever. His source is olas tamid (which I don't have), and iyun tefilah (which I looked up and I cant find this mentioned) Is this the kavanah that you are all having when you say krias shma? mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:10:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:10:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <20181221151048.GA23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 09:48:04AM -0500, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: : R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means : increase. ... : but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his : kingdom be increased forever. I am vague enough on the translation of the English word "blessed" that translating "barukh" for "blessed" is trading one unknown for a bigger one. As for my own kavanah (when I stop to have one): May the public perception (or: reputation) of the significance (or: importance) of His rule-by-public-acclimation be increased eternally without stop. Explanation: Sheim is name, which would be how others perceive something. Hashem's sheim is thus how He seems to people, which could be reputation and/or perception. Kavod shares spelling with kaveid, heaviness. (We'll discuss livers some other time.) And thus we give honor to significant "weighty" matters. Like massive things, we don't trivially push them around. And so I think of kavod as honor more in terms of significant and important than glory. Ein melekh belo am -- unlike a mosheil, what makes a melekh a melekh is the acceptance of the governed. The Gra has a whole piece on Melekh vs Mosheil and "umosheil bagoyim", until the day when "vehayah Hashem leMelekh". "Malkhusekha malkhus kol olamim umemshaletekha bekhol dor vador." Notice in that last pasuq, malkhus is framed in terms of "kol olamim", and here it's "le'olam va'ed". Le'olam -- for as long as there's an olam. Va'ad -- note the shoresh of "ad", until the missing end. There is another kind of Eternity. Hashem Himself is lemaalah min hazman. Not eternal in the sense of existing for an infinite amount of time, but in the sense that the concept of time doesn't apply. However, His Sheim is a product of us relating to Him, and thus within time -- as long as there is an "am" for Hashem to be Melekh of. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Dec 21 07:35:02 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:35:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <892aea1f-7804-ca75-2a17-2b632b2d08f7@sero.name> On 21/12/18 9:48 am, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: > One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod > malchuso lolam vaaed > > How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. > > R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch > means increase. I don't think this is perush hamilim. It's an additional facet that can add to the value of kavana, but is not required. Another facet is that "baruch" can mean to extend, as in "hamavrich es hagefen", so a bracha represents bring the shefa from the higher worlds to this one. An important thought, but one who doesn't have it in mind, or is even entirely unaware of it, has still said shma properly. Also, sheim is not *just* how others see one; ones name is connected directly to ones essence, as we see from the fact that when someone has fainted we use their name to call them back. But it is mostly used for others, just as malchus is how one relates to others, i.e. dibbur, shechina, reflecting what is going on inside one to the outside world, and yet it remains one of the essential attributes of a personality, and thus it is also one of the sefiros which those attributes reflect. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:34:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:34:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer In-Reply-To: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181221153420.GB23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 05:43:37AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From a write-up on borer and peelers: : : > "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are : > "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] : : 1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex : county, us, world...............) I could understand why the peel normally being eaten might mitigate boreir, as there is no pesoles. But how does it change the status of the peeler? In any case, the AhS (OC 391:22, but the discussion starts at se'if 19 ) only talks about peeling lots of (harbeih) garlic or onions, where he accepts the fact that it is boreier, despite being confused about how it even caqn be borer. There is a clear gemara (Beitza 13b) that says that Ravs and Rav Chiyya's wives would peel barley for them on Shabbos. And the AhS wants to know why garlic or onion would be any different. He therefore concludes that the issur isn't peeling, but the separating of the peels once they're mixed into in the heap. He explains the BY's source Y-mi accordingly. I should point out that when I was a child, no one I knew identified peeling as a form of boreir. Seems it may have been beshitah, and not ignorance. The AhS also talks (se'if 9) about non-mixtures, items that are nir'im la'ayin, like clothes, keilim and books. I do not know what he means by keilim, picking out forks from a jumble in the drawer? I bring this up because this issue was also something I didn't hear of until YU. Seems to me boreir grew a lot when the MB became "poseiq acharon" for all y'all. (Minus Sepharadim, of course, who limit boreir to literal okhel, IIUC.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 10:14:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:14:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20181221181420.GA18815@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:33:08PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the : Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, : whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of : Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic : tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- : performing Masoretic acts and decisions... I am not sure we are correctly using the word "mimetic" when discussing the unconscious copying norms and aborbing the culture of such a small "community" as that of posqim. However, if I understand what you mean correctly, I wrote something similar on Torah Musincs, where I tried to nail down what RYBS and RHS mean by the term "Mesorah". Teasers, as they state my point without proving basis: The word "masorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. ... For regular pesak too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from texts. Kara veshanah velo shimeish talmid chacham, harei zeh am ha'aretz.... If he read scripture and studied law, but did not serve a talmid chacham, such a person is an am haaretz (an ignorant peasant). - Sotah 22a ... Similarly, a poseik needs to pick up that feel, and not only the formal rules. He needs the unstructured knowledge of halakhah. Consider this rather poetic description of how the Rav experienced his shiur, entering the dialog of Torah through the ages as he joins his students in the classroom. Notice how he winds up by discussing this experience as "masorah": ... ... In an article in Jewish Action, Rav Schachter provides his definition of the word. He opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. ... The Rav identifies masorah as the ineffable skill to think like a poseik. Masorah is a skill obtained from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in a culture of mimeticism. ... Without masorah, the poseik has no way of determining which solutions to new problems are in concert with the spirit of previous rulings. Halakhah is not frozen; it does not have inertia, but it does have momentum. Apprenticeship, training under a master, transmits the feel for where the halakhah has historically been taken. Following reasoning found in a minority ruling is appropriate only when one is motivated by the Torah's own principles. The person who speaks halakhah as a first language knows when an innovative change is within "poetic license", and when the result simply violates the Torah's "grammar." As R. Yochanan quotes in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah - the apprenticeship of Torah is greater than its study". :-)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 llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 21 11:29:00 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 19:29:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Is_it_forbidden_to_teach_Torah_to_one_w?= =?windows-1252?q?ho_has_not_said_birchas_ha=92Torah=3F?= Message-ID: I wonder how this applies to restaurants. How are they allowed to serve people who do not make brachas before eating? YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Is it forbidden to teach Torah to one who has not said birchas ha?Torah? A. In regards to birchos ha?nehenin (brachos recited on food), there is a concept that one is not permitted to give someone food if the recipient will not recite a bracha. Offering food to one who will not recite a bracha is a violation of ?lifnei iver lo sitain michshol? (enabling one to stumble) (See Shulchan Aruch OC 169:2). However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l (Minchas Shlomo 1:91) writes that this does not apply to teaching Torah to one who did not recite birchas ha?Torah. Birchas ha?Torah is a birchas ha?mitzvah. Though birchos ha?mitzvos are obligatory, we do not find that Chazal forbade the performance of a mitzvah if a bracha is not recited. He notes that not studying Torah (bitul Torah) is a more serious offense than omitting the bracha. If possible, one should instruct those who have come to learn Torah how to recite the bracha, but if this is not practical, one should teach them Torah in any event. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 17:26:16 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:26:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Angels and Requests Message-ID: . In the Friday night poem "Shalom Aleichem", we ask the mal'achim to give us a bracha. We've often mentioned here that some people avoid this poem because it is either similar to avoda zara, or perhaps might actually BE avoda zara. I call your attention to the morning's parsha, Bereshis 48:16, the pasuk "Hamal'ach hagoel osi." Yaakov Avinu refers to a particular mal'ach and asks that this mal'ach should give a bracha to Yosef's sons. At first glance, this seems to be very similar to Shalom Aleichem. How is this justifiable, in the view of those who consider Shalom Aleichem to be problematic? I came up with two possible answers, and I invite the chevra to critique them, and/or suggest other answers. 1) Perhaps the halachos of avoda zara were less restrictive in those pre-Sinai days, and making requests to a mal'ach was okay for Yaakov but not for us. I suppose this is possible, but the centrality of Monotheism to the avos, it would surprise me. 2) I note that in the immediately preceding pasuk, Yaakov addressed Hashem. If so, then maybe Yaakov was not asking the mal'ach directly for a bracha the way we do in Shalom Aleichem. Rather, he was speaking directly to Hashem, asking Hashem that the mal'ach should give the bracha. This would solve the problem of "Who was Yaakov praying to?", but not the problem of "Where do brachos come from?" If the mal'ach is capable of giving a bracha, that too smacks of avoda zara, doesn't it? All comments are welcome. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 03:08:38 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 06:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bircas Kohanim when when the Shaliach Tzibbur is a kohen Message-ID: . On Areivim, R' Sheldon Liberman asked: > I heard over Shabbos that in chutz l'aretz, during the chazzan's > repetition at shacharis, if the chazzan is a kohen, then during > bircas kohanim, there is an opinion that the tzibbur should > answer "Amein" rather than "Kein y'hi ratzon". > > Has anyone heard this? The critical words here are "there is an opinion". It seems reasonable that somewhere in a vast library of seforim, there might be a sefer that suggests such a thing. Whether anyone actually does this is another matter entirely. I don't remember ever hearing anyone actually do this. I'd even argue against it. It makes about as much sense as if one would answer "amen" during the third stanza of "Shalom Aleichem". In both cases we are asking for a bracha, but in neither case have we actually heard any bracha on which to answer "amen". (When we answer "kein yehi ratzon", it means "please give us that bracha" and not "I believe in that bracha which You gave".) Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 26 08:49:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:49:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shul Message-ID: Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points out. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 27 11:49:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:49:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Amoraic statements Message-ID: Anyone know of any writings on how to think about Amoraic statements that are not sourced but very basic (i.e., why weren't they recorded earlier)? Two quick examples: 1.) Shmuel - dina dmalchuta dina (the law of the land controls), 2.) Rav-Tisha achlu dagan vechad achal yerek-mitztarphin.(9 who ate grain and 1 who ate greens combine[for a zimmun of 10]} 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 Dec 27 11:50:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:50:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sukkah Yeshana Message-ID: <0ba366bf435347f8ac060c596a575ca0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The Mishna in Sukkah (9a) discusses Sukkah Yeshana which one would have thought meant an old sukkah (schach) yet the discussion in the gemara indicates that it is an issue of lishma (intent). Why didn't the Mishna use the language of lishma? The gemara then posits a pasuk as the source of Beit Shammai's position, then asks doesn't he need that pasuk for something else, and replies ein hachi name (yes) and so quotes another pasuk instead. What was the point of Ravina/Rav Ashi including the rejected pasuk as part of the record? 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 seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Dec 30 09:44:16 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:44:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, etc. Message-ID: > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on > Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me > Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. > Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points > out. That's not why they talk. They talk because they saw their parents or other adults talk. They learned that talking is perfectly acceptable. The fact that the Shul has not followed the Mishna Berura and appointed people to end the talking merely reinforces the talkers' understanding that talking is OK. It's like asking why people cheat on their taxes. They don't cheat because they're greedy. We're all greedy. But the tax-cheaters don't have a red line. I admit sometimes the davvening is too long for me, and I get restless. But I never talk. And bli neder I won't davven in a shul where there are talkers, even if it's the only shul in town. Ruins it for me. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 18:45:48 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 21:45:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine posted: > Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because > davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there > are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people > get restless. If there were people who can keep quiet during the weekday minyanim, and only talk on Shabbos, then I would consider it to be a reasonable explanation. But in my experience, the same people talk regardless. If someone talks during a weekday maariv, then shaving twenty minutes off of the Shabbos morning won't prevent his restlessness. The authors of the linked article suggested: > Not talking until the conclusion of Chazaras HaShatz, including > the time between when we finish our silent Amidah and we are > waiting for the chazzan, is doable, it is realistic, it is a > fair expectation of those attending and it is the minimum to be > respectful of our friends and neighbors. Sadly, IMO that's not doable, and not realistic. I'd like to think that I'd be satisfied if they'd be quiet merely from when we finish our silent Amidah until the chazan begins. THAT is a minimum for being respectful of our friends and neighbors. They don't even have to be silent for a noticeable improvement. Halevai they would hold it down to a whisper. (And it doesn't count as a whisper if they can be heard 20 feet away.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 03:22:36 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 06:22:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: I should have concluded my previous post with this: Despite my pessimistic tone, I praise those who are working towards a solution. I have seen many corrective attempts fail, but that doesn't mean there's no way to fix it. Talking in shul is a serious problem, and I apologize if my frustration made it sound otherwise. Akiva Miller From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Oct 3 08:32:16 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 11:32:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: <1db301d45b2e$43dda750$cb98f5f0$@com> Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz? (not sepharadim) I was surprised to see it done. Sources? Thanks, 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/ ======= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 2 22:30:47 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 01:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3e882718-3c29-80fa-6211-ff7172a97fba@sero.name> On 30/09/18 14:13, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. I think you meant the Ramban. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 23:18:08 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 09:18:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:23 AM Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. So > go figure out how /he/ understands the idea that 2 were not taught via > Moshe. > According to the Rambam, the first diber _is_ one of the 613, and this gemara is his proof text -- see Sefer Hamitzvot Mitzvot Ase #1. Assuming that "Rambam" is a typo for "Ramban", see his hassaga on the Sefer Hamitzvot. Ramban holds that the second diber includes two of the 613 (don't make idols; don't worship them). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Wed Oct 3 00:23:19 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:23:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:43:14 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine" > From Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra ... >> In 1921 the great bibliographer (and much more) Yitzchak Rivkind >> .... On Simchas Torah they would open the Aron Kodesh >> when saying Aleinu, both at night and during the day, and while singing >> the Niggun of Mussaf of Yom Kippur would bow on the floor exactly like >> we do on Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur. When he asked for the source of >> this Minhag he was told it comes from the Gra... Interesting. The Robshitse Rov had a similar practice, falling on his face during the hakofos. (It is reported that one year, after bowing during hakofos [the first time?], he commented that only he and his son Yaakov [of Melits] understand the secret. After Yom Tov, it became known that R' Yaakov too had participated in this rite.) (Another story tells of how the grandson of the Kosnitse Maggid, R' Elo'ozor, spoke lightly of this minhag [made fun?] to the Robshite Rov's son, R' Eliezer of Dzikhov, whereupon R' Eliezer protested vehemently, saying all his father's customs have a very high source. On his return, R' Elozor's wagon tipped and he was thrown out of his carriage, falling, as we do on Yom Kippur, on his face. He saw this as a retribution for having spoken lightly of the minhag.) From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Oct 3 09:16:33 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:16:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra Message-ID: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 01:17 PM 9/30/2018, R. Zalman Alpert wrote: >The kluiz of the GRaA in Vilna was essentially the only place in Vilna >and all of Lithuania that followed minhage HAgra to the kotzo shel yud >Chaim Grade a lost talmid of the Chazon Ish and a Vilna native mentions >this in his wonderful novels about shil life in Vilna > >Because the Jslm settlement in early 19th cen was started by disciples >of the GRAthe Rivlins,etc these minhogim becamr and remain the standard >for at least the yishuv hayoshen of Jslm and beyond that group > >And thats how we know these customs in realism rather than from seforim >The Litthuanian yrshivas did not follow these customs nor did kohol,and >certainly not the chassidim of Lithuania who after WwI played an impt >role in Jew rel life in greater lita including Vilna My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and are practiced by many there. Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the Torah? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 3 14:51:19 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 17:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For > example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the > Torah? Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim of the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 14:46:37 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:46:37 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >are practiced by many there. >Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >Torah? It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the original Minhag. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 3 15:32:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:32:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading : the Torah? While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does make a similar point. ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. 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 JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 3 15:42:28 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 22:42:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. > _______________________________________________ This is a description of the fact but not an explanation of why this was a halachically acceptable result (ie where is this exception to the minhag hamakom rule) Kt Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 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 Wed Oct 3 15:54:51 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <16705774-1a3c-c42c-0f78-317676dc6114@sero.name> On 03/10/18 17:46, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >> My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >> practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >> find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >> are practiced by many there. > >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >> Torah? > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. That is a different issue, and one that was once controversial and that one can still question. Here the issue is much simpler, because when Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 18:16:02 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:16:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> Message-ID: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. Because if there was, each returnee would have to adopt the Minhag Hamakom the moment he hit an inhabited city. In contrast, there were no religious Jews left in England after the expulsion, so the newcomers can (and should) follow their old minhagim. The same would presumably apply when Jews started coming back to Spain a few decades back, and unlike Moroccans in France a few decades before. But, as I wrote before, it seems that the Minhag is to follow whatever Minhagim you were used to, especially if you have enough landsmen to create a breakaway community. On October 3, 2018 2:51:19 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading >the >> Torah? > >Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim >of >the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they >now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those > >minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed >the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably >French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? > >-- >Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all >zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you >prosper >_______________________________________________ >Avodah mailing list >Avodah at lists.aishdas.org >http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 21:54:40 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 21:54:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 3, 2018 3:32:20 PM PDT, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. What does he hold about Sefardim moving to France or Germany (which had a continuity - Germany going back well, at least a thousand years and France, while it had a break, did have a religious Ashkenazi community before and after the war). On October 3, 2018 3:54:51 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >o Here the issue is much simpler, because when >Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local >minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in >England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed >them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, >there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to >adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 4 06:19:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:19:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. _______________________________________________ The gemara (Bava Metziah 83b) discusses what hours a worker gets paid for based on the Torah "standard." The gemara queries why not just find out what local practice is? The first answer is it's a case of a new city which was nkutai. Rashi defines nkutai as meaning its residents came from multiple other cities, with multiple other practices. Perhaps this is a model for minhag? New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care what we do? 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 Thu Oct 4 10:17:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:17:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181004171737.GA32625@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:19:57PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a : preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard : for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care : what we do? BM 83b is talking about norms for business, which is likely an entirely different use of the word "minhag" than in issur veheter. For example, when we say "minhag mevatel halakhah" in CM discussions, we are relying on the presumption that both parties would take compliance to local business norms for granted, and a deal can have any conditional both parties agree on. In this CM sense of minhag, there is no reason to assume that halakhah would have problems with other norms emerging, since they are based on the agreement of all parties. But that's a whole different topic than Ashk vs Seph differences in the other 3 Turim, which is where we started. That's minhag in the sense of: 1- Rgional pesaq when other regions hold differently (eg bet yosef meat); or 2- Extra-halachic accepted prohibitions or obligations (eg avoiding qitniyos). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 09:16:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:16:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: <20181003205226.GC17060@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181004161626.GF25881@aishdas.org> Moving this from Areivim. On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 4:28pm -0700, Rabbi Meir Rabi wrote on Areivim: : The Beis Hamikdash wasn't inclusive. More than that, (according to some : opinions) there were professions which weren't obligated to do Aliyah : LeRegel because they smelled bad and couldn't be Oleh Regel with everyone. The beraisa (Chullin 4a) says that dog fertilizer gatherers, tanners and copper smiths are "peturin min hare'iyah". The Rambam tells them get get cleaned up and go (Hil' Chagiga 2:2), the Mechaber (Kesef Mishnah ad loc) explaining that we hold like the Rabanan, not that beraisa. But even if we held like that beraisa that's whether they have a petur for not coming, not an issur to come. In fact, inclusivity might be the whole reason /why/ the Rabanan don't hold like the beraisa. But lo ra'isi eino ra'ayah, so to speak, so naniach someone else does take a harder line, what would that mean? Kehunah is not inclusive of all baalei mum. But attending... The BHMQ is inclusive on the basis of things not dependent on the person's own decisions. No one, not even a nakhri child of an eishes ish, is excluded by virtue of who he is. (In the nakhri's case, up to the soreg, but still, that's true of all nakhriim.) You're talking about someone excluded because of what they chose to do. (Again, given said "some opinions".) Admittedly, too many people lack options. But someone who really wants to be oleh regel who is still forced by circumstance to an unpleasant job would choose a different one. Or beg, if they value aliyah laregel more than the protection from sin offered by "yafeh salmud Torah im derekh eretz". My point is, it's a choice, and not the same kind of exclusion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call micha at aishdas.org life which is required to be exchanged for it, http://www.aishdas.org immediately or in the long run. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:46:34 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:46:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <1b84de96-ba9a-be08-b14f-3941c6ca49ec@sero.name> On 03/10/18 21:16, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the > Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. No, there was not. The First and Second Crusades utterly destroyed the communities that had survived the Roman and Arab occupations, and the communities that started resettling EY in the Ramban's day were all immigrants who brought their chu"l minhagim with them, including the minhagim of paskening like the Bavli, keeping two days of Rosh Hashana, and not benching lulav when the first day of Succos falls on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:51:23 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:51:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0f6cfe7e-6504-98a8-c784-c122f84a59ca@sero.name> On 03/10/18 18:32, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? > : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading > : the Torah? > > While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY > community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does > make a similar point. > > ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to > switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. > He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old > minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi > Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 4 12:10:49 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:10:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rabbi wrote: 'When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways.' Agreed. Yerushalayim didn't have continuity as we know via the Ramban finding less than a minyan there when he arrived, but Chevron AFAIK had continuity from Chazal to 1929. I think Teverya did too. The museum of the old yishuv in the Old City refers to the 'mustarvim' as one of the communities in 19th century Jlem, those who were culturally pretty Arab and claimed descent from the pre-crusades community. For more info this wikipaedia page: History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel is well footnoted. So if there's well documented continuous Jewish presence and even communities in EY throughout, how did the SA set minhagim in EY such that ROY held they were obligatory on new arrivals? What happened to pre-existing customs? Or is it that the disruption and wax and wane of communities over EY with continuous small scale aliya meant there was no such such thing as minhag hamakom? Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 14:48:15 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 17:48:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181004214815.GD14160@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:10:49PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not : countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume : such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? I think it has more to do with communication and transportation changes than a change in principle. The new metzi'us is that we're much more aware of what people five towns over are doing. On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 02:51:23PM -0400, Zev Sero replied to my post: : >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to : >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. : >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old : >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi : >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. : But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his : whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all : the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there : were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument : works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? Well, you might have a question about Edot haMizrach, but EY? Didn't you just write about how the Jewish settlement of EY in the 15th cent wasn't all that dense? But I don't think this is relevent, anyway. Let's say they were wrong to take their minhagim with them. Even if the change in minhag was wrong, the normal practice in EY did indeed change. Unlike the situation once that norm was lost and no new consistent minhag emerged (on all but a few issues). So, I could see ROY saying that right or wrong about its establishment, the SA's minhag still stands as the minhag hamaqom. OTOH, invoking the SA means that he is bringing a textual component to the establishment of minhag. IIRC, ROY frames it in terms of the fact that the SA was written in EY, not that the Mechaber got there due to one of the first large yishuv in centuries, nor the yishuv itself. So perhaps we need to know more about ROY's model of minhag before spending so much time on guesses like the one above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 20:13:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 23:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem Message-ID: On Areivim (subject line same as here), several people have bemoaned how difficult it is to use a wheelchair (and many other assistive devices) in the Old City in general, and the Kotel area in particular. In terms of absolute, quantifiable, objective fact, I can't imagine how anyone could dispute that. I am bringing the topic to Avodah in order to discuss what our feelings and attitudes should be towards this situation. Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I often remark that we are fortunate to live in a time when the technology has allowed us such efficient wheelchairs. Our economy has allowed us to make building codes that require ramps and such, which would have been laughably expensive just a few decades back. Ditto for "kneeling buses" and the like. But it seems to me that you don't need technology or wealth to realize that if the shul is built at a median altitude, it will be easier for *everyone*. And yet Chazal thought it is a better idea to make the shul look impressive. Surely I'm missing something here. Can someone please set me straight? Thanks Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 19:04:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 22:04:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim > on chol hamoed in chutz la?aretz? (not sepharadim) > I was surprised to see it done. > Sources? I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 21:10:16 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 00:10:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/18 15:10, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > > Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not > countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to > assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Perhaps the first post-Talmudic book on halacha was a booklet on the differences between minhag EY and minhag Bavel. So the concept of minhag EY goes back to at least the time of the geonim. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 05:01:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:01:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna?s instruction[1] and codified by the Shulchan Aruch,[2] world Jewry started reciting ?Gevuros Geshamim B?Tchiyas HaMeisim?, better known as the formulaic insert ?Mashiv HaRuach U?Morid HaGashem?, in the second bracha of Shemoneh Esrei. This addition, showcasing the Might of G-d by mentioning the fact that He is the only One who has the power and ability to make rain, is considered so imperative that one who forgets to insert it must repeat the whole Shemoneh Esrei.[3] As there are no vowels in the Gemara or Shulchan Aruch, an interesting question arises: what is the proper way to pronounce the Hebrew word for rain (???) in this sentence? Is it Ge shem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel; eh sound) or is it Ga shem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel; uh sound)? Although the word for rain is pronounced Ge shem when saying the word by itself, still, its proper pronunciation might be changed when part of a sentence. Contemporary halachic authorities used various rules of Hebrew Grammar (dikduk) to come up with the proper solution. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 5 05:28:54 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:28:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 8:01 AM >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 >> On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction... With all due respect for the many great g'dolim who weighed in on this issue and came up with explanations about what the proper pronunciation should be, they came late in the game, after grammarians had already started changing the pronunciation. The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 07:37:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 10:37:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:01:40PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 I have yet to see a discussion that starts at the beginning. Bemechilas kevod everyone who holds "gashem", and who am I to argue against the Gra, the Netziv, the CC, R' Aharon Kotler, R YS Elyashiv, or Rav Moshe? But this article gets closer, by mentioning Sepharadim and the Levushei Mordekhai. Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:28:54PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : they came late in the game, after grammarians had already : started changing the pronunciation. : The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the : rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, : Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be : no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. But this doesn't prove that our mesorah was necessarily that there was a significan pause after "umorid hagashem". Yes, the Teimanim say "Jafen" on wine, and yet still say "geshem" here with a segol. Their mesorah is that is is not a pause. But for Ashkenazim, those older manuscripts do not prove whether or not there is a pause, since the diqduq they used would have "geshem" either way. As for Nusach haAri, Lubavitch's Alter Rebbe liked R Wolf Heidenheim's (Ravah's) siddur and diqduq, so his Nusach Ari was one of the early adopters of these language innovations. Interestingly, this means that most Ashkneazim today are davening in a nusach that is primarily a haskalisher attempt to reconstruct an authentic nusach, that is based on some ahistorical assumptions of what "authentic" was, to boot. And R/Dr Mandel is the only person I know who unwound that shift from Mishaic to Biblical Hebrew across all of davening. Unless you're willing to take that drastic step ("sabe'einu mituvakh, vesamcheinu biyshu'asakh"), saying "geshem" when most of your Hebrew is Mishnaic could something different than it did in those manuscripts, depending if a pause was intended. And, depending on whether the phrase might even be an exception to the usual rules of diqduq. (See R Spitz's article.) We simply can't know. R' Spitz concludes: Postscript: This is just one of a number of places where the majority consensus of Poskim maintain that dikduk decides the proper reading of tefillos.[30] Although many Gedolim through the ages spoke about dikduk's importance,[31] unfortunately its study at present is much neglected. In the words of Rabbi Yisroel Reisman in his excellent book Pathways of the Prophets:[32] "The myth of the lack of importance of (at least) a minimal amount of knowledge of dikduk must be dispelled. This is an area where a small amount of time and effort go a long way. Let's do it!" But to some up this post, we also need to know *which* diqduq. To provide the footnotes for that last quote: [30] See at length Rabbi Yisroel Reisman's Pathways of the Prophets, "Rules of Dikduk" starting on pg. 312. [31] For example see the Rambam's Peirush HaMishnayos (Avos Ch. 2, 1), Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim 142, 1), Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah (Ch. 5, 3), Shu"t Chavos Yair (124), Shu"t Sheilas Ya'avetz (vol. 1, 10), and Bnei Yisaschar (Introduction to Igra D'Kallah and Mayon Ganim 13, 6), all cited in the aforementioned chapter. [32] Pathways of the Prophets (pg. 325). L'iluy Nishmas the Rosh HaYeshiva - Rav Chonoh Menachem Mendel ben R' Yechezkel Shraga, Rav Yaakov Yeshaya ben R' Boruch Yehuda, and l'zchus for Shira Yaffa bas Rochel Miriam and her children for a yeshua teikef u'miyad! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Fri Oct 5 07:14:32 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:14:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An interesting discussion on this is given here by Dr Shnayer Lehman https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm YUTorah Online Online study of the Jewish holidays, Parsha, Halakha and Talmud by Yeshiva University www.yutorah.org From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 5 04:54:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 07:54:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When Sefardi and Ashkenazim Meet Message-ID: <56.57.22391.E4157BB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Rabbi Eli Mansour discusses the convergence of Sefardi and Ashkenazi traditions in contemporary Israel. Please see the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgoo.gl%2FWT2Hjq&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C97625655127d4ae2115708d62aad6b61%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636743321668910329&sdata=qGd8srOfQuC0kDFzrWfAVXfNbcQiB%2BvvgPyGWe3HehQ%3D&reserved=0 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 04:45:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:45:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5310ADD1-3CFE-455E-A5FD-9847E3F075C7@sibson.com> > > I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. > > Akiva Miller > > > _______________________________________________ > But do they duchen at shacharit on yom tov? 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 Fri Oct 5 08:00:43 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:00:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> References: , <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 10:37 AM ... > Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal > form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs > "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, > or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei > Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). > The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because > they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And > Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. ... A slight correction to R Micha's post: as far as we can tell, Chazal Hebrew DID have pausal forms. But they were not based on trop, of course, nor even on on the end of a sentence. They are used consistently in a case of parellismus membrorum in L'shon Chazal, and I am pretty sure in some other situations as well, according to the evidence from the oldest mss. with vocalization, such as the famous Kaufmann ms. of the Mishnah. But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: ??? ???? ?????? ?????, ???? ?? ?? ??????? ...? ?????? ????? ???????? ??????, ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? [For those in digest text mode and therefore can't see the Hebrew, this quote begins "LaKeil Barukh, ne'imos..." -micha] To the best of my knowledge, all old nuskah'ot have "yittenu." Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 06:14:47 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 13:14:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3252f45264ff47778db42a4dcee99b7d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I---------------------------------- IMHO Thomas Kuhn?s thoughts on paradigm shift are applicable here. Western liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be (e.g. I might like to do the avodah but I?m not a cohain) So yes, it could really be (but I?m not qualified to say it is) 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 seinfeld at daasbooks.com Fri Oct 5 08:40:01 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:40:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: 7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY: 1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts scientific History, that?s not a kasheh on the Torah, it?s more like a sha?elah - ?Why did HKBH write this? What?s He teaching me here?? 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no significant debate about that. 3. We don?t know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek ? sounds a lot like the descriptions we have of the Big Bang. 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round. They really do look that way. So either HKBH made them looking old for some reason, or they really are old. A person can ignore the question and say, ?It?s enough for me just to believe,? but the Gemara (and plenty of Rishonim and Acharonim) says that we have an obligation to study Nature to the best of our ability. 6. There are plenty of things that the smartest scientists admit they don?t know. For instance, they think that right after the moment of creation (Big Bang), the entire universe inflated instantly, like someone blowing up a balloon. Just to make this clear. There are patterns in the universe that defy logical explanation. In order to explain these patterns, it has been proposed (and accepted by many but not all cosmologists) that from 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second until 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second after the Big Bang, the universe expanded at an exponential rate (in that short moment it got 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and then the expansion slowed down. They have good reasons for believing this theory. It helps explain some of the bizarre things that we see when we look through our telescopes, chiefly, the fact that the universe appears to be the same in all directions. Yet they have no idea what could have caused this inflation. Worse for them, the current rate of expansion has been proven to be accelerating, but again they have no idea what invisible energy source could be causing this. It would be far simpler to say, ?It looks the same in every direction because it was created at the current size; there was no Big Bang and no expansion and no inflation.? But wait, we see that it is indeed currently expanding. Doesn?t that prove the Big Bang? - Expansion doesn?t prove anything. It?s a fact that requires a theory to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously expand. - Maybe this bizarre things accelerating expansion that we see, along with hypothetical inflation, are just the artist?s signature on His artwork? For after all, the only thing that can cause acceleration is more energy. The best rational explanation for this invisible ?dark? energy is that Hashem continues to be mashpia on the world and wants us to know it, without being too obvious. But wait, we also know that the stars are zillions of miles away from us, and given the known speed of light, their starlight should have taken millions or even billions of years to reach us. Doesn?t that prove at least that the universe is mighty old? - No, it doesn?t: see #5 above. 7. Yet to constantly answer, ?Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, ?What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with ?Hashem does it? without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. So what?s the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, or was it just made to look that way? I don?t know, but I?m personally completely comfortable with either answer. Neither answer can (to my understanding) be proven nor disproven. I suspect they are both true. That, as my grandfather z??l would have said, is my 2-bits. Your critical feedback welcome. Good Shabbos Alexander Seinfeld jewishspirituality.net From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 08:25:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:25:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on Marriage Message-ID: The following are excerpts from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 1:28 28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. "????????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ????????????: 28 God blessed both of them, and He made both of them responsible for the fulfillment of mankind?s mission. ??????? refers to marriage, the union of the sexes for production of human fruit ? children. Just as the choice energies and saps of the tree become ?free? in its fruit as an independent germ (see above, v. 11), so the noblest traits of godliness and humaneness of the father and mother unite to produce an independent human germ. ?????? refers to the family. r'vah = to multiply. Begetting children is not sufficient in order for the human species to multiply. Even in the case of many species of animals, increase of the breed is dependent on care of the young; and in the case of the human species, such care is absolutely essential ? even if viewed only from a physical standpoint. A human child has no chance of survival at all, if his parents do not provide him with care from the moment of his birth and do not continually promote his bodily well-being and development. Not the birth, but the care is the true cause of human increase. But r'vah includes more than this. The parents are obligated to reproduce themselves through their children: They must recur in the image of their children; and the children are to resemble their parents ? not only physically, but spiritually and morally. The parents are to plant and nurture in their children the best of their spiritual and moral powers. In short, their duty is to form and educate their children spiritually and morally. Only then will they recur in the image of their children and fulfill the mitzvah of ?????? . ?????????? refers to property (see Commentary, v. 26). Man is commanded to master the earth and subdue it. His task is to acquire the products of the earth and to transform them, so that they become fit for his purposes. Acquisition of property is prerequisite for the tasks of home and society. Property serves as an instrument with which home and society achieve their aims. Thus, the acquisition of property becomes a moral duty. The mitzvah of ??????, however, is written here last, which implies a limitation: There is no moral value to property, unless it is devoted to home and society. It is a person?s duty to acquire material assets, in order to build a home and to further the society. He should not build a home and support the society in order increase his assets and his wealth. The mitzvah of ???????????? is given at once to both sexes; they are to collaborate in harmony so as to fulfill this mission of man. Nevertheless, before establishing his home, man must first acquire material assets, and this duty ? subduing the earth, so as to further man?s aims ? is primarily incumbent only upon the male. For this reason the duty of marriage and of establishing a home is assigned directly only to the man, and only to him is it given as an unconditional duty. To the woman it is given as a conditional duty; it applies to her, only when she joins her husband. (See Yevamos 65b.) These commands place the Divine imprint on every aspect of familyand communal life. The Torah does not recognize the compartmentalization of life into God-oriented or ?religious,? on the one hand, and profane, untouched by things Divine, on the other. God claims all of life for His service and for the fulfillment of man?s mission as adom. This applies, first and foremost, to family and communal life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 11:59:27 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:59:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <20181005185927.GB26105@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 02:46:37PM -0700, RMR wrote: : It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they : vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, : they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. : So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter : Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the : Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the : original Minhag. I think it's more that minhag hamaqom is about the community, not the geography. If so many new people move in that they overhwelm the old community, they also overwhelm the old minhag. However, when Edot haMizrach got to the US in the late 20th century, many of them moved into existing communities and neither drowned out the old minhag nor did they adopt it. I think they should have done the latter, since minhag avos is only a "thing" when there is no minhag hamaqom. (Except in places like Deal, NJ, which is predominantly Syrian) And for many minhagim, the existing community -- from Yekkes to Vizhnitzers -- did have a single practice. This gets me to an issue left unresolved in a previous discussion of minhag hamaqom: Does minhag hamaqom apply piecewise, or only when there are so many practices that are consistent that there is a general feeling of unity of pesaq. For example, we talk about there being a "minhag hamaqom" in EY about things like saying Shir shel Yom after Shacharis even when there is a Mussaf, or Hakafos after Hallel. But the list of things in which the vast majority of the observant communities of Israel agree upon is quite small. Heterogeneity is the norm. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 12:31:12 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:31:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99B66C72-E111-47AA-ABA5-8E2A753AE7A4@opengemara.org> On October 5, 2018 8:40:01 AM PDT, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: >7 things every Jew should know about Ma'aseh Bereishit, even if it was >not taught in BY: >1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras >Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts >scientific History, that's not a kasheh on the Torah, it's more like a >sha'elah -- "Why did HKBH write this? What's He teaching me here?" ... >4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the >descriptions we have of the Big Bang. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work -- according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). >7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit >facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, >"What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem >does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we >would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving >us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how >to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things >work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Oct 6 11:38:57 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 21:38:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:13 PM Mandel, Seth via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have > at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that > "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, > and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, > in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei gever" in birchot hashahar? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 15:42:10 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C9B4494-797A-437D-B042-3D7AAD5FEFBD@opengemara.org> 1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? 2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). 3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 7 05:56:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 08:56:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181007125626.GC4739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 06:22:12PM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they : also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla : for geshem. I think that's the usual. After all, in Tefillas Geshem we don't just continue the list "mashiv haruach umorid hageshem, mekhalkeil chaim bechesed..." The pause before "Livrakhah velo liqlalah" is less of a question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From isaac at balb.in Sun Oct 7 00:22:12 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 18:22:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I say Geshem (as per R' Soloveitchik et al) I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla for geshem. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sun Oct 7 12:30:33 2018 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:30:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] BDE Moras Shulamith Bechhofer Message-ID: Information from RYBG on facebook: Kevurah for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h,will be at Har HaMenuchos. My brother, Horav Yochanan Meir shlita sitting shiva for 2 days from Monday night after the kevura until Wednesday afternoon in Ramat Shlomo, number 37 Shtefenesht Street by the Schaefer family. Shiva for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h will be at my mother's apartment 146 Beach 9th Street, apartment 4D, Far Rockaway, New York. Beginning Monday morning, Shacharis at 7:30 am, Mincha and Maariv at 6:05 pm. Please try to come be menachem avel before 10:00 pm. I will be returning to Monsey for Mincha Gedola on Friday at 1:15 pm, Maariv Motzoei Shabbos an hour after shekiah, and Shacharis on Sunday morning at 7:30 am, at our house, 3 Zabriskie Terrace. Besuros Tovos. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Sun Oct 7 13:03:01 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 20:03:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message Message-ID: I thought Alexander Seinfeld?s post on this subject was very interesting. I would, however, make one small change. Instead of writing ?7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY,? I would say: 7 things I and some other Orthodox Jews believe about ....? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 01:34:52 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:34:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant past. For example, in the recent controversy over Judge Kavanaugh the following appeared in a world street journal article Christine Blasey Ford was believable and sincere when she told her story of being assaulted by a young Brett Kavanaugh. So was Judge Kavanaugh when he categorically denied her claims?and none of her purported eyewitnesses have any memory of the gathering she describes. They can?t both be telling the truth, but it is possible neither is deliberately lying. The article then goes on to describe how one's memory is affected by (unconscious) attempts to heal emotional wounds. This leads to repression of embarrassing memories or memories becomes less clear over time Furthermore, the adolescent brain (9 to 25) is not fully developed. Middle adolescence (14 to 17) is a time when teens have little connection to the past or future and think only of the present. (In Israel at least 14-17 year olds are very conscious of their future and especially army service at 18) ----------------------------- I don't personally agree with all the details of the article but the total impression is that two people in their 50s testifying about an event in their teen years should be taken with a big grain of salt. Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so would probably pass "drishot"; As an aside I am aware of dayanim questioning witnesses. Is their anyting in halacha about the defendant giving his version and being questioned by the dayanim? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Oct 7 19:16:55 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2018 22:16:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi thanks for your comments. >1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? Not necessarily. Meaning, at times it does, but not always in the way that secular people use the term History. So we should not compare the two. I?d rather say, ?It contains historical information? >2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as >the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no >plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and >there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or >you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the >world was created old). We don?t have to make it work. The point is that most people frankly have no clue what cosmology says about origins (other that it?s complicated and somewhat mystical), and they often dismiss Torah because it appears to them so unsophisticated. Peeking at the Rambam gives one a clue that we have a Mesorah of a extremely sophisticated, complicated and mystical Bereishis. >3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So >hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a >source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted >from Gan Eden)? No I don?t. But I believe I saw in Rav Hirsch that Adam was first created outside Gan Eden and only put in there for the test. From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 8 05:24:45 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:24:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46de6a96-5987-0a36-1097-b2c09f3d0ebd@sero.name> On 08/10/18 04:34, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note > that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so > would probably pass "drishot"; She certainly wouldn't. The most glaring problem with her claim was precisely that she could not fulfil the most basic drishot: "when and where did this allegedly happen"? Without being able to specify these it becomes "eidut she'i ata yachol lehazima" -- it's impossible to claim that the accused was elsewhere that day, let alone the witness. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 06:26:27 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:26:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700, Rabbi wrote: The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes > are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that > nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan > Eden)? *Yes, Chazal and the Rishonim all understood that the six day creation process was not a natural one.* ''All of creation was created fully formed''. At *ma?aseh b?reishis* the ox was created not as a calf but as an adult [Rashi in *Rosh Hashanah* 26a s.v. *shor sheh-hu par*]; and Adam was likewise created as an adult standing fully erect, the Talmud reports, within the same 24-hour period. The idea that Creation was anything less than a totally miraculous process, not conducted through natural processes at all, ''accelerated? or otherwise, is rejected by the *Maharal* (*Be?er HaGolah*, p. 83, *Be?er Four*): Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory?not by means of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. The *Rambam* explains in *Moreh Nevuchim *that it is illegitimate to base conclusions about the origin of the world by examining how the world looks now and assuming that the processes that would now produce such results were responsible, because the nature of things at their origin is different. EVERYTHING produced comes into existence from non-existence; even when the substance of ?a thing has been in existence, and has only changed its form, the thing itself, which has gone ?through the process of genesis and development, and has arrived at its final state, has now ?different properties from those which it possessed at the commencement of the transition from ?potentiality to reality, or before that time. Take, for example, the human ovum as contained in the ?female's blood when still included in its vessels: Its nature is different from what it was in the ?moment of conception, when it was met by the semen of the male and began to develop. The ?properties of the semen in that moment were different from the properties of the living being ?after its birth when fully developed. It is therefore quite impossible to infer, from the nature ?anything possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the ?condition of the thing had been at the time this process commenced. Nor does the condition of ?a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and ?attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually ?existing, you will fall into great confusion: You win reject evident truths and admit false ?opinions.? Let us assume, in our above instance, that a man born without defect had after his birth been ?nursed by his mother only a few months; the mother then died, and the father alone brought him ?up in a lonely island, till he grew up, became wise, and acquired knowledge. Suppose this man ?has never seen a woman or any female being: he asks some person how man has come into ?existence, and how he has developed, and receives the following answer: ''Man begins his ?existence in the womb of an individual of his own class, namely, in the womb of a female, which ?has a certain form. While in the womb he is very small; yet he has life, moves, receives ?nourishment, and gradually grows, till he arrives at a certain stage of development. He then ?leaves the womb and continues to grow till he is in the condition in which you see him.'' The ?orphan will naturally ask: ''Did this person, when he lived, moved, and grew in the womb, eat ?and drink, and breathe with his mouth and his nostrils? Did he excrete any substance?'' The ?answer will be, ''No.'' Undoubtedly he will then attempt to refute the statements of that person, ?and to prove their impossibility, by referring to the properties of a fully developed person, in the ?following manner: ? When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and remained alive, able to move?? ? If any one of us would swallow a living bird, the bird would die immediately when it ?reached the stomach, much more so when it came to the lower part of the belly; if we ?should not take food or drink with our mouth, in a few days we should undoubtedly be ?dead! How then can a human being remain alive for months without taking food?? ? If any person would take food and would not be able to excrete it, great pains and death ?would follow in a short time--and yet I am to believe that man has lived for months ?without that function?!? ? Suppose by accident a hole were formed in the belly of a person, it would prove fatal, ?and yet we are to believe that the navel of the fetus has been open?!? ? Why should the fetus not open the eyes, spread forth the bands and stretch out the legs, if, ?as you think, the limbs are all whole and perfect?!? This mode of reasoning would lead to the conclusion that man cannot come into existence and ?develop in the manner described.? We, the community following in the footsteps of Moses and Abraham, believe that the world came into being IN such-and-such a form, and BECAME such-and-such FROM such-and-such (*haya kach mi-kach *), and such WAS CREATED AFTER such. Aristotle comes to uproot our words, bringing proofs against us based upon nature in its stabilized, perfected and active state. As for us, we declare against him that this is legitimate evidence [for determining processes that must have occurred] after nature?s having settled down in its fully developed stage; but in no way does this correspond to something?s characteristics at its being brought into existence, and produced out of absolute non-existence (MN 2:17). Shabbos marks the cessation of a process that was ongoing beforehand. If G-d's method of development of the world was through the same natural laws and processes in effect now, what ceased on the first Shabbos? None of the things mentioned above [the creation of Eve from Adam, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge, the history of the serpent and the events connected therewith] is impossible, because THE LAWS OF NATURE WERE THEN [UNTIL THE END OF THE SIX DAYS] NOT PERMANENTLY FIXED (Ibid. 2:30). The Ralbag uniquely understands specific statements by Chazal to be saying that Hashem created virtually everything simultaneously and instantaneously on the first day, all in their fully developed form (with the exception of the growth of vegetation of the fifth day) and that therefore the ?days? of Creation are ?categories.? This makes the creation process even less natural. It is noteworthy that the approach of the Ralbag is to build the understanding through the teachings of *Chazal*, and not through rejecting them on the basis that they differ with the science of the day. Zvi Lampel > > > > > [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/08/18, 9:21:07 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Oct 8 07:38:02 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 10:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Noach An Interesting Insight Message-ID: Last week God created the world. This week (some 1,656 years later), God destroys the world. Interestingly, the Baal Hatanya (Shneur Zalman of Liadi) writes that the flood has never ended and continues until this very day. We are all subject to the floods in life. We are flooded with all sorts of problems, issues, conflicts, etc. ? some more, some less. The world is still chaotic but when we do our part to minimize our personal floods, we help to minimize the floods of the world. The flood of money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy. Theodore White (American political journalist and historian) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 11:37:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:34:52AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. : Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by : many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant : past. Chaqirah is the ability to answer specific questions about the when and where of the event: 1- Which shemitah cycle 2- Which year in the cycle 3- Which month 4- Day of month 5- Day of week 6- Hour of day 7- Where And the SA discusses what we do now when we don't use 1&2 as the primary means of identifying the year, if the person is off by a day in the month, but has the correct day-of-week so that it's an obvious calendar mistake not error, etc... There is also the regular notion of cross examination, derishah. Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, asked of each eid separately. And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. So let's talk more about dinei mamonos, where neither hasra'ah nor eid echad neeman be'isurim apply. Still, we confabulate memories. Especially emotionally laden ones like something a heated argument is churning over. But can two eidim confabulate identically when they can't hear eachothers' cross-examination? But I would like to really focus on is: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. If so, why would we hold terei kemei'ah? After all, if dozens of people say the same thing, why would we believe two holdouts equally? For that matter, what would eidus be more trustworthy than even "smoking gun" level evidence? I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. But I fear that more than one paragraph on this topic would annoy people who didn't go for the idea in prior iterations. So, unless there is interest expressed, I will stop here. 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 larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Oct 8 14:39:41 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 17:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben Shapiro's take on abortion. YL Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when he speaks and is being interviewed. On Sunday, at the conclusion of the latest edition of The Ben Shapiro Election Special on the Fox News Network, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro used the last segment of the show to mount a powerful assault on abortion that was unlike any seen on a network news show before. Shapiro showed pictures from ultrasounds and illustrations of babies at various stages in utero to support his case, aware that when women see ultrasounds of the babies they are carrying, they are much less likely to consider having an abortion. Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. The later the abortion takes place, the more brutal the procedure, but no matter the brutality of the procedure, it is obvious that abortion is not some mere optional surgery to be performed for convenience. And it?s even more obvious that those who want to protect the lives of the unborn aren?t trying to control women?s bodies. Those who cherish abortion are trying to control and dismember the bodies of the unborn. Think about that next time you see a radical feminist in a Handmaid's Tale outfit suggesting that you?d better respect her right to carve apart an unborn baby in the womb or you?re some sort of fascist. No more euphemisms. See https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F36835%2Fwatch-shapiro-gives-fiery-unprecedented-assault-daily-wire&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=%2Bqenj6TOK0BiMopCLwHGel5WMFGPn5BJJ7Onf2R6yuM%3D&reserved=0 and especially the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Ftime_continue%3D27%26v%3DpoB8aIXI0Yo&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=kLq3f6Bo%2F9X3rP4HXORP3uhB5Wo6hC1ifHM%2BVBGt9j4%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 19:50:38 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:50:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181009025038.GA29143@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 05:39:41PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: :> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of :> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. Well, Rav Moshe holds as much, but most posqim do not. Shapiro is conflating the fact that Yahadus considers abortion a serious avlah with Pro-Life rhetoric that the avlah happens to be retzichah. Halachipidia has the following list (my translitations): What is the Prohibition? 1. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein - abortion is considered murder. However, this murder does not come with a death penalty. There are some cases of murder when the murderer does not get the death penalty. One of these cases is someone who murders one who is terminally ill. [4] 2. Rabbi Issar Unterman - abortion is considered abuzraihu deretzichah akin to murder.[5] 3. It is a violation of the positive commandment of peru urvu Part of the commandment is to allow every potential soul to come into being, and if one does abortion, they cannot do this. [6] 4. Spilling the seed/Onanism. The fetus is more similar to the basic seed than to a human, so destroying the fetus would be like destroying the seed.[7] 5. Aborting the fetus is injuring the mother (Chavalah). Exodus 21 says that if two men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and there is no death, but the fetus is miscarried, then they have to pay a monetary payment. So the fetus is more a part of the mother than a separate life. [8] 6. It is a Rabbinical prohibition. There is no clear prohibition in the Torah, so our only real sources are the rabbinical sources.[9] 7. According to the Zohar, one who kills a fetus is guilty of destroying God's handiwork. [10] it is unclear if this constitutes a different view of the technical prohibition, or if this is just a reasoning explaining the severity of abortion. A punishment unlike that for murder is detailed. Notes: [4] Iggros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat, Part 2, Chapter 69 [5] I.Y. Unterman, Noam VI (1963), 1-11 as cited in David Feldman, Birth Control In Jewish Law [6] Yevamos 63b [7] Talmud Bavli: Niddah 13a; Chavos Yair, Siman 31 [8] Exodus 21:22 [9] Sanhedrin 72; Tzitz Eliezer, Jerusalem, 1963, volume VII, number 48, p. 190. [10] Hok L'Yisrael, Shemot for Monday, Zohar, Shemot 3b Note how most shitos do say the fetus is not a person. #5 in particular is based on the idea that the fetus is an organ of the mother. (Which is also consistent with pen paqua.) No.s 3, 4 and 7 are about stopping the process of later producing a person. Likely #2 (abuzraihu deretzichah) as well, although it could be some other near-retzichah connection. And as for #6, it depends which deOraisa the deRabbanan is supporting. But even so, not retzichah, no human life yet. As the Bach explains the Rambam's position... You can abort a fetus to save the life of the mother a moment before it would have crowned, because it is kerotzeiach -- LIKE a rotzeiach. But it's not actually a rotzeiach, which is why in the same situation but a moment later, once the baby did crown, one could not commit infanticide to save the mother. A fetus before crowning is not subject to the same issur as after. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 9 11:04:42 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:04:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 Message-ID: In June 1990 Light Magazine published an article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer dealing with "his life in perspective; what is Torah Im Derech Eretz? ; his attitude toward modern Hebrew; and his mida of emess and bitachon. The article is at Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 9 15:26:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> References: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181009222604.GA27505@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 02:37:57PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, : asked of each eid separately. : : And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim : had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they : had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. .... REMT, kedarko beqodesh, gently corrected me in private. The eidim testifying need to have witnessed hasra'ah, and didn't have to have given it themselves. Which means that the tail of my post applies to sin/crim as well, not only dinei mamunus (as long as it's not eid echad ne'eman be'isusim). I think what I said about confabulation vs indepent derishah vechaqira of each eid separately, and (more importantly) my argument for not assuming that the neemanus accorded eidus isn't because we necessarily consider it the least fallible both still stand. Chodesh Tov! 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Thu Oct 11 01:20:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:20:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom Message-ID: << But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? >> The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a sefardi community and ROY's claim is that the Ashkenazim should have followed the existing sefardi customs. Obviously the talmidei hagra and the chassidim didn't agree. How far one goes back is part of a responsa by RMF that one who davens "chassidic" can change to Ashkenaz but not the other way since the original minhag was Asjkenaz and changed by the early chassidim. So according to RMF the fact someonepnes great...grandather 10 generations ago davened in nusach Ashkenaz has halachic meaning As to minhag EY and minhag Yerushalayim most date back about 100 years ago and a few to the days of takmidei hagra and the early chassidim. Almost none to earlier than that. The minhag of having a single drummer at a wedding in Jerusalem has mostly been replaced by a single organ player that can simulate a whole orchestra. Others claim that it holds only in the old city or that it was established by the old yishuv some 100 years ago and they are not part of that community One widespread minhag EY from the talmidei hagra and hasidim is not to wear tefillin on chol hamoed. Even in this case I have heard of some olim who put on tefillin after they return from shul. One really ancient minhag in Yerushalayim refers to not leaving a corpse overnight and so having funerals in the middle of the night. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 03:01:59 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:01:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fish With Legs?! In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: In Parshas Noach, we read about how Hashem brought the Great Flood and destroyed all living creatures, save for those inside Noach?s Ark and the fish in the oceans, who were spared as well. It would be fascinating to find out on which side of the Teiva a ?fish with legs? would have been. Would it have been considered a fish or an animal? Far from being a theoretical question, this actually happened when... To find out the full story, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Fish with Legs?!" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 02:58:05 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:58:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach Message-ID: The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both immorality and dishonesty?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 09:49:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011164903.GC19398@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 09:58:05AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach :> It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality :> than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. : : I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both : immorality and dishonesty?" The Meshekh Chomah notes... Pausing here for a shameless plug: I am now giving a quick (15-20 min) talk on Facebook Wed nights 9:30pm EDT. This comment is from that. So, the MC notes... That the dor hamabul sinned both - sexually - ki hishchis kol basar; and - financially - chamas. And he writes about the opening pasuq, based on a Rashi on the Gemara (AZ 6a): tamim -- anav ushefal ruach tzadiq - [bemaasav -gemara] - belo chamas RMShK writes that Noach "bedorosav" -- his 2 doros -- had very different challenges. Living in the pre-flood dor, being a tzadiq bemaasav and not influenced by the general dishonesty and sexual license around him, was the greater challenge. (How often does someone cut ethical corners because "that's how business is done now?") However being tamim in his midos, his anavah, was easy. The culture didn't value his tzidqus. However, in the post-flood dor, everything existed becaus of him. And the people around him had learned from the experience of tending to the animals for a year. Little challenge from peer pressure, but a much bigger challenge keeping his ego in check. This is a point the MC makes on "Malki-Tzedeq melekh Shaleim" -- the year in the midbar was a lesson in sheleimus, and that's his part of the foundation of Y-m. Avrahama added "behar Hashem Yeira'ah" to make Yerushalayim. (And thus the "-ayim", pair, in the name.) See MC Bereishis 22:14. Back to the point, it would seem that chazal attribute both difficulties to Noach's pre-flood life. It too was an "age of both immorality and dishonesty". 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 llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 08:58:19 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:58:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood ? make the ark [to consist] of enclosures for animals ? and cover it inside and out with pitch. In any event, a tavah is shaped like a box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ has no relationship to the one Noach built. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 11 07:06:55 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:06:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/10/18 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole >> Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other >> countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing >> communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and >> not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? > > The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established > community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new > minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a > sefardi?community But this isn't the case. After the crusades destroyed the original EY community with its minhagim, a new community was established by olim, who brought their mihagim with them from chu"l, and by the time the grushei Sefarad arrived there was already an established community. And what about the rest of the Mediterranean, where there were thousand-year-old communities? Leshitaso shouldn't the Sefardim who settled in each of those countries have adopted the local mihagim? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 11 06:10:16 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:10:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices Message-ID: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were an ongoing situation? 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 Thu Oct 11 07:29:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:29:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching Torah to Women Message-ID: Although throughout the ages there were Jewish women who were learned and revered1 the concept of formal education for women is barely a century old.2 Before this time, they would learn whatever was necessary from their parents.3 Girls generally did not go out of the home, and were often illiterate.4 The modern school system teaches many subjects to the girls, including Chumash, Halachah, Navi and Mishnah. Some even teach Gemara.5 Girls learn Chumash in depth with Ramban, and study more halachah than boys in yeshivah.6 The Bais Yaakov movement was spearheaded by Sarah Schenirer with just twenty-five girls in 1917,7 as a reaction to many factors8 which had changed the status quo.9 Since then, hundreds of girls? schools have been created. For more on this topic Click here to download "Teaching Torah to Women" For information about the history of the Bais Yaakov movement see https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note the curriculum of the Bais Yaakov Seminary in Krakow starting on page 77. In particular, Five Books of Moses: This included the study of the Five Books of Moses in the original and in its entirety with the commentary of Rashi and Rabbi Samuel Raphael Hirsch. and German: Instruction in the correct oral and written use of the language. The goal of this course was to provide the teachers with the ability to read by themselves the important religious literature of Hirsch and others which were written in the German language, as well as selected classical works such as the poetry of Schiller, Goethe, Nathan the Wise by Lessing, Zweig, and Beer-Hoffman. Times have indeed changed, have they not! YL study times. of the Five -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 10:04:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:04:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: <20181011170422.GD19398@aishdas.org> I got to the Arukh haShulchan's discussion of Chazal changing the entire definition of qinyan. MideOraisa, paying would be the qinyan. But Chazal were afraid that sellers wouldn't properly safeguard the item between payment and handing it over to the buyer. After all, any loss or damage is the buyers, ownership was already transfered. So, chazal made various qinyanim that demonstrate the buyer taking the item. The Torah gives the halakhah. Chazal realize that given the low state of the people around them, the halakhah would have cons that outweigh the pros. So, they change it. Reminds me of pruzbul or heter isqa, cases where in order to help someone who needs a loan get one, we allow suboptimal loan arrangements. In each case, a different validation for doing so: - Qinyan in general allows custom and agreement by both parties override the default law. - Similarly heter isqa was always technically allowed; our rabbanim just standardized a means of utilizing this alternative financial arrangement. - Pruzbul is violating shemittah derabbanan. So, while the gemara requires the motive of helpoing the poor get loans to even violate the ke'ein deOraisa, tHillel didn't rewrite Torah. But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and limit the damage. So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:01:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:01:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011190137.GG27474@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 03:58:19PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 :> In any event, a tavah is shaped like a :> box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward :> the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut :> through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. : Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ : has no relationship to the one Noach built. True; it's just the reconstruction of some Xians, given the text and the assumption that it was build not to capsize. RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis for Noach et al not to have capsized. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Oct 11 13:34:12 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:34:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Again read RSRH's commentary and you will see how he arrives at his conclusion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:14:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011191454.GA19331@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:13:44PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else : being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. : I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a : location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and : elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities : of young folks. RJR suggests that the advantage to the tzibbur would indeed trump the disadvantage for the individual. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 1:14pm UCT, he wrote: : ... Western : liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish : thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role : and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be... The comment RAM was replying to (I think) was my discussion of the advantage to the majority of the community of being pushed to think about those who need more help. IOW, not accessible shuls for the sake of those who need accessibility, but for the sake of those who need practive remembering as they pursue qedushah they they must consider others. (Especially leshitas RSShkop, where qedushah is /defined/ as commitment "leheitiv im hazulas". Not exclusively so.) I think it's simply that the hill wasn't thought of as a major inconvenience. And perhaps an obstacle likely to keep someone from coming wouldn't be a proper place for your elevated shul. Or, possibly that yes, this halakhah was only speaking "when all else is equal". Tir'u baTov! -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 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 13:10:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:10:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 01:10:16PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan : once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), : which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were : an ongoing situation? I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood of feeling anything. 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 Oct 11 16:42:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 19:42:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 09:38:57PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei : gever" in birchot hashahar? I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing But look at the Kaf haChaim OC 46 s"q 18. So I know they did in 19th cent Baghdad. However, ROY is recorses in Qol Torah vol V pg 20 as promoting gaver and aved. But in the cases we started with -- gefen and geshem. Also, Rav Pa'alim vol II, OC #25. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 12 04:36:37 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 07:36:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. > >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, >including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is >where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the >fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when >you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below >with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis >for Noach et al not to have capsized. First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because HaShem kept it afloat. Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different before the flood than after it. In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the flood were the same as they are today? If they were different before the flood, then your physics analysis does not hold water! >:-} ( have no basis for asserting that the laws of physics were different before the flood, but it is possible in light of the different climatic conditions.) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 12 05:26:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:26:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7285ED0D-3270-486A-9AD2-8DBA569E7AF4@sibson.com> [Micha:] > I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. > Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give > priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning > to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. > But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all > that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can > have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. > Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an > abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood > of feeling The question of relative priorities is always complex. I don't think this question has an algorithmic response Other than if you say all other things are equal, Which of course they never are. Kt Joel Rich From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 12 05:33:15 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:33:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> , <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Transliterations mine, but I tried to be more consistent with RSM's already present transliterations. -micha] From: Micha Berger Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:42 PM > I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing Since my name was mentioned, I think R. Micha was inviting me to add my ha'penny's worth. The Ashkenaz mss. all have gover. As due Yemenite mss. I do not remember what most S'faradi mss. have. One thing that people are only partially aware of, including many rabbonim who decided to comment on grammatical matters without the necessary study, is that L'shon Chazal is a different language than Biblical Hebrew, but that Chazal grew up knowing T'NaKh by heart, and so sprinkled their language with Biblical quotations, just as English writers leaven their language with quotations from Shakespeare or the Bible. Those quotations are in the archaic dialect of English that was spoken in the 16th-17th Century when Shakespeare lived and the King James translation was done. and do not represent the language spoken by a 21st Century writer. Similarly the language of T'filla as composed by Chazal uses their spoken Hebrew, which we call L'shon Chazal, but it is as full of quotations from the T'NaKh as a raisin bun is of raisins. Which makes it often difficult to distinguish what is L'shon Chazal from what is a quotation. I am writing a treatise about this, which God willing I will publish one of these days, which will contain proofs and various strategems to distinguish what is what. But if the language is found in a posuk, you can be sure it is a quotation. And the phrase ????? ??? [mitz'adei gaver] appears twice, once in T'hillim 37 and once in Mishlei 20, once at the beginng of a phrase and once at the end. It seem fair to me to assume that they used the form at the end of a phrase to put in the b'rokho, and so I would argue that the b'rokho is incorporating the language of ?????? ?????????-?????, ??????? ???-??????? ????????? [MeiYY mitz'adei-gover, ve'adam mah yovin darko.] and so it would be "gover," as the mss. I saw have it. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com Fri Oct 12 07:20:01 2018 From: loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com (Looking ForInspiration) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: Hello! This is my first post to aishdas.org, so forgive me and direct me if needed. Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both? Thank you in advance. Mordechai From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 12 08:20:24 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181012152024.GE12524@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 07:36:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: : >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. : >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, : > .... It would be another neis : >for Noach et al not to have capsized. : : First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the : animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen : in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed : have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because : HaShem kept it afloat. Which I noted. However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compell him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about apparence except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. : Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the : flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that : there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a : much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different : before the flood than after it. : In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the : flood were the same as they are today? Saying the world had a different climate doesn't mean the laws of nature changed. It could mean the earth changed. There is no reason to believe science itself changed since; and in fact some reason to believe it hadn't. After all, "mikol melakhto asher bara E-lokim la'asos" was before the first Shabbos. The notion that the universe changed in a new fundamental way since isn't 100% in concert with that. Although I realize "nishtaneh hateva" has numerous explanations, I don't know if any require believing the laws themselves changed. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 12 09:57:31 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:57:31 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Welcome on board! I didn't look up that sugya itself, but it could be that it was a Mishna Rishona Mishna Achrona thing. Like the reason that the Halacha in Machlokes VeAchar Kach Stam is different than in a Stam VeAchar Kach Machlokes. Also, regarding who actually wrote the Mishna - it's a Machlokes Rashi (who said (in Eiruvin, in the Samechs on the sugya of More Halacha Bifnei Rabbo) that the Mishna wasn't written in the Gemara's time) and the Rambam (who said that Rebbi wrote the Mishna). I heard that it boils down to the two Girsas of Rabbi Sherira Gaon's famous letter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 19:31:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 22:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people > on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in > reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in > the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, > halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) I think your cases are great examples of how Hashem deliberately left room for us to "improve" the Torah somewhat, thereby partnering with Him, exactly as you've explained. > And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. > Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is > not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into > account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and > limit the damage. > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted > keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be > when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than > the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged > YhR? Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her (unless he follows the prescribed procedure). That's what is meant by "lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR." The only solution is the one prescribed by the Torah itself; there is nothing for Chazal to add. Alternatively: D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. Chazal can forbid shofar on the years when RH is on Shabbos, but they can't ban it entirely on Yom Tov because of musical instruments being muktzeh. So, given that the Torah DOES allow one to take the Yefas Toar (after following the prescribed procedure), how might you word your proposed d'rabanan? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 12 14:16:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 21:16:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which Actions Have Value Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:16 You shall make a light for the ark and finish it within one cubit of the top, and set the entrance to the ark in its side; you shall make it with lower, second and third stories. God chose one man who was to save himself, his family and the animal world; he would be able to save them and himself ? only if he would do everything just as God had commanded him.?Gadol ha-mitzuveh ve-oseh me-me she-aino metzuveh ve-oseh (Kiddushin 31a) is a fundamental principle in Judaism. Contrary to prevailing opinion, a person?s actions have value only if they constitute the performance of God?s Will. What a person does on the basis of his own judgment, and the like, is of secondary, uncertain importance. During the 120 years that passed between God?s announcement to Noach and the actual onset of the flood, Noach could have done so many things: he could have built a hundred arks, and so forth. Scripture?s sole intent, however, is to say that Noach did exactly as God had commanded him; the rest he left to God. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 14 09:02:01 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 16:02:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] In sight Into Korbanos Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 8:20 20 Then Noach built an altar to God and took of every pure animal and of every pure bird, and offered ascent offerings upon the altar. la Shem; our offerings are directed to the aspect of God?s rule that desires not destruction, but life. '? is the source of all life and of all future existence, and He is ready at all times to grant new life, new vigor, and a new future. Symbolically, one offers his own life in order to win new life from God; one offers oneself up to God in order to be consecrated by God and to be elevated to a holy life on earth. One does not bring an offering to a vengeful, angry, bloodthirsty god. Rather, one who brings an offering devotes to God?s Will every pulsebeat, every nervous impulse, all muscular strength. To make an offering means to win from God eternal life. One does not offer up an animal; one offers up himself through the animal. When a person offers an animal before God and leans his hand upon it; when he slaughters it, collects its blood, dashes its blood upon the altar, and surrenders its head, legs, breast, and carcass to the flames ? in doing so he offers to God his own blood, his own mind, his own muscular strength, and surrenders himself completely to the fire of God?s Will, as set down for Israel in the Torah. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 14 20:08:41 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 23:08:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lech L'cha "Go For It" Message-ID: <406EA56D-CA2C-4FE0-B5F1-5C237B5152BE@cox.net> 12:1 Vayomer HaShem el Avram: "Lech L'cha," etc. The gematria of Lech L'cha is 100. So Avram was being told that life is a compromise: 50/50. And if he lives with give and take (50/50), he ends up with 100%. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 00:53:35 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:53:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: < Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. >> Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. Killing a fetus is not murder and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 01:12:31 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:12:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: << I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. >> First anything I brought from the Kavanaugh case was simply it was that stoty that made me think of the issue. The details of that story are immaterial. The basic question was that recent studies demonstrate false memories and especially from years ago and when the wirnesses may have been teenagers when they are not yer completely developed. On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered neveilah. The Taz doesn't like such a scenarion but many others disagree with him. They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:45:24 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89a90ad8-4240-fb55-2d1d-fba96a91819b@sero.name> On 15/10/18 04:12, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to > death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Mon Oct 15 05:49:36 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <0A43202F-B23C-41DE-A4E7-8002ED599973@tenzerlunin.com> ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses. * * * They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport).? ISTM that there should be a significant difference between executing someone when you have definitive information (I won?t use the word evidence) that he is innocent and eating a piece of meat that, although it in fact came from a non-kosher animal, is treated halachically as kosher. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 07:16:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:16:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015141643.GA20844@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:12:31AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death : even though the facts might not be true. : More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of : modern techniques versus two witnesses I didn't think I was implying that. If there is evidence -- regardless of DNA's own issues -- but not eidim, the facts are not established to the point of chiyuv misah. If there are eidim to convict, but the evidence points otherwise, the dayanim can't close derishah vechaqirah until they resolve the conflict to their own satisfaction. Given the whole bit about "achas leshev'ah / leshiv'im shanah", perhaps their own satisfaction should be to a "beyond reasonable doubt" kind of standard. (Maybe the person had a mum exactly where the knife entered would probably be considered by most of us "beyond unreasonable doubt".) : I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In : particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem : was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it : can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of : the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered : neveilah... The case in the SA that I remember : They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif : and not the metzius. That is a misphrasing. I said that pesaq relies on how we perceive the world -- and in fact this perception is the meaning of the word "metzi'us". (Which, I will note again, comes from "matza", which doesn't imply theoretical objective existence.) The nearest I come to the way you put it would be to say that matters like probability go into how we think about an unobserved unknown. Evidence is a matter of changing the odds, not of establishing definitive metzi'us. ------------------ And my pet theory is an extension of R' Aqiva Eiger's teshuvah (#136) explaining the difference between kol deparish, where rov matters, and qavu'ah. RAE makes is a chiluq between rules of birur when the reality is unknown (kol deparish) and ones where the reality was established but the halakhah is unkown. Treating this as a very broad kelal, eidus changes a kol deparish type question into a qavu'ah. Which is why rov no longer epplies, and terei kemei'ah. Evidence without observation keeps it a kol deparish question, although it does shift the odds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:40:52 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:40:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15/10/18 03:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life.?>> > Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. > Killing a fetus is not murder According to some. > and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. And as Ronald Reagan pointed out, if you're not sure whether something is murder, then committing it is at least reckless endangerment. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 08:50:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:50:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 06:40:52AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is : : With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. Except that the Bach explains that's is NOT what the Rambam holds. Which is why Rotzaiach 1:9 distinguishes between aborting to save the mother before crowning, and not committing infanticide a fraction of a moment later after the baby crowns. If abortion were murder, there would be no shift in priorities between the mother's and baby's lives before and after birth. Or: A "KErodeif" (as the velad isn't doing anything itself to risk the mother) who isn't a full person may be killed, but once born, ein dochin nefesh mipenei nefesh. Rashi (Sanhedrin 72b "yatza rosho") says that the unborn fetus isn't subject to "ein dochin NmPN" because it isn't a nefesh yet. The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 09:01:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:01:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> References: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015160131.GB26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:50:59AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the : contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam : cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? The Arukh laNeir (Sanhedrin 72b) writes that the chiluq is that in the second case we cannot isolate whether the child (once crowned) is the mother's rodeif, or the other way around. The IM (CM 2:69) writes similarly. But neither deal with the Bach's question of how that means "ein dochin" is the principle in particular invoked to explain why we cannot kill the baby after crowning, but not the fetus a moment before. Also, how is it true that we always know before crowning that it's the fetus in the mother's way, but if the head is partly out, we don't? Balebatishe question.... Let's say it's the umbilical cord vs the mother's blood loss -- does that dynamic change with crowning? But in any case, my point was that the Bach means that we cannot say as a certainty that there is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam about whether a velad is a person. Just that some acharonim take him to say so. And once you look at acharonim, variants on the theme that is definitely Rashi's abound. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 06:48:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 09:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: *Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400* *From: Looking ForInspiration >* *To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org * *Subject: * *Hello!* *This is my first post to aishdas.org , so forgive me and direct me **if needed.* *Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that **when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, **it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this **mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author?* *I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, **Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone **can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible **as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it **would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, **the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba **Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of **Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write **the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both?* *Thank you in advance.* *Mordechai* This should be helpful: >From Rambam's Letter to R. Pinchas HaDayyan (In R. Sheilat's edition, Teshuva 140): ...every decision that he [Rebbi Yehuda HaNassi] presented without attaching an author's name originated [not with him, ?but] with other sages. And those other sages as well were not the originators of those decisions, ?but [merely stated how they understood what they] obtained from the mouths of others, and the ?others from still others, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. .. [T]hey ...explicitly stated in so many places, ?Rebbi ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue A, and presented them anonymously; but he ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue B, and presented them anonymously.".This ?openly states that whatever Rebbi endorsed as final halacha, and considered the proper ?practice to follow, he stated without associating anyone?s name with it. And in so many places ?the Gemora says, ?This anonymously-stated halachah is an individual?s opinion [and not the ?majority?s]?--Rabbeynu did not mentioned the names of any of them [--neither that of the ?individual whom the halacha followed, nor that of the majority]. ? ?[Only] when it came to matters that Rebbi did not consider settled, but still debatable, and ?about which he did not lean one way or the other, did he state both opinions in the names of ?their proponents (?R. So-and-so says this, and R. So-and-so says that?) mentioning the names ?of those sages, or of recently living ones, from whom he heard those opinions--but [still] not of ?their mentors or mentors?-mentors' names. For at the time, many people still followed one ?opinion, and many still followed the opposing one. Suffice it to say that he [himself] told us ?explicitly why, in some of the mishnas, he attached names:? And why do we mention the words of Shammai and Hillel only to negate them [by ?adding that the majority of sages disagreed with both and decided differently]??to ?teach the following generations....? ? And why do we mention the dissenting words of ?individuals along with those of the majority...???So that if a Beis Din will agree with the ?individual?s opinion and rely upon it....[R' Yehuda (ben El'ai) added:] And why do we ?mention the words of the individual together with those of the majority only to negate ?them??So that if a person reports receiving a teaching other than that which was ?accepted by the majority....?? ...it was only necessary to mention opposing opinions during those times ?that some practiced one way, and others practiced a different way, when some obtained the ?law according to one sage?s opinion, and some according to another sage?s opinion. End of quote from Teshuva. Regarding stam mishnayos that contradict, each mishna had its own author and, following Rambam, Rebbi placed them in the order he did. One explanation is that he changed his mind, and his pesak is identified by the rules of stam v'acher kach machlokess (machlokess meaning a mishna with an opposing view, not necessarily a mishna contaning two views), and vice versa. However, the majority of Tannaim in Rebbi's day did sometimes differ with him. And in cases where the Beis Din Gadol did not put the issue to a formal vote, later authorities, even Amoraim, did not necessarily follow Rebbi's decision. Regarding the last point, check out Rambam's payrush, followed also by the Rav MiBartenura, on the mishnayos at the beginning of Eidiyos, and see how it differs from that of the Raavad and Tosefos Shantz Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/15/18, 9:02:19 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Sat Oct 13 20:23:41 2018 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 23:23:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Moving this aspect of the discussion over from Areivim. Subject line is mine. -micha] On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM Micha Berger via Areivim wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 01:26:50PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: >: I am surp[rised that you did not suggest that men begin wearing >: tephillen the entire day as was apparently the custom in ancient >: times... > For people who had desk jobs. > Laborers didn't, for pragmatic reasons. And in an agrarian society, that > was most men most of the day, except in the winter. My impression was that the heter to not wear tefillin (issur to wear tefillin) only applied to particular cases, such as one who was carrying a burden (of a particular size or content, i.e., excrement) on their head, but that a normal farmer/craftsman/laborer would generally wear tefillin the entire day. A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did not wear tefillin, but it is critical of this practice, and although the gemara appears to give a justification of such (while still maintaining its objection to the reality), it is not along the white collar/blue collar axis. Josh From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 11:18:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015181859.GE5656@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 11:23:41PM -0400, Joshua Meisner via Avodah wrote: : A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did : not wear tefillin... The context is, any mitzvah, like milah, that people were moseir nefesh for when there was a government deceree is still muchzeqes beyadam. Tefillin was given an example where there never was such a history, and therefore our commitment remains less. It says "merupeh beyadam", not that people weren't wearing them at all, which is what you say here. Nor, more on-target for our discussion, that people were wearing them just for davening instead of all day. Possible referants: Tzeduqim wore their tefillin on the bridge of their noses (bein einekha). So many Jews were nikhshal. Or maybe there were sects who believed like the Qaraim or R that there are no physical objects involved at all to keep the ideas in sight and at hand. But it just struck me -- most likely, that they weren't careful to keep a guf naqi. After all the gemara reads: ... kegon tefillin, adayin hi berufah beyadam. DEamar R' Yanai: tzerichim guf naqi... What's that dalet doing there in "de'amar" if R' Yanai wasn't discussing said ripui? RGS writes : Here's a question for you: Why don't men wear tefillin all day long? The mitzvah is not just during morning services; it is throughout the day (cf. Tur, Orach Chaim 37). So why don't we wear them all day? The answer to this question is historical... There is textual evidence that already in Talmudic times there were many people who did not wear tefillin.... His argument here is the same as yours. ... The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 13a) specifically condemns those who never wear tefillin. This laxity by many on wearing tefillin continued into the Middle Ages. Tosafos (Shabbos 49a sv. ke-Elisha) write that one should not be surprised that at that time people were lax in tefillin, since they were in the times of the Talmud also. This is attested to in many other places, and in the times of the Geonim there are even implications that almost no one in the land of Israel wore tefillin. The Beis Yosef (Even Ha-Ezer 65) quotes the Kol Bo who suggests that in some communities ashes are not placed on a groom's forehead because the community members do not wear tefillin. There was even a responsum by R. Sherira Gaon, copied in many medieval works on halakhah, answering a question about whether it is yuhara (haughty) for a yeshiva student to wear tefillin when no one else does. It seems that in order to defend this practice, some rishonim utilized the idea that one who wears tefillin needs a "guf naki - clean body". The Shibbolei Ha-Leket (Buber ed., p. 382) quotes one view that "guf naki" means that a person is clean of sins.... Sefer Ha-Chinukh (no. 421) states that "guf naki" does not refer to someone who has no sins or impurity, implying that someone else had suggested that it did. The author explicitly condemns those who are strict on the holiness of this mitzvah and thereby deprive the masses of the mitzvah. Rather, "guf naki" refers to the ability to refrain from passing gas and thinking improper thoughts while wearing the tefillin. R. Moshe of Coucy (Semag, mitzvos aseh no. 3) tells of how he would travel around thirteenth-century Europe, preaching to people that they should wear tefillin during the morning prayers. Even if they cannot control themselves all day, people can certainly maintain a guf naki for the prayer services (that is the view of Tosafos [Pesachim 113b sv. ve-ein]; Rosh [Hilkhos Tefillin, no. 28 and Beis Yosef [Orach Chaim 37]; footnote 8 in the Schlesinger edition of Semag assumes the Semag agrees). Evidently, this practice of wearing tefillin only during morning prayer services took hold and the prior practice of widespread abandonment of the mitzvah slowly turned into minimal performance of it during the morning prayers. However, someone who cannot control himself and cannot maintain a guf naki may not wear tefillin. Despite the biblical obligation, someone in a definite situation such as that should not wear tefillin at all (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 38:1). For this reason, the Arukh Ha-Shulchan (Orach Chaim 38:6) rules that those who are not obligated in the mitzvah of tefillin -- such as women -- should never place themselves in even a doubtful position of not maintaining a guf naki. ... 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 Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il Tue Oct 16 00:45:18 2018 From: Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il (Ezra Chwat) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:45:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> References: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <85b0325c428741fcb0a9d98b30ef7206@Ex1.Nli.loc> [Micha] wrote: > Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the > water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the > fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity > is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Great insight, it's pshat in [Beresheet VII: Vateilekh hateivah al penei hamayim] meaning, all of it above surface, as in Gen I 2. Although there are a plenty (majority) sources in [lehon miqra] and [lehon chaza"l] where the meaning clearly infers partial immersion below the water surface. [Doq vetishkach] search and see. In any case this also sheds literary light on the two images presented for [lechem hapanim] (Menahot 94b): [sefinah roqedet] vs [teivah perutzah]. Why these images instead of description? Perhaps theres a message here about [teivat Mosheh] or [teivat Noach] Here's Rashi's drawing (source ) Dr. Ezra Chwat |Manuscript Bibliographer Department of Manuscripts The National Library of Israel, Jerusalem Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, P.O. Box 39105, Jerusalem 9139002 ezra.chwat at nli.org.il | www.nli.org.il From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Tue Oct 16 05:10:21 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:10:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Zev Sero commented: ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway.? What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 16 05:25:28 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:25:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: On 16/10/18 08:10, Joseph Kaplan wrote: > Zev Sero commented On Micha's remarks: >>> it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though >>> the facts might not be true. >> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, >> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. > What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the > value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel > Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Well, we *know* that it is indeed what He wants. That is surely beyond all question. All we can discuss is *why* He wants it, and what lessons we can draw from this counterintuitive fact. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:16:00 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:16:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> > RMB: > > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, > or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes > posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? > Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? It is in general true that the Torah prefers to regulate strong emotions (like greed and lust) rather than to extirpate them. See for example Hagigah 9b ?yaeh aniyusa liyehudaei ??, and yet the Torah doesn?t prohibit wealth (though see Parshas Shoftim 17:16-17), though historically several communities have enacted sumptuary laws. And see H. Deos 1:4-5 about the difference between a tzaddik and a hasid. The Rambam implies (at the end of 1:5) that he prefers tzidkus to hasidus but see H. Deos 6:1 that this applies only in a virtuous society. It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical level, however, I don?t see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. But there?s a more important point. What?s weird about war is that it?s not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say ?hasatan mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama? that?s partly because the soldiers don?t have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over his lifetime. So it makes a lot of sense that k?nagged YhR is specifically mentioned in the context of milhama. David Riceman From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:35:09 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42DB0493-2688-4FB1-B731-24A6D9C76BC7@optimum.net> [Corrected as per a follow-up email. -micha] RMLFI: > I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, > Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone > can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible > as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it > would be much appreciated. If you really mean that read through YL Epstein's "Hakdamah L'Nusach HaMishnah". Albeck wrote a (shorter) "Hakdamah L'Mishnah" and, IIRC, [Epstein also] wrote a "Hakdamah L'Sifrut HaTanaim". There's a mahlokes rishonim whether the mishna is a sefer peak or an encyclopedia of sources. This is related to the machlokes amoraim about whether halacha k'stam mishna. But it is possible for mishnayot with contradictory anonymous conclusions to have been edited by the same person. David Riceman From t613k at aol.com Wed Oct 17 20:57:38 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 23:57:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16685525a33-1ec3-bc74@webjas-vac183.srv.aolmail.net> In a message dated 10/15/2018 ? From: Micha Berger >> However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compel him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about appearance except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. << >>>>> ? ? ? The bottom may have been flat but not the top.? See Ber 6:16 "A window [tzohar] shall you make for the Ark, and to a cubit finish it from above...." (ArtScroll translation) ? I understand this to mean that the sides of the ark, at least the upper level, were slanted so that rain would run off (the reason most roofs of houses are slanted rather than flat).? At the top it only one square cubit wide, where the window (if the tzohar was a window, or possibly an LED light) was set in place. ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 18 03:08:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 06:08:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181018100847.GF26742@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:29:42AM -0400, Toby Katz wrote: : He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on : this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does : not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, : let alone the same as murder... This "let alone" undermines his whole thesis. Few akharonim take the Rambam to mean that abortion is murder, and of those who do, not all hold like their understanding of the Rambam. : We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these : issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians : recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that : Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. Or even to start with the assumption they are similar. It is best to just look up our views, and then see pragmatically which party to work with. Rather than identify with either camp and risk assimilating their values. 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 t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 17 21:29:42 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 00:29:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> ? From: "Prof. Levine" > IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an > abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben > Shapiro's take on abortion. >> Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is >> Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when >> he speaks and is being interviewed. ... >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... Ben Shapiro is a brilliant commentator and makes a powerful case against abortion. He also makes a Kiddush Hashem by publicly identifying as an Orthodox Jew and always wearing a yarmulka. However, I am troubled by this statement of his: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, let alone the same as murder. If a young woman is raped c'v the very best and most prudent thing she should do is take the "morning after pill" which prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum. To many Christians the morning after pill is exactly the same as abortion or infanticide, but the Torah does not view it that way. When a certain couple with whom I am intimately acquainted were undergoing IVF treatment in order to have children (which they ultimately did, B'H), they asked their most serious shailos of a very prominent posek in Baltimore. One shaila was what to do with excess embryos that were created in the lab. An embryo is just a fertilized ovum that has developed into a tiny little ball of cells, could be just eight or sixteen cells at first. When you hear that embryos are created in a lab and sometimes frozen to be thawed and implanted at a later date, please do not imagine that little babies are in the freezer. (Only in Lakewood are young humans put in the freezer.) Since multiple pregnancies are hazardous for the mother and often do not have a good outcome for the babies, as a rule no more than three embryos are implanted in the uterus at one time. In IVF powerful hormones are given which often result in the release of multiple eggs at ovulation, which in turn result in multiple embryos at fertilization. But if you are not going to implant more than three, what do you do with the extras? The posek told the couple that they could do what they wanted -- freeze the extras for a later attempt, or discard them. Catholics would consider the discarding of these little balls to be the same thing as murder, and possibly they would consider putting them in a freezer to be child abuse. We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. I suspect that Ben Shapiro is not aware of a very important distinction. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 05:40:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:40:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" Message-ID: >From https://goo.gl/7m1UWj Halacha L'kovod Shabbos - "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" One is permitted to spray one's hair (e.g. sprinkle or hand-pat water on frizzy hair) on Shabbos as long as it is not very wet, because the Melocho of Melabain (cleaning or scouring) does not apply to the human body. (If the hair gets very wet it may not be squeezed out since hair is subject to the prohibition of S'chita - squeezing). However, the use of hairspray which will stiffen the hair and form a structure may involve the Melocho of Boneh (building). If one sprays the hair first and then styles and shapes it; this would be prohibited on Shabbos because it is similar to Boneh. However, some poskim permit the use of hairspray if one is careful to first style and shape the hair, and then only afterwards add the hairspray. When done in this manner the loose hair is shaped at the time of styling, and does not resemble Boneh because the hair is loose. The subsequent spraying merely acts to retain a pre-existing shape. Once the hair has been sprayed it can no longer be shaped, styled, or touched. {We mentioned previously that the use of hairspray on Shabbos does not involve the Melocho of Zoreh.} Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah 302, Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa 14:50:131, Kitzur Hilchos Shabbos re:Gozez:5:16, Biur Halacha 303:27, Hilchos Shabbos R' Shimon Eider, Minchas Yitzchok 6:26, Sefer 39 Melochos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 19 05:31:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:31:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hirhurei tshuva Message-ID: <7e7b234b4f3d4d51bc22ea4cdc8114d5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The Artscroll Yom Kippur machzor has the following comment (I could not find the GRA's statement in Aderet Eliyahu). "David replies with just two words: "I have sinned to HASHEM." Nathan answers, "[If so] God has removed your sin and you will not die. "The Vilna Gaon notes that according to the Masoretic text there is a space after David's brief confession, even though it is in the middle of a sentence. This implies that David wanted to say more - he felt that he should go into more detail about his sin and the sincerity of his remorse - but was so overcome by remorse that he could not speak. He didn't have to. Nathan broke in to tell him that he had been forgiven - because his confession, brief and incomplete though he thought it to be - was utterly sincere." Me-Do you think this thought coheres with the following insight from R'YBS: "In response to this Divine verdict, R'Yehudah HaNasi cried, marveling at how some individuals merit the World to Come only after a lifetime of effort, while others acquire such reward after only brief effort. The Rav emphasized that the executioner not only earned a share in the World to Come, but achieved the same level as did R'Chananya in this regard. "Why did R'Yehudah HaNasi have such an emotional reaction to the afterlife destiny of the executioner? The answer is that although prior to this incident R'Yehudah HaNasi had certainly understood the redemptive power of teshuvah, he had not previously appreciated the redemptive power of hirhur Tshuva, "awakening" of teshuvah. If teshuvah is indeed a multistep process, involving sin recognition, remorse, and resolve, how can an individual possibly be considered righteous after only a moment's thought? Only through hirhur Tshuva, which is spontaneous, instinctive, and sudden. In one second, an individual can live the jarring experience of awakening from spiritual slumber." 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 Fri Oct 19 07:03:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:03:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Most Profound and Far-Reaching Vision of the Future Ever Permitted a Mortal to Behold or to Utter Message-ID: In his commentary on Bereishis 9:25-27 25 He said: Cursed be Canaan; he shall be a servant of servants to his brothers. 26 And he said: Blessed be God, the God of Shem; may Canaan become their servant. 27 God will open [people?s] emotions to Yefes, but He will dwell in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be a servant to them. RSRH provides deep insights into a number of important topics. He writes 25?27 We have here what may be the most profound and far-reaching vision of the future that God ever permitted a mortal to behold or to utter. The entire history of mankind ? past, present, and future ? is contained in these three verses. and then later on The spirit of Israel does not produce ecstatics who lose their grip on reality and go mad. Judaism yearns for God?s closeness, but requires of man clarity of thought, a composed and sober mind. Ecstatics who ?merge with the divine? lack freedom of choice; they imagine that they themselves do nothing, but that God acts through them. This is not the way to serve God. Our task is to make use of the intellect and the freedom God has given us, in the earthly sphere which He has assigned to us; to serve God faithfully, conscientiously, and with a clear mind. Only thus will we attain the highest perfection a person can reach; only thus will our actions be sanctified, and will we be worthy of God?s closeness. IMO there is so much of import in his commentary on these verses that I have taken the trouble to post it at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/profound_far_reaching_vision.pdf If you take the time to read this, you may well find insight into what we see going on in the world today as well as what has happened in the past and will happen in the future. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 21 07:14:12 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 10:14:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayera "We have to teach empathy as we do literacy." (Bill Drayton) Message-ID: <0D74D2E3-332B-4E5B-9E58-56B4273FC281@cox.net> 1) The following is a beautiful reflection of Jewish sensitivity. The original source of the story is not known. See Bamberger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 1939), p. 209, note 17/ "Once, Abraham's love of strangers clashed with his zeal for God. He invited a wayfarer to his home and, finding the wayfarer praying to his idol, chased him away. God reprimanded Abraham severely: 'I have borne with him these many years although he rebelled against Me, and you cannot bear with him one night?!' Abraham had realized his sin and did not rest until he had brought the stranger back.? (Benjamin Franklin composed his "Parable against Persecution" on this very theme). 2) The Sidrah opens by saying that God appeared to Abraham [Gen. 18:1], but when Abraham applies the vision to his own world he suddenly sees three men standing before him [Gen. 18:2]. Abraham is the religious man par excellence for he sees God in the human situation. Franz Rosenzweig Based on the puotation in On Jewish Learning, ed. Nahum Glatzer (New York: Schocken, 1955), p. 124 3) 18:2 "And he lifted up his eyes and he saw, and, behold, three people....." Who were these three people? Michael, Gabriel, and Rafael. Michael came to inform Sarah that she would bear a child; Rafael, to heal Abraham; and Gabriel, to overturn Sodom. (Bava Metzia 86b) 4) The sin of Sodom consisted not only in what the people did but in what they failed to do. Thus, no one raised a voice in protest when the crowd molested Lot's guests. Failure to protest is to participate in the sins of a community. (Gen. R. 50:9) This is reminiscent many years ago of Kitty Genovese, a woman in Queens, N.Y., who was screaming for help at the top of her lungs in a major apartment complex, and not one person lifted a finger or even phoned the police. This woman was killed due to the negligence of every person aware of her screams. Are we raising our voice in protest when we witness people being hurt? "The dew of compassion is a tear." Lord Byron (1788-1824) One of the greatest British poets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 21 16:38:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 19:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:18:17AM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : I don't understand why it would need such long : deliberation or a long teshuvah to demonstrate what every school : child knows, that a mumar remains a Jew. You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein's "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity". (Reprinted in Leaves of Faith. ch 3 pp 57-84) http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage (When I hit that URL, the article was available on Google Books in its entirety.) It isn't as open-and-shut that "Yisrael, af al pi shechat'ah, Yisra'el hu" is as universal or as much as a given as most of us were taught in school. We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the qiddushin are chal. But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking Hoacheia 17a. Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim even though their conversation had been accepted for generations before then. RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. Including, RAL writes, Brother Daniel or any other meshumad applying for citizenship under the Law of Return. 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 rabbi at opengemara.org Mon Oct 22 02:45:07 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:45:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> References: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 21, 2018 4:38:17 PM PDT, Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein... > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage ... > We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to > practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the > qiddushin are chal. > But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a > non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, > Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking > Hoacheia 17a. > Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim ... I didn't learn that sugya in a while, but I was under the impression that it's a machlokes Rishonim how to learn the Aseres Hashevatim (I think it's the Meiri there). Some learn that they were a horaas shaah. Others learn like you wrote, that one who is a min is considered completely not a Jew. The thing is that the Halacha doesn't follow those Rishonim, as we're still Choshesh for the Kiddushin of a Min (who does give up their Jewish identity). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Oct 23 23:02:52 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:02:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters Message-ID: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim B:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to harvest because? they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. The Radbaz explains that since the workers aren't experts, they will either give too much pe'ah or too little.? Meaning, the issue is technical, not that they aren't chayav to give and therefore they can't do it. What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or twice with them. Ben From eliturkel at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 07:51:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:51:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: << RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. >> RAL is the most persuasive essentially after several generations. It is hard to believe that someone who converted to Xtianity in the middle ages would have descendants who are Jewish through the mothers when all connection to the Jewish world is lost. I once read that there are 80 million descendants today from the Jews in Spain that left Judaism. While we only count those through the maternal side this would still give a lot of "halachic" Jews for people who might be strong anti-semites today. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 25 06:33:46 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:33:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: Message-ID: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we say lo palginon (we don't split)? 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 Oct 26 11:06:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:06:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026180609.GA18376@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:40:01AM -0400, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no : significant debate about that. Quibble: +/- 168 years during Galus Bavel, and perhaps other issues. Also, the Seder Olam, R' Yossi bar Chalafta (acc. to Yavamos 82b & Niddah 46b), is only one tanna among many. For that matter, he is "only" the primary author, as it quotes people who lived later than RYbH. Of course there are machloqesin about many of his positions. (Our calendar is Sefer Olam chronology with a different year 0. Seder Olam numbers the year of Adam's creation as 0, and we use year 1 for the week before Adam, so that our numbers are SO + 2. But the same age.) But in a much smaller scale than you intended to, there are numerous debates. I have a pet theory that these factors are the reason why shetaros, and in particular gittin, explain the year is only as "beminyan she'anu monim kan ba'ir Ploni-ville..." But in any case, since lemaaseh no din relies on the year, pesaq doesn't apply, and machloqesin neither have to be nor even can be resolved. : 3. We don't know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam : HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a : day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. The Ramban is clear -- a yom was 24 hours on a hypothetical clock, the way we measure time now. R' Dessler explains the Ramban as equally saying that a yom was 1,000 years. Which wouldn't be long enough to help, but it gets weirder -- not just any 1,000 years, but a millennium of the 6,000 of world history. According to REED, the Ramban correctly holds that time is non-linear. (Michtav meiEliyahu vol II pp 150-154, Yemei Bereishis veYemai Olam, I paraphrase it paragraph by paragraph at ) R' Dessler writes that the arrow of time and the whole concept of a time-line is specific to how human beings perceive reality, and even that only as people have done so /after/ the cheit. Which gives him the room to say that the scientific age of the universe is not so much wrong as choosing a less than optimal way of viewing a problem that doesn't admit any one answer. The age of the universe is 6 millenia or so plus 6 days as seen from the perspective the Torah advises us to adopt. But that doesn't make some other answer less correct, or less useful for some other purpose. : 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the : descriptions we have of the Big Bang. : 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny : that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round.... Well, the Ramban on bara mentions hyle, which is the Greek for chomer in chomer vertzurah (which they called hylomorphism). So Hashem first made substance without form. Or maybe, less hard to imagine, the current substance, but in forms that no longer exist. Now, Quantum Mechanics is nothing at all like hylomorphism, but... According to Big Bang theory, in the first fractions of a second after yeish mei'ayin, things were so hot that individual particals had no identity. What now appears to be four kinds of particles, for kinds of fields, mediating forces was just one mush, not so mention the particles we think of as matted. As things cooled, the symmetry split again and again until the types of particles and forces we know today differentiated. Does sound like chomer beli tzurah. : - Expansion doesn't prove anything. It's a fact that requires a theory : to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made : the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously : expand. How do we explain "Shakai"? That He said "dai" and the expansion ended, no? : 7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit : facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, : "What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem : does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, : we would be much poorer... But there is no way to disprove "the universe is young and Hashem had His Reasons for doing it that way", reasons we can't identify. We might want answers that feel less facile, but that doesn't make it false. Might just be human hubris, to need a universe we can understand. That is different than what you're talking about, which is more similar to separating a scientific study of cause with a Torah study of purpose. But it does raise the question of whether "a bit facile" is a meaningful RELIGIOUS problem. You want to know the science, fine. But life's values doesn't rest on it. Nor should you assume science can't his a wall. : So what's the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, : or was it just made to look that way? REED says both. Because, in his typical Kantian perspective, he has science address the world as humans perceive it, believing the world as it exists "out there" is actually unknowable. And so, the world before eitz hadaas and observation by human consciousness of our sort is amenable to different descriptions. Each capturing a different shadow of the basic unknowable. On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. That natural is just a term we use to describe the patterns by which Hashem usually acts. It is all "by Himself". >From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> + When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. :-)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 From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:41:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:41:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters In-Reply-To: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> References: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181026184149.GC20611@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:02:52AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim [2]:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to : harvest because they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. ... : What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here : and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or : twice with them. I assume you're llimiting your question to pei'ah. Because leqet requires getting out of a habit when you're in the middle of gathering. And for the same reason, why not worry about shikhechah? I would think that even with instructions, it's leqet and shikechah that's hard to get used to and get right. :-)BBii! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:36:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:36:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026183619.GB20611@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:20:01AM -0400, Looking ForInspiration via Avodah wrote: : Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that : when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, : it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this : mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? It didn't. The mishnah took a 3 generation process: R' Aqiva, R Meir and Rebbe. Stam mishnah is usually like R Meir, although the gemara at times proves a different maqor, not even the final redactor. (Stam Sifra keRabbi Yehudah, even though the Sifra is not by Rebbe, but by his student, Rav.) You have statements like on RH 19b, where you're told the mishnah is not in accord with R" Yehudah haNasi. So the notion that the opinion of the mishnah is necessarily the opnion of the redactor is not a given. Nor is the stam mishnah always R' Meir. Therefor conflicting opinions isn't proof of multiple redactors. (Although,as I wrote, redaction was one school, not one person.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:05:56 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:05:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20181028150556.GB10183@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:10:21PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : Zev Sero commented: :> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, :> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. : What, if anything, does this teach us -- about Halacha or morality or : the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Perhaps it tells us that more die when the appeals process is endless? And thus, once the case is closed, it's closed. And we trust G-d to insure that any miscarriage of justice in the case is just in the broader context. Just thinking out loud to keep the topic going... It needs more discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 28 05:04:29 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:04:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:19:23 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:19:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf : The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of them a couple of decades ago. Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an artificial evolution of halakh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 10:09:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 13:09:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: At 11:19 AM 10/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: Please see >http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. > >And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >them a couple of decades ago. > >Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an >artificial evolution of halakh. I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that RYBS said this. In any event see http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf From there The findings in this article seem to confirm the judgment of some scholars that the rabbinic sources cited by R. Epstein should not be taken as accurate and that they require independent confirmation from the original sources.61 Certainly the inconsistencies found in MB cast serious doubt as to its value as a completely accurate historical account. We will never know what lies behind the puzzling inaccuracies in R. Epstein's oeuvre, nor is it for us to speculate. R. Menachem Kasher, after setting severe strictures about the reliability of R. Epstein's citations, nevertheless expresses a charitable understanding of the circumstances that may have brought this about. Noting R. Epstein's statement in MB that he lived a "life of suffering" (hayyei tsa)ar), R. Kasher writes that R. Epstein was a "great man" (adam gadol) whose )) is "a monumental work" (avoda anakit), and he attributes the many inaccuracies in the work to R. Epstein's difficult and inordinately busy life which did not permit him to check his sources as carefully as he should have. One old lesson emerges reinforced from all this-a lesson for researchers in any field, especially the field of Torah scholarship. Primary material must be carefully examined, and if only secondary sources are available, their veracity must be meticulously ascertained. Rayna Batya seems to have been an extraordinary woman, but the inaccuracies in R Epstein's telling of her story cloud our ability to know her and her absorbing story. We close this article, which is written in sadness rather than glee, by noting one final irony. When Mesorah Publications published a translation of R. Epstein's MB, tided My Uncle the Netziv, it deleted certain key words.64 The passage in which we learned of Rayna Batya's scholar- ship was one of the changed passages. The original passage, for example, mentioned the venous books she used and included, among others, Mishnayot and books of aggada. In the English translation, these books were deleted from the list, causing much indignation in the scholarly world at this attempt to revise history. How ironic it is that this effort to "sanitize" R. Epstein's reputation should have inadvertency hit upon the truth: that the story of Rayna Batya lie many other elements in MB and Torah Temima are in fact in need of serious revision. _________________________________ In light of all this can we really be sure that the Netziv read newspapers on Shabbos? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:25:15 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 12:09 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the > accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that > RYBS said this. > > In any event see > http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition article would Certainly qualify. HM From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 14:35:04 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 17:35:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 05:25 PM 10/28/2018, Harry Maryles wrote: >FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical >of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to >R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition >article would Certainly qualify. IIRC Rabbi Meir Fund is the one who told me that RYBS said that there are many inaccuracies in the writings of the Torah Temima. Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be well documented. YL From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:49:03 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:49:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <5E34DB8F-9432-4A3B-BD90-808E37069230@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be > `well documented. I glanced at it. But I did not read it. All I was doing was saying what my rebbi told me personally HM From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 19:06:13 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 22:06:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage > ... > RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends > up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who > reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who > goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed > not be Jews. One must be wary of the phrase "would indeed not be Jews". As RAL reiterates there, over and over, "Jew" can mean different things in different contexts. For example, Please see what he wrote there on pages 66-67, distinguishing between "shem Yisrael" and "kedushat Yisrael": > If we ask, in purely descriptive terms, whether anyone born of > Jewish parents is a Jew, the answer must be yes. As an epithet, > the term "Jew" remains applicable to any individual who was > ever endowed with Jewish status - even to a mechumad. Hence, he > is obligated to pursue a Torah life, and should he decide to > return, he would perhaps require no new conversion.[38] > However, if we ask whether a meshumad has anything of a Jewish > personality and character, and whether, therefore, he continues > to be endowed with the personal status of a Jew, the answer is > a ringing no. He remains a Jew without Jewishness. What he > retains is simply the descriptive epithet: shem Yisrael. Of > kedushat Yisrael, however - of the sacredness of the Jewish > personality, that which essentially constitutes being a Jew - he > is bereft. > [38] The first point, that the obligation remains, is certain. > The second, that reentry would not necessitate gerut, is open > to question. One might argue that even for one who is endowed > with shem Yisrael, the recovery of kedushat Yisrael requires > gerut. It may also be contended that gerut would not be required, > but only because the return to the fold would retroactively > cancel the earlier renunciation. My point is that - according to RAL - even the very most extreme meshumad, who severs his connection to the Jewish people so completely that he has totally lost his kedushat Yisrael, still has shem Yisrael, and IS STILL OBLIGATED IN MITZVOS. This is a critical distinction. To refer to such a person as a non-Jew would easily mislead people to think that he is now relieved of his Jewish obligations. It would be most tragic if the meshumad himself was led to such a conclusion, for it would divest him of the last shred of motivation to return. He would think of himself as an ordinary outsider, for whom gerut is totally optional. (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say about the next generation. Suppose we are talking of a woman meshumedet, who still has shem Yisrael, but abandoned her kedushat Yisrael. Do her children have shem Yisrael or not? It has always been my presumption that her children (and the children of her daughters, etc etc ad infinitum) would be obligated in mitzvos, but this article makes me wonder about that. To phrase it in more technical terms: For a newborn to have shem Yisrael, does it suffice that his mother has shem Yisrael, or must she also have kedushat Yisrael?) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:03:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181029190301.GE13649@aishdas.org> So, here are the three shitos RALichtenstein discusses about how to resolve the apparently conflicting gemaros. 1- The Rashba (Yavemos 22a) takes the case of the marriage of a backslid geir (Yevamos 67b) as primary. And the gemara about Kusim does not mean that Chazal reject their attempt at conversion. Rather kol demeqadeish al daas chakhamim meqadeish gives Chazal the power to deny the validity of their attempts to marry (other) Jews. Variant on this theme: 1b- The Ittur (quf, Qiddishin 78a) says that R' Yehudai Gaon says that Chakhamim DO allow their marriage to a Jew, and that the statement is about stam yeinam, shechitah, and other laws that are limited to maaminim. Th SA (YD 159:3) similarly says that we may not pay a Kusi ribis, but we may charge him. 2- HaGahos Mordekhai (Yevamos 107) holds that the person is literally not a Jew -- but. Because we cannot know the extent of someone's apostacy, we aren't mindreaders, for something as major as eishes ish, we recognize lechumerah his marriage to a Jewish woman. 3- R' Chaim Solovei[t]chik notes that the Rambam WRT seider nashim (Ishus 4:15, Issurei Bi'ah 13:17) as following Yevamos, like #1. And yet WRT taharah, Peirush haMIshnayos (Nidda 7:4) says a Kusi's body is not metamei tum'as ohalim, because nakhriim don't. R' Chaim says that Yevamos refers to a geir who returned to his old practices, in RAL's terms "an apostacy of action". But the Kusim and the 10 Shevatim not only changed behavior, but also ceased identifying as Jews. The opinion I mentioned earlier as R' Aharon's was his following his wife's ancestor. The quote RAM provides from Leaves of Faith pp 66-67 I saw more as a subject - object distinction. In his own eyes, he has the din of a Jew. But in the eyes of how others are supposed to relate to him, he does not. And it's the latter -- how are we to classify others -- that was under discussion. To quote RAM on another point: : (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on : the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say : about the next generation... RAL writes a little later: > It might be be argued that it only applies to a mass secession, whereby > not only an individual but his whole social context becomes uprooted. Or > one might contend that only the children, born in complete ignorance of > their origins, are affected, whereas the apostate, paradoxically, might > remain a Jew. 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 emteitz at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 09:17:40 2018 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:17:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: RMicha Berger wrote: >>And yet, the Netziv spen[t] Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >>One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >>the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >>them a couple of decades ago. To which RDYitzchok Levine responded: >I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the >accurateness of his writings. Even granting RDYL's source, there is quite a difference between accuracy in the quoting of sources and accuracy in conveying an eyewitness account. The former would attribute carelessness and imprecision to R. Boruch Epstein; the latter would accuse him of being an intentional liar. Even granting the inaccuracy of his writing, it has no bearing whatever on the accuracy of what he attests to having seen. However, even if the N'tziv did read the newspapers, it is may have no relevance to the current discussion. As RMB cited, it was the haskala press. The Netziv may have been reading it for the purpose of "v'da ma shetashiv," which I believe would render his reading permissible on Shabbos. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:54:42 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:54:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: In-Reply-To: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181029195442.GF13649@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 01:33:46PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for : accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not : guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but : have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we : say lo palginon (we don't split)? QLbdRM applies to chaivei misos shogegin. Because it's shoegeig, BD doesn't kill him, but because he violated a law that carries dinei nefashos, he is off the hook for paying a plaintiff as well. Although in the case of shogegin, the Maharshal says he is chayav to pay midinei Shamayim, even if the court can't force him to pay, and the Qetzos questions this. REWasserman (Qoveitz Shiurim 93) says there are two issues -- which crime to try and which punishment to give. Because in the case of shogegin, there is only the first -- we try for the worse aveirah, but HQBH still holds him accountable for the onesh of the lesser one, since that's the only onesh he is up for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 18:40:39 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 12:40:39 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Toivelling a flower vase more used for food Message-ID: Is the classification of Kelie SeUdah determined by the manufacturer or the user? The Gemara (AZ 75b) rejects the proposition that scissors acquired from a G require Tevillah, only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. The reason we may have thought scissors do require Tevillah - since once Kashered, all food taste is gone, it's like a new device. In fact that's how the Gemara knows that new utensils do require Tevilla. Now, if new devices require Tevillah then it's got nothing to do with the food of the G. In that case scissors should also require. The Gemara rejects that because only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. Meaning it's got something to do with food, at least in the potential. The Ritva however, is troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food of a G. He explains that nevertheless, since they will be used eventually for food they have some connection to food, therefore even new utensils of a G require Tevillah, and he adds, because they're going to a sacred (kosher or Jewish?) use. But why was he troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food? Could this mean that if the G never intend to use it for food, but as a flower vase for example, but the Y chooses to use it for food, that it does not require Tevillah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 30 09:04:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:04:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Freshly Brewed Coffee- on Shabbos? Message-ID: >From the article at http://cor.ca/view-891-freshly-brewed-coffeeon-shabboshtml.html It is well known that there are various grades of roast of coffee beans, from light roast to dark roast. When does a coffee bean become fully roasted to the extent that halacha would allow for it to be cooked on Shabbos? Poskim have expressed doubt as to whether roasted coffee beans have the status of a food that is baked or roasted.8 Due to this doubt, we are not prepared to provide the heter to use microground coffee on Shabbos, even in a kli shlishi.9 ee the above URL for much more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Oct 29 14:12:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 21:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: Pasuk 24:4 in Bereishis says 4 But you shall go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son, for Yitzchak. RSRH comments: Eliezer is to be guided by two considerations: First, l'vni; she should be worthy of being the wife of my son; she should justify my hope that she will become my daughter even as he is my son. This is the general requirement regarding her character. But two people can each be of the most excellent character and still be incompatible. Hence, l'Yitzchak; Eliezer should make sure that the woman is compatible with Yitzchak's individual character. Avraham rejected the daughters of Canaan, preferring an Aramean woman for his son. Let us bear in mind, though, that the Arameans, too, were idolaters. Thus, the reason for Avraham's decision was not the idolatry of the Canaanites, but their moral degeneracy. Idolatry is basically an intellectual error, and that can be corrected. Moral degeneracy, however, takes hold of the whole individual, heart and soul. Hence, even a man such as Avraham could not hope to find among the Canaanites a modest, morally pure woman as a wife for his son, a woman who would bring with her a nobility of spirit and the purity of morality, as a pearl for his home. [Email #2. -micha] Someone who is a rabbi with broad based knowledge sent me the following in response to my earlier message with this subject line. It is amazing how RSRH always can find something so very thoughtful and true. The Rambam alludes at the same matter: that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo, and so he will lose his Chelemer in the Olam HaBo, while it is very possibly that he might do t'shuvo for hillul Shabbos, even if only on his deathbed. RSRH was indeed the kind of very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations. YL From t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 31 00:16:31 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 03:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> From: "Prof. Levine" >: Please see >: http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. My father asked me not to read novels on Shabbos. He didn't say anything to me about reading non-fiction. I was a teenager at the time. I said he asked me, not he told me. I understood that novels were not Shabbosdig. Secular novels, that is. There were almost no Jewish novels back then. It is possible that he phrased it as a request rather than halachic statement because he did not want to impose on me some stricture that might turn me off. Possibly we are now discussing chinuch advice for parents of teenage daughters rather than hilchos Shabbos. From: Micha Berger > And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. > One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from > the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of > them a couple of decades ago. > Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an > artificial evolution of halakha. Not Friday night and not maskilishe papers. I have a copy of the letter that was sent out by the Lakewood Cheder School, recalling the book <> which it had sent out as a fundraiser. The letter does not say what is wrong with the book. All it says is, <> There seems to be a little dig there at the Torah Temima, R' Baruch Epstein, who was the Netziv's nephew and also a ben bayis in the Netziv's home and of course a talmid of the Netziv in the Volozhin yeshiva. But apparently because he thought his uncle was human, a very great man but still human, he somehow didn't <> know his uncle. After the death of his first wife, the Netziv married the sister of the Torah Temima (yes, married his niece), thereupon becoming not only the uncle but also the brother-in-law of the TT. Who nevertheless never really knew his uncle/brother-in-law, according to Lakewood. My father (R' Nachman Bulman) wrote a haskama for the book My Uncle the Netziv, which is a translation (by Moshe Dombey) of parts of the TT's memoirs, called in Hebrew <> The book came out in 1988. To quote part of my father's letter, which is the first page of the book: > The experience of Torah life derives first and foremost from Torah > learning. But the impact of Torah learning is immeasurably richer when > the lives of living Sifrei Torah, of Torah Sages, become educative models > for our people. Further, such lives are vital links in the chain of Jewish > historical knowledge. Mekor Baruch is a matchless compendium of biography, > memoirs, and lore....A glowing portrayal of Volozhin and its last central > figure, the venerable Netziv, is a major part of the work.... I ran into a friend of mine in Brooklyn shortly after Lakewood recalled the book, and he asked me, <> At that point I had no idea who the Netziv was and had never heard of the book or of the Lakewood recall, but I knew my father. <> was my instant reply. I called my father up and asked him for the lowdown. He said that some people in Lakewood were upset because the TT said his uncle read newspapers, but it was because Lakewood was unfamiliar with the papers mentioned in the book. My father actually laughed out loud as he told me this. <> (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was amused by this, too. <>) I will quote a couple of paragraphs from My Uncle the Netziv, to give the flavor of the book and of the humanity, the depth and breadth of the Netziv's personality. He used to say that he considered the newspapers like greetings from the entire world and therefore waited expectantly for their arrival. [They were weeklies that arrived on Friday.] He would not look at the paper Friday night as that time was set aside for reviewing [his Torah learning]. He would save his perusal of the paper for Shabbos morning [after kiddush]. It upset him greatly when one newspaper slandered another....My uncle's wrath was particularly provoked by his favorite papers--the Magid and Levanon--who could not seem to talk about each other with any sense of dignity and derech eretz....The owner of the Levanon, Yechiel Brill, had unilaterally decided that his paper would be the sole voice of the rabbinical community and Torah outlook on all the issues of the day....to his great chagrin, he found out that many rabbonim and members of the Torah community were also avid readers of his arch rival paper, the Magid... The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe newspapers! I recently heard, by the way, that My Uncle the Netziv is once again being sold openly in Lakewood seforim stores (apparently it has been reprinted) and no one remembers that old controversy anymore. They will sell you the book without putting it in a plain brown wrapper, and I wouldn't be surprised if some people read the book on Shabbos. -Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From micha at aishdas.org Thu Nov 1 10:11:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:11:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181101171103.GI32359@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:16:31AM -0400, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the : book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to : learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was : amused by this, too. <>) Also, Zionism. The Netziv supported Chovevei Tziyon. I enjoy pointing out to people that although Zionism was a hotly contested issue in 19th cent Eastern Europe, it was not a communal division line. And so the Netziv's yeshiva had no problem having R' Chaim Brisker as its segan RY. (We really don't see Zionism opening up as a community-defining matter until sometime during or shortly after WWI. The Agudah's first attempt to have a Kenesiah Gedolah was interrupted by that war. Many rabbanim were stranded on the way to it. Including RAYKook, who spent WWI in Switzerland and then England. On their second and successful attempt, in 1923, being a Zionist made you ineligable for membership in the Agudah, and RAYK wasn't invited.) : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic ways.) Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Nov 1 04:37:27 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:37:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: ?that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo,? This is, indeed an intelligent and worthwhile statement. Yet it also is, as I see it, basic common sense that does not require a ?very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations.? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Nov 2 06:29:57 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:29:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Between Eating Meat and Milk Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I know that there are various customs as to how long one must wait between meat and milk. Is waiting between meat and milk a Rabbinic obligation or is it a custom? A. The Gemara (Chullin 105a) states in the name of Rav Chisda that one who eats meat is forbidden to eat cheese afterwards, but one who eats cheese may eat meat. Mar Ukva qualifies that when he would eat meat, he would not eat cheese until the next meal. There is disagreement among Rishonim as to how to understand the ruling of Mar Ukva. * Rambam held that Mar Ukva was teaching us that one must wait approximately 6 hours, the length of time between meals. Shulchan Aruch follows the opinion of Rambam although he states precisely 6 hours. * Tosfos understood that Mar Ukva meant that once one eats meat, it is forbidden to eat cheese until the meal is concluded by reciting Birkas Hamazon. In addition, the mouth must be cleaned. The Rama follows the opinion of Tosfos, but writes that there is a minhag to wait one hour and that the custom of those who are careful is to wait 6 hours. Interestingly, the common German custom is to wait 3 hours. So while all agree that there is a definite Rabbinic obligation to wait between eating meat and milk, there are different opinions as to how long one must wait. For Sefardim who follow the ruling of Shulchan Aruch, waiting 6 hours is an absolute obligation. For Ashkenazim, who follow the ruling of the Rama, the obligation ends once one cleans out one?s mouth and recites a bracha acharona. Waiting one hour, three hours, or six hours are different customs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Nov 4 06:33:48 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 14:33:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Asking a Non-Jew to Perform Melacha Part 1 Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Amira%20l'Akum%20101.pdf The author is Rabbi Shmuel Stein, originally from Brooklyn, is a talmid of Mesivta and Yeshiva Torah Temimah, Yeshivas Yagdil Torah in Eretz Yisroel and Bais Medrash Govoha. Rabbi Stein teaches the popular Wednesday evening In Hilchos Shabbos Shiur and writes a review sheet which is disseminated each week before Shabbos. He organizes the Kollel?s youth programs including Masmidei Erev and Miami Masmidim program. Rabbi Stein is the new resource director at Yeshiva Elementary school and teaches at Mechina of South Florida. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Nov 4 21:03:58 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 07:03:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: [Micha wrote:] > On 11/1/2018 7:11 PM, [RnTK] via Avodah wrote: >: The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the >: Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe >: newspapers!> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos Haskalishe newspaper. > About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist > papers. I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content is like. If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content In addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based content. I don't think of these papers as being Torah publications, rather they are party newspapers that include some Torah". I would ask a different question though: What constitutes a Torah publication? Does it have to deal with parshat shavua, Gemara, mussar, exclusively? Would reading about an opinion piece, written by a rabbi, on world affairs constitute Torah? Rav Kook regularly wrote news columns. What about a mixture of Torah and news? How much of each? Is the content of each article reviewed to make sure that it doesn't violate the laws of lashon ha-rah? From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 09:22:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 17:22:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 25:27 27 When the lads grew up, Esav was a man who understood hunting, a man of the field, and Ya?akov was a totally dedicated man, living in tents. Our Sages never hesitate to point out to us the errors and shortcomings, both great and small, of our forefathers, and precisely thus they make Torah great and glorious, heightening its instructiveness for us (see Commentary above, 12:10). On our verse, too, an observation made by our Sages indicates that the sharp contrast between the two grandsons of Avraham was caused not only by their natural tendencies, but also by mistakes in their upbringing (Bereshis Rabbah 63:10). As long as they were little, no one paid attention to the differences in their hidden natures (see v. 24); they were given the same upbringing and the same education. Their parents overlooked the cardinal principle of education: 'chanoch lanar al pi darco, ?Bring up each child in accordance with his own way? (Mishlei 22:6). Each child should be guided in accordance with the path intended especially for him, the path that suits the qualities and tendencies latent in the depths of his personality, and thus he should be educated, both as a man and as a Jew. The great Jewish task is basically one, but the ways of its fulfillment are manifold and diverse, as human character traits and paths of life are manifold and diverse. Precisely for this reason, each child must be brought up al pi darco; educate him to the one great goal, according to his own unique way, in keeping with his potential. To attempt to educate a Ya?akov and an Esav together in the same classroom, in the same routines and in the same manner, to raise both of them for a life of study and contemplation, will inevitably mean to ruin one of the two. A Ya?akov will draw from the well of wisdom with ever-increasing interest and desire, whereas an Esav will hardly be able to wait for the day when he can throw away the old books and, together with them, a great life-mission, of which he was taught in a one-sided manner, totally unappealing to his nature. For much more on this topic see Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 12:49:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 15:49:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah Message-ID: <20181105204918.GA15965@aishdas.org> The AhS discusses length a few times, but I just passed CM 218:1. It ends: And know that according to the measure in our country of Russia, every 4 amos in the gemara is 3 arshin of ours, which is 7 regel ["fut"] which is one sazhen. And every tefach is 2 vieshoks. Well, there is the translations from wikipedia's page on "Obsolete Russian Units of Measurement" >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete_Russian_units_of_measurement>. 1 fut = 30.48 cm (= 1' British Empirial) = 3/7 arshin 1 arshin = 71.12cm = 2-1/3' 1 sachen = 3 arshin = 2.1336m = 7' So, 4 amos = 3 arshin 1 ammah = 3/4 arshin = 3/4 * 2-1/3 ft = 1.75' = 21" 1 vershok = 1/16 of an arshin = 4.445cm = 1-3/4" Meaning a tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 ammah) Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). Given the round numbers the AhS is working with -- 3/4 of a local unit of measure -- RMF and the AhS could differ only by rounding tolerance. 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 llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 13:16:27 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 21:16:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? Message-ID: RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf For more on this see https://www.ajol.info/index.php/samj/article/viewFile/157422/147034 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 13:35:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 16:35:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181105213511.GA31108@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:16:27PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See : http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf There was a 1979 paper by [Dr?] Philip Lanzkowsky in the American Academy of Pediatrics Journal on the topic. The AAP Journal even cites RSRH! Abstract: Polycythmia as a result of twin-to-twin transfusion in monozygotic twins has only been recognized as a clinical entity in the last few decades. The first recorded case of polycythemia in the newborn due to twin-to-twin transfusion, however, was reported in the Bible: "And when her (Rebekah) days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first came forth ruddy, all over like a hairy mantle; and they called his name Esau...". Genesis XXV, 24-26. A ruddy newborn twin is a clear description of polycythemia in the newborn presumably due to twin-to-twin transfusion. According to Hirsch,[1] despite the contrastrating differences between Esau and Jacob, they were identical twins with complete exterior similarity. Twin-to-twin transfusion occurs in 15% of identical twins. One may further speculate that because of the marked intellectual and emotional differences between Esau and his brother Jacob, that Esau's intellectual restrictions might very well have been evidence of brain damage due to cerebral sludging as a result of polycythemia or kernicterus due to uncorrected hyperbilirubinemia pursuant to polycythemia. "... nothing is new under the sun.... It has already been in the ages before us."[2] The article itself is behind a paywall, though. The problem is that Rabbeinu Chananel quotes R Yosi that Yaaqov was conceived first. And R' Yosi is an amora. As my kids and I each learned in our respective parashah classes in elementary school, Yaaqov was allegedly really the bechor, because the pebble that comes out of the vessel last was the one put into the vessel first. It's the one nearest the exit, after all. I say allegedly, because bekhorah doesn't really go to the second twin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Nov 5 13:36:32 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 16:36:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] RYS and His Son Going to College (was Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: <38.4E.22391.2E7B0EB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:17 PM 11/5/2018, R Micha wrote: >HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, >they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch >Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in >math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it >happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. >And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic >ways.) He did not agree with nor approve of his son's decision to get a college education. >> From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 1 pages 313 - 314. >>R. Israel, however, was deeply distressed that his son had >>abandoned the study of Torah, since the son had excelled so well in >>it in his youth. The father derived no comfort at all from the >>son's remarkable achievements in the world of science, and cut off >>his support during all the son's student years. R. Israel exerted >>every effort to restore his son to Torah study. When Hamaggid >>reported in 1865, that "Mr. Lipkin was on his way to Koenigsberg to >>engage in advanced research, "the editor added that this was the >>son of R. Israel of Salant, and that he was "a pride to his saintly >>father, the Gaon, as well, may he live, who did not prevent the son >>from attending lectures at university, and so to integrate Torah >>and science, for the greater glory of the sons of our people." A >>few weeks later the same periodical (No. 11) carried a letter over >>the signature of R. Israel with these remarks: "Since Truth is the >>lamp at the feet of the righteousness that goes about on earth, I >>find it my duty publicly to proclaim that no glory accrues to me, >>as the slip of your pen would seem to indicate, in respect of my >>son. On the contrary, to me this is a 'bitterness of the spirit'. >>My heart grieves at the path which my son has wanted to set for >>himself. Whoever loves his soul and has the power to persuade him, >>to turn his desire not to run counter to my will and wishes, will >>do a great favor to one as depressed in spirit as I am today". >>Nor was there any contradiction between R. Israel's personal >>attitude and his simultaneous efforts to spread Judaism in academic >>circles. There was nothing in his views to prevent him from trying >>to infiltrate Torah inside the walls of the university and to >>influence students. Furthermore, he employed every means at his >>disposal to guard his son against straying from Judaism. He >>journeyed specially to St. Petersburg to extract a three-fold >>promise: that his son would observe Shabbat, refrain from eating >>trefah food, and not shave. [27] He would say that were he able to >>disguise himself as a woman, he would go to work in the restaurant >>patronized by his son, so as to supervise the kashrut. He also >>requested R. Isaac Blazer, then rabbi in St. Petersburg, by mail, >>to keep an eye on the son. [28] In this way, it is said, the son >>remained a loyal Jew. >>[27.] As related by Rabbi A. D. Berkovsky. Presumably this was the >>journey to St. Petersburg undertaken that year, 1872, as mentioned >>above, in connection with his political activities. R. Naftali >>Amsterdam is reputed to have related that, when R. Israel was in >>St. Petersburg, several of the university professors remarked to >>the son that they would want to see what made his father so great. >>The son suggested that they ask his father the most difficult >>question in geometry they could propound. They submitted a problem >>which had engaged their minds at that time. R. Israel studied it >>for a few minutes, and solved it to the astonishment of all the >>specialists in the field (told by R. Abraham Braude). >>[28.] R. Israel's last letter to R. Isaac Blazer concerning his >>son's conduct elicited the reply that the son had not tasted >>gentile baked bread for the past three months R. Israel understood >>this to imply that his son had been dead for three months, since no >>other bread was available in the capital. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t613k at aol.com Mon Nov 5 19:18:40 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:18:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> From: Micha Berger : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! [--old TK] HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. ? ?>>>> ? You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? When we speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a secular intellectual and academic movement and of? people who were not religious and who were often virulently anti-religious.? Wissenschaft des Judentums types. There definitely were secular, anti-religious journals being published in Europe in the 19th century, some in Hebrew, others in European languages.? These were not the journals that the Netziv was reading and discussing with his talmidim on Shabbos morning after kiddush. ? You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. ? The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were definitely Orthodox.? However, the use of words like modern, worldly, charedi, Orthodox and Zionist is anachronistic.? Those terms weren't used in the 19th century as they are today.? Nineteenth century Europe was not 21st century America.? Yechiel Brill, the editor and publisher of the Levanon, was a <> only in the loosest sense of having worldly interests and being a little bit on the modern side of the frum spectrum, but he was anti-Haskalah and anti-Reform.?? ? I don't know why you want to paint the Netziv as an avid consumer of secular newspapers.? That is just not accurate. ? Now, Ben Waxman wrote: ? >> I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content >>is like. >>If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah >>publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their >>content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all >>write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content. In >>addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based >>articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. >>So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, >>he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based >>content. Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view.? The letters to the editor could be long, weighty essays themselves.? You can't really compare them to Hamodia or Yated.? They were more like an Orthodox version of today's _Commentary_ magazine, but with more flame-throwing. ? The main thing they had in common with today's charedi newspapers is that they did not carry pictures of women.? But then again, they did not carry pictures of men, either. No pictures of anything!? Just pages and pages of words.? ?:) ? Ah, I remind myself of that song from <>?? ? Words Words Words I'm so sick of words I get words all day through First from him, now from you Is that all you blighters can do ? All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the far side of the moon. ? ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 23:28:59 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 09:28:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles Message-ID: This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgluck at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 6 05:10:10 2018 From: mgluck at mail.gmail.com (Moshe Y. Gluck) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 08:10:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sent: November 6, 2018 5:37 AM Cc: marty.bluke at gmail.com This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and obligatory on both parents? KT MYG Sent via the BlackBerry Hub for Android From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:35:51 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:35:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday, November 6, 2018, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not > mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and > obligatory on both parents? > > I didn?t understand this point either as this is not an inyan of chinuch but pikuach nefesh which would apply to the mother also. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:07:42 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:07:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Toby Katz via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive > today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with > access to old library archives. > > > All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the > far side of the moon. > This is not quite true: together with lots of other Hebrew journals, they are all available online at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/JPress/English/Pages/default.aspx I doubt if that site gets as many hits as the New York Times, so basically you are right, but at least anyone who cares can judge for themselves what these newspapers were like -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Nov 6 10:59:09 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 20:59:09 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <5b8a21c0-a020-2f8a-c85c-af2e6568db4e@zahav.net.il> If no one has seen them, how do you know what was in them? You did a research paper? Ben On 11/6/2018 5:18 AM, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one > alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic > researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies > and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's > intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the > issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 6 12:04:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:04:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181106200428.GC28629@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 10:18:40PM -0500, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : From: Micha Berger :> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... :> Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of :> whose paper.) : You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way. When we : speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a : secular intellectual and academic movement and of people who were not : religious and who were often virulently anti-religious. Wissenschaft des : Judentums type... This is revisionist. When Beruriah David's PhD paper talks about the Maharatz Chajes as a Masekil, she was indeed talking about Wissenschaft types, but certainly not unobservant, never mind "virulantly anti-religious". In any case, the modern parallel to what we're talkiong about is if one of today's "yeshivish" rashei yeshivah, who happens to also be a Zionist, read a newspaper -- not a Torah magazine like JO -- put out by a LWMO "Academic Orthodox" type institution. : You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were : pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to : Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. I think you misunderstand the history. This is Chovevei Tzion, the people who brought you Achad haAm. These were Orthodox Jews who aligned with Secular Zionism. The people who founded Petach Tiqva in 1882. Bilu was also well on its way by the Netzi's hayday. But that has little to do with haMad. : The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, : moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were : definitely Orthodox. Nope. This is also revisionist. At least "moderate chareidi" is. : Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one : alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers : with access to old library archives.... Or Google. http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=tab&tab=browse&pub=MGD&_ga=2.44647777.412515131.1541534577-590544565.1541534577#panel=browse 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Nov 7 07:15:12 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:15:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0e8301d476ac$adf40550$09dc0ff0$@com> > Meaning a AhS tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 > ammah) > Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an > ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). You meant to say: RMF (IM OC 1:136) tefach is 3.54" (9cm) and ammah 21-1/4" (53.98cm). [Yes, I typoed -- 3 and 4 are adjacent keys. Which is how the error didn't reach my times-6 result for the ammah. -micha] From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 7 07:16:46 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:16:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1a5d3f60-a1f2-d250-1c3d-fc81959fdb40@sero.name> On 6/11/18 8:10 am, Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm > not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek > and obligatory on both parents? My guess is that these decisions are usually left to the mother, and the anti-vaxx nonsense has spread mostly among women, so he's now telling the men that it's their duty to insist on vaccinating the children even if their wives are opposed. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 7 11:25:01 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:25:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn Message-ID: I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" be to daven first, then learn? 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 Tue Nov 13 10:06:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181113180654.GA7634@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 07:25:01PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven : (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning : starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" : be to daven first, then learn? Perhaps it's because of Berakhos 31a: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven neither from din, nor from devar halakhah, ela mitokh halakhah pesukah. And what is halakhah besukah like? Abayei said, like what Rabbi Zeira said. ... and then quoting a settled halakhah that Rabbi Zeira said once. ("benos Yisrael hichmiru al atzman...") Rava said, like that which Rav Hoshia said.. But I think you get the idea. So, maybe people assume 1,600+ year-old discussions in the gemara qualify. I don't think that's shitas Rashi, though. Rashi ('halakhah pesuqah") says the gemara is worried about topics that a person would continue thinking about during davening. (The Be'er Heitev holds like Rashi.) But in any case, looking a little more meta: The gemara's assumption is that one is supposed to learn before davening, and the gemara then discusses what it is one should be learning. Later on in the sugya: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven from within sorrow, nor laziness, nor silliness, nor chatter, nor qalus rosh, nor devarim beteilim ela mitokh simchah shel mitzvah. Perhaps the learning is indeed seen as a prep for davening. (In addition to talmud Torah.) See OC 93. In the SA, that second TR is in se'if 2, and the first, in se'if 3. Se'if 4 amos, "Ha'oseiq betzorkhei tzibur ke'oseiq baTorah", because there is similar simchah shel mitzvah. 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 zvilampel at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 13 17:07:16 2018 From: zvilampel at mail.gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:07:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:13 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality > : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means > : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are > : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem > : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature* Just to be clear, that was a quote of the Maharal. > While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your usage. > the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent. Rambam teaches that during maaseh breishis, Hashem put the normal properties and behaviors into the natures of the things He created and formed. He also instilled in them the potential for certain aberrational behaviors, to be actualized upon certain conditions, such as the staff turning into a serpent. But such changes open can only last temporarily. But then there is the constant reaction of natural events to mankind's good and evil deeds, which is a neis nistar. This, Rambam explains, is nevertheless the greatest miracle of all: > "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with > loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a > continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of > metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". > (Rambam's Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end]) This view as well is shared by the Ramban. And this is his point in the passages in which he is mistakenly understood to be saying that "there is no 'it' to nature." As an example, in Toras Hashem Temimah, he cites the Rambam approvingly and says, "Most people think that the Alm-ighty does not constantly enact miracles, that the world proceeds in its way, and many of the chachamim think so, too, but the Rav (Rambam) curses them....All our affairs are entirely miracles, there is no nature and way that the world proceeds, for behold the promises of the Torah are all absolute miracles ...The fact of "And I shall give your rains in their time [if you keep the mitzvos]," Hashem will open for you his good treasure-house, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its time an d to bless...is the same as the plague of the firstborn, the dever and arov, and the drowning of the Egyptians in the sea...the only difference is that between the hidden and the open...." So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago shel olom, no "it" to nature. > From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? >Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? >See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam. The Ralbag demonstrates he was well acquainted with the Rambam's writings on the subject, and he himself states that none of his fellow rishonim before him "realized" that this was what Chazal were saying. The two issues raised in this post, the issue of time with the issue of miracles and ha-olom beMinhago noheig, actually tie together. Rambam in the above mentioned payrush on Avos famously maintains that it was on erev Shabbos that Hashem instilled potential aberrational behavior in the nature of the 10 things listed. However, the potentials for aberrational behaviors were instilled in the natures of all other creations ON THE DAY THE TORAH INDICATES. E.g. one example he gives is that the nature of water to split was instilled on day 2. So he is understanding the days as units of time, in which there were days 1-7 and a 6th day bein ha-shemoshos. If one were to attempt imposing the concept of "step of logic" on the use of the word "day" in this passage, the passage would not make sense. Moreh Nevuchim 2:30 does not differ. In MN 2:30, Rambam emphasizes that time itself is something Hashem created. It is a result of the turning of the sphere, which itself is something that was created. Thus, creation did not happen after a certain amount of time, because time could not exist before creation. This is the meaning of his saying that creation, the initial creation ex nihilo, happened "outside of time." (See Abarbanel ?(p. 8, left-hand column, middle), Crescas and Ephodi. Shemtov does attribute the "levels" peshat to Rambam.) But then he poses a question: If the sphere and heavenly bodies were first created the fourth day, how were the first three days measured? He is obviously assuming, in his question, that the creation days of the Torah are units of time. The question is how could there be a first, second and third day, if the thing that produces time, the revolving sphere, did not exist until day four. The question includes the assumption that each day of maaseh breishis witnessed a new creation ex nihilo of the rakia, the vegetation, the creatures, etc., so the heavenly bodies that determine units of time did not exist until the 4th day. He answers that day does not mean a unit of time, but a step of logic. No, wait, he doesn't. He answers that Chazal teach that despite the impression one may get from the pesukim, there was not a new creation ex nihilo each of the 6 days. There was one creation ex nihilo of everything, and then a "revealing"/separation/extraction of each component. What occurred on day 4 with the heavenly bodies responsible for time was not their creation. Their creation and behavior of determining time began at the instant of creation ex nihilo. He cites the Chazal comparing the process over the six creation days to that of various types of seeds. Even though they were all planted one day, each one sprouts later, on a different day. Repeat: later, on different days. The question of how there was time and days 1, 2, and 3 before day 4 is answered with the principle that the heavenly bodies responsible for time existed from the moment of creation. Nothing in the Rambam's words (either here or in his treatment in the first chelek of word meanings) about days meaning levels. "The particle "ess" in the phrase "ess ha-shamayim ve-ess ha-aretz ("the heavens and the earth") signifies "together with." Our Sages have explained the word in the same sense in many instances. Accordingly, they assume that God created, with the heavens, everything that the heavens contain, and with the earth, everything the earth includes. They further say that the simultaneous Creation of the heavens and the earth is implied in the words, "I call unto them, they stand up together" (Tehillim 48). Consequently, all things were created together, but revealed (nisgalu) / were separated from each other (nivdelu) one by one (rishon rishon). Our Sages illustrated this by the following simile: We sow various seeds at the same time; some spring forth after one day, some after two, and some after three days, although all have been sown at the same time. This outlook, which is undoubtedly the correct one, solves the problem of... how the first day, the second day and the third day were determined.... This is explicit in the words of our Sages in Bereshis Rabba. They said, regarding the light the Torah says was created on the first day. They said it as follows: These [lights of the luminaries mentioned in the Creation of the fourth day] are the very same lights that were created on the first day, but were not hung in their places until the fourth day. Behold, they explicitly stated this idea." All this would be an awful way to express the simple idea that by "day" the Torah means not a unit of time but a logical step. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 14 09:01:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:01:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Did you intentionally reply off-list? Or should I copy your email and this one onto Avodah? On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, : Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your : usage. A lot resided in the word "hypostasis", and a reason why I couldn't find a more apt word among normal English ones. :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. But it's minhago shel olam. Not an "it". The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH. It is this direct causality that people mistake for his saying there is no teva. According to the Rambam, nature is the product of the Seikhel haPo'al, which is acted upon by mal'akhim, which, if you chase the chain of causality up to the start, is a product of hashgachah kelalis and Divine Da'as. But there is an "it" there. Teva is a metaphysical object, not a pattern. See Moreh 2:11-12 (ch. 10 may be a useful prelude.) (Nevu'ah is also mediated through the Seikhel haPo'al [2:35], but that's a different subject.) A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a person, and thus to that extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH delegates his fate. I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to nature". But you apparently took me to mean there is no nature. Rather than no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on. That's what I was talking about, and most of your reply doesn't actually address the chiluq I'm making. : So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. No, but he does mean there is no such "thing" as nature. It's not a hypostatis. : His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago : shel olom, no "it" to nature. : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. See also the Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. The Abarbanel specifically endorces the Ralbag's "yesod" in understanding the Rambam. https://www.sefaria.org/Abarbanel_on_Torah%2C_Genesis.1.1.10 This is how the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian like R' Yitzchaq Arama. RYBS too, Mainodies between Philosophy & Halakhah, pg 187. In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of time. His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before the sun. And it's not a problem we modern people would face, anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 14 21:37:51 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:37:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli Message-ID: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html Me-Yet R' Ellman would not ( at least when I asked him) say that any of these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food for thought 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 Nov 14 21:35:38 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:35:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions Message-ID: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? Do we see this same propensity in prior authorities who were not writing codes in this manner? Other reason why different authorities might deal with this issue differently? 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 Nov 15 10:52:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:52:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> References: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20181115185222.GA28484@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 10:31:20PM -0400, R Akiva Miller replied to my post: :> So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted :> keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be :> when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than :> the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged :> YhR? : Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal : encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to : the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate : the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the : fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But that's the converse of my question. I didn't ask why Chazal found the taqanos they did. Or in the case of ribbis, engineered a solution using a pre-existing loophole. I asked why the RBSO didn't. If Chazal knew that people couldn't keep up the moral standard, obviously the Author of the deOraisos did too. And therefore, why didn't He allow ribbis for the same "lo diberah Torah ela keneged YhR" reasons as eishes yefas to'ar. Once we have G-d making compramizes for EYT, why did He leave ribbis to Chazal? Why did Hashem make it that money is qoneh? He knew better than chazal that it would create situations where a seller is still holding something he no longer owns, and sometimes that will mean carelessness in how the item is guarded. Why did Chazal need to invoke hefqer BD hefqer and totally rewrite how sale works? (That said, I am almost satisfied with RDR's answer, below.) : But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. : The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her : (unless he follows the prescribed procedure)... Today's militaries assume otherwise. Avoiding ribis is less of a problem when "money" is primarily a metal or contract to swap, only a half-step beyond barter. One is "only" losing opportunity cost. But once we got prime rates etc... so that there is a difference between present and future value of money can be done in some settings, avoiding ribbis became something not enough lenders could afford, and the poor suffered. Eishes yefas to'ar is similarly situational. Whether it is "unwinnable" at best depends on the kind of war one is fighting. Maybe when fighting barbarian tribes. But not as a general rule. : Alternatively: : D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. But they can allow things explicitly denied by the Torah? If you can engineer heter isqa into something that covers most of the situations where ribbis is needed, they could have engineered and issur. But I also recently encountered while learning Arukh haShulchan something that may be a counter-example. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that there are no shevu'os when the dispute is over qarqa. So, while modeh bemiqtzas (e.g.) about money or metaltelin requires a shevu'ah deOraisa, if it is about real estate there is no shevu'ah deOraisa. However, Chazal still require the nitba to make a shevu'as heises in order to retain his chazaqah on the land. And on Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:16:00AM -0400, R David Riceman replied to the same post: : It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it : is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical : level, however, I don't see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah : prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. I am sure the same was said before heter isqa. Chazal were a bunch of rabbis capable of finding 49 ways to be metaher a sheretz. Our inability to figure out how they would have created a law like eishes yefas to'ar doesn't prove it impossible. For that matter, the gemara apparently concludes that pruzbul was only enacted because shemittah today is derabbanan. Although I think it's left open whether pruzbul would not work when shemittah is deOraisa. Or whether hefqer BD would meant it would work, but they question the hava amina that Hillel would circumvent a deOraisa like that. What kind of "you don't" the gemara is talking about would impact your answer. That said, I like RDR's "more important point". Repeated here, since it's been nearly a month -- an eternity as list-time goes: : But there's a more important point. What's weird about war is that : it's not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between : civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those : different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say "hasatan : mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama" that's partly because the soldiers don't : have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. : But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to : rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person : to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over : his lifetime. : So it makes a lot of sense that k'nagged YhR is specifically mentioned : in the context of milhama. The reason why I said above I am only "almost satistfied" is that it borders on explaining too much. We aren't looking only for a chiluq between EYT and my sample dinim derabbanan. But also between deOraisa and derabbanan. You are left saying there is a whole set of dinim on a tightrope -- they are lifelong challenges and therefore controllable enough for HQBH not to want to compromize for human nature, and yet history evolved the situation to the point where they pose impossible challenges that chazal needed to accomodate. Well, not necessarily "impossible". At least: by Chazal's day these grew into challenges that are so rarely met, the usual outcome is more costly than the din -- such as the poor not being able to get a loan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 14:57:30 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:57:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli In-Reply-To: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119225730.GA28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:37:51AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: : https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html : : Yet R' Ellman would not (at least when I asked him) say that any of : these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food : for thought I like RARakeffetR's mashal (and recall, he is a RIETS RY with a PhD in Jewish History): You can ask a historican how the electric refrigerator was invented, and you will hear about the social forces involved, the wiring of the American home for power, etc... None of which tells you how the refrigerator actually works. (He might even give you the history of the application of thermodynamics and the Carnot cycle without ever explaining that particular bit of science.) Similarly: Knowing that a particular area of halakhah was mined in response to a given situation doesn't change the fact that the halachic principles had to be there and had to be applied. And the knowledge does little to teach you the principles themselves. 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 15:06:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 18:06:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions In-Reply-To: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119230604.GB28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:35:38AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan : aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority : opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach : rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? ... I think the SA tried to reach conclusions. For that matter, he tried to follow majority of his short list of major posqim. I think for him it was just a way of dealing with not being sufficiently convinced; and not having his triumverate answering the question for him. For the MB... Not sure I want to reopen that whole "the MB was written to help posqim, and its 'rulings' are lehalakhah velo lemaaseh" -- not always even followed by the CC himself. (Who was author of most of the book, and editor in chief of the rest.) : Other reason why different authorities might deal : with this issue differently? The AhS has enough confidence in toras imekha that he would use it to say that lemaaseh we pasqened like a minority, or like (what seems to me to be a) dachuq peshat. There are exceptions, where he holds that common practice is just too dachuq, but they're rare. So, for the AhS, being stumped means that not only is there no clear textual winner, there is no clear minhag (accepted practice) either. So holding out in fear of a mi'ut isn't likely. Holding like a mi'ut because the tzibbur already does, much more comomn. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 20 09:08:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181120170828.GA27185@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, ... :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. Actually, it's real, but I think you misunderstood what I meant. (As I said in the previous email.) Relevant is this excerpt from a recent shiur from Gush's Vitual Beis Medrash. Rav Bednarsh gives 2 chiluqim that are orthogonal to the one I mentioned (whether there is an "it" behind teva, or if nature is "merely" a pattern of Divine Action): 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. About fn #4... I spoke to RDBerger about his paper. I can ask a parallel question on RAB's article to introduce the same answer, so I will do so here. RAB writes (below): > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The > Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only > the principle of hashgacha pratit. > Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these > two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more > nuanced. > In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise > of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God > and not to doctors for healing.... ... > For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) > that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on > a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, > to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or > punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in > the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence > and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness... > In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that > his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh > Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and > tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully > on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the > Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order... Okay, so it's much more nuanced, but then what does he mean in the two places we started with? What I pointed out, that the Ramban is denying teva as an it -- that even teva is through the same direct Influence as neis -- adds the same nuance without ignoring those two more famous comments of the Ramban. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Yeshivat Har Etzion PHILOSOPHY > Topics in Hashkafa > Shiur #06: Divine Providence and the Natural Order 1 Rav Assaf Bednarsh Adapted by Leora Bednarsh Should one attempt to provide for one's needs in this world by working through the natural order, or should one do so by keeping mitzvot and trusting in God to provide? Are the events of this world caused by direct Divine Providence or by the natural scientific order? This question has tremendous practical significance and is the subject of much debate in the contemporary Jewish community. This topic is often portrayed as "hishtadlut (effort) vs. bitachon (trust)." ... The Position of the Rambam No Jewish philosopher can entirely deny the doctrine of hashgacha pratit. There are many examples in Tanakh that very clearly indicate that God miraculously takes care of the righteous in this world in accordance with His Divine plan.[1] However, almost all the cases in Tanakh deal with exceptionally righteous and spiritual individuals. That may be because most of Tanakh deals with these great individuals; these are the people we need to learn about in order to learn to be good Jews. The Rambam, however, maintains that this is not coincidence. It is not simply that these happen to be the main characters in Tanakh. According to the Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim III:18), hashgacha pratit is not something that God automatically utilizes in running the world. God relates to us when we relate to Him. When we open the channel, God's bounty flows through that channel. If we don't bother to create those lines of communication, then He does not communicate with us either. Those who have achieved philosophical sophistication, who have studied what the Rambam understands to be the Jewish mystical philosophical tradition and focus their thoughts on God, enjoy the benefits of Divine Providence. According to the Rambam, not all people enjoy equal Divine Providence. Those who are pious and good and religious enjoy more Divine Providence because of their understanding of God, which fuels their piety and goodness. Those who are prophets enjoy a higher level because of their deep understanding of God. Those who are on a very rarified level of philosophical spiritual achievement can be assured that God looks out for them in this world. The wicked and the religiously ignorant, however, have no such promise of Divine Providence. Even regular people who may be reasonably religious and try to think about God quite often still have not achieved that level of understanding at which they can assume that they are beneficiaries of constant direct Divine Providence. For the Rambam, then, most people do not enjoy the benefit of direct Divine Providence all the time. Accordingly, it makes perfect sense that we are expected to work through the natural order. The natural order is the default. When we change the rules by achieving philosophical knowledge of God, our lives begin to be run by the principles of Divine Providence. But much of the time the world is run by the natural order and God does not involve Himself. Thus, we should be expected to provide for ourselves and to achieve whatever goals we feel the need to achieve by means of the natural order. The natural order is the one thing that is guaranteed. God created the world and created the scientific order as the way in which the world will run until God decides to get involved because someone let Him in to his life.[2] And even then, God is only involved partially, to the extent that someone partially perfects themselves and meditates upon God. Of course, this does not mean that God has no part in our lives when we do not enjoy Providence. There is still hashgacha klalit, general Providence. God still arranges the world generally in such a way that our needs are provided for. We say blessings, thanking God, for example, for creating fruits of the tree, but not because He created this particular fruit for me to eat today, rather because He created a wonderful world that provides for much of our needs. It is our job to appreciate that. But when I stub my toe or win the lottery, is that God's direct intervention? According to the Rambam, most of the time it is not. Rather, it is the natural order. The Position of the Ramban It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only the principle of hashgacha pratit. Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more nuanced. In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God and not to doctors for healing. He states that when the masses of the Jews are perfect, their lives will not be run by the natural order, but rather directly by God; He will be their doctor. According to Ramban, that is what the righteous did in the days of Tanakh, during the era of prophecy. Anyone with access to prophecy does not need a doctor, and in case of illness should turn instead to a prophet, who will tell him which of his actions needs to be improved; he will then repent and repair those actions so that God will heal his disease. "What business do doctors have in the house of someone who fulfills the will of God?" asks the Ramban. Although the Rabbis interpreted the verse "ve-rapo yerapeh" (Shemot 21:19) as evidence that the doctor has permission to heal, the Ramban restricts the significance of this inference. If someone asks for help, the doctor should heal the patient - but Chazal never said that the patient should seek medical care, only that the doctor should provide it. The patient should ideally put all his trust in God and not in the natural order. However, if the patient has already put his trust in the natural order, the doctor has no choice but to heal him, because that is the only option left. When someone puts his faith in the natural order, his live is unfortunately run by the natural order. But when someone puts his faith in God, his life is controlled by direct Divine Providence. Similarities Between the Ramban and the Rambam The Ramban here seems to take an anti-Maimonidean stance, focusing on Divine Providence. However, on closer analysis, he does not deny the existence of the natural order. He acknowledges the existence of teva. Of course, he believes that it is far preferable to live by faith in God and not by teva, but once our spiritual level fell and we became accustomed to using medicine and working within the scientific order, God "abandoned us to the happenstance of teva." If we read the Ramban very carefully, we notice that the examples he uses of those who should not seek medical help but rather turn directly to God are limited to a time when the masses of Jews are righteous, during the time of prophecy. The Ramban is referring to people on a very high spiritual level. They enjoyed the benefit of constant Divine Providence and therefore had no business working through the natural order. The implication is that the situation is quite different for regular people in regular times. Even righteous Jew nowadays, when, unfortunately, the masses of Jews are far from perfect and when prophecy has not been restored to us, are not on the same high spiritual level. Therefore, they cannot have a reasonable expectation of constant Divine Providence in their lives, and perhaps they should visit doctors. Although everything that happens in the world is subject to Divine Providence, God has decided to abandon us - regular people in the contemporary era - to the workings of the natural order. We no longer merit constant Divine Providence. This is, in fact, explicitly the opinion of the Ramban in several places. For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness. But Yaakov himself was not sure that he was righteous enough to enjoy Divine Providence, which is why he prepared using natural means to make peace, or if need be, war, with Esav. He made various preparations using the natural order because in his humility, he was not certain that he was on the level to expect Divine Providence. If Yaakov Avinu questioned whether he deserved Divine Providence, the clear implication is that we can certainly not rely on it! In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order. We are instructed to conscript an army and go out and fight in the event of war, not just to sit and pray and wait for God to fight for us. We cannot always expect to be on such a high spiritual level that we enjoy constant Divine Providence. Rather, we must work under the assumption that we may not always be experiencing Divine Providence, and we must therefore work under the natural order. The Ramban tells us that if God wants us to win a war, we will win without an army, and if, God forbid, He wants us to lose a war, no matter how strong our military is, we will lose. But sometimes, when we are neither completely righteous nor completely wicked, God does not want any particular result, because He is not exercising Divine Providence at that point. That is why it is so important that we work through the natural order. The Ramban in this commentary seems to be in line with mainstream religious Zionist ideology. We work through the natural order because not everything always is decreed by God.[4] Differences Between the Ramban and the Rambam As much as the Ramban claims to agree with the Rambam, there is still a significant difference between their philosophies. The Ramban in a number of places, including his commentary to Iyov, tells us that Divine Providence can be either positive or negative. If someone is truly righteous, then God watches and guards him all the time. If someone is evil, God will intervene in the world to punish him. Those in the middle, neither wicked nor righteous, are left to the natural order. The Rambam, on the other hand, holds that Divine Providence can only be positive, not negative. It is purely a function of one's connection to God. Therefore, the more connected one is to God, the more Divine Providence; the more disconnected one is, the less Divine Providence. Punishment only occurs in this world because when God removes His Providence, one is exposed to the many perils of the dangerous world that we inhabit. While the Ramban has a volitional model of Divine Providence, in which God decides to exercise Providence when a person deserves reward or punishment, the Rambam has a more mechanistic model, under which Divine Providence is an automatic result of spiritual achievement. What the Rambam and the Ramban have in common, however, is their belief that while Divine Providence is an ideal to strive for, it is not the default, automatic way in which the world works. God sometimes involves Himself through the principle of hashgacha pratit, but often does not. The natural order is the authentic way in which God created the world to run when He doesn't decide to get involved and change things. For the Ramban and the Rambam, then, the answer to the question of faith (bitachon) versus effort (hishtadlut) is clear. We are expected to take care of providing our needs in this world the best we can using the natural order. None of us are arrogant enough to assume that we are so holy and righteous that we have constant Divine Providence. Of course, we strive to be more holy, spiritual, and righteous. We strive to enjoy more Divine Providence. And, at least according to the Ramban, perhaps our ultimate goal is to reach the highest spiritual levels and abandon the natural order. Nonetheless, in regular life, the Rambam and the Ramban would have us work in the natural order because we can never be certain that anything that happens to us in our lives is the result of God's direct intervention. Our success or lack thereof may be purely a function of the natural order. Therefore, we must take care of ourselves. God is not always taking care of us, as we may not be sufficiently righteous. _______________________ [1] For example, the Exodus and figures such as the Patriarchs, Daniel, and Chananya, Mishael and Azarya. [2] Even in this case, Rambam nowhere states that one who enjoys Divine Providence should not work within the natural order. In the next two shiurim, we will present various explanations of why even one who enjoys Divine Providence might be required to work within the natural order. [3] The Ramban understands God's "knowledge" of Avraham as constant Divine Providence [4] Many attempts have been made to resolve the apparent contradiction between the Ramban's statement in his commentary to Shemot 13 and his sermon Torat Hashem Temima and his formulations in his commentaries to Bereishit 18 and 32 and Iyov 36. It seems likely that the Ramban intended to claim not that everything that happens is a miracle, but that miraculous Providence ultimately controls everything. Since even nature was created by God, Providential intervention can override the laws of nature, but the laws of nature do not restrict Divine Providence. When Providence chooses not to intervene, however, nature still follows its course. For further reading, see the original texts, as well as David Berger, "Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmanides," in Isadore Twersky (ed.), Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuosity (Harvard University Press, 1983), available at https://www.biblicalnaturalhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/MiraclesNahmanides.pdf. From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 06:41:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:41:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yaakov and Esav Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32:8. 8 Ya?akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. In Ya?akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya?akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya?akov?s attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 08:24:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:24:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? Message-ID: One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the ?Medina shel Chessed? is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic issues of this very American holiday... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 22 04:30:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? Message-ID: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is it equivalent of free will? What does it mean to have free will without consequence? How then do we understand the medrash in Breishit that the trees were punished for not following HKB"H's direction? The dogs being rewarded for not barking? 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 zvilampel at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 09:30:07 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:01 PM Micha Berger wrote: > > RMB: > :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. > > ZL: Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no > less > : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of > : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that > : minhag permanent. > > ... > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. Where does Ramban say this? As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent at maaseh breishis. See, for example, on Shmos 6:6. ''The posuk says 'Vay-hiH khein'' because that is the teva that was instilled in them forever...and they will remain with the first teva that was instilled in them at the time of their formation (Vayamdual haTeva haRishon asher hussam bahem bEis yetsirasam). And on Vayikra 26:11, in the passage about refuah, he uses the phrase, VaHashem Heeneecham lemikrei haTivee-im, Hashem leaves them to the natural mikrreim. How is this insisting that, contra Rambam, ''those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH''? Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. RMB: [According to RambaM:] A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a > person, and thus to that > extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva > (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH > delegates his fate. > ZL: You are making a distinction that you attribute to RambaM, between teva and minhago shel olam. Teva is something that a daas-lacking person is left to. Through it, Hashem delegates his fate. Minhag shel olam is something else. I don't follow. Where is such a distinction made? And I thought you maintained that contra RambaN, RambaM does /not/ hold that HQBH delegates the fate of lesser people. Only ''the RambaN talks about nature being a pattern in events... /directly/ caused by HQBH. Is there also a distinction between ''directly causing'' and ''delegating''? Do you mean RambaM holds Hashem HAD delegated their fate (by setting up the mechanisms at Creation)? RMB: > I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to > nature". ... no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on... there is no such > "thing" as nature. It's not a > hypostatis. ZL: Where do you see what you are trying to explain in Ramban? Regarding the shiur by Rav Bednarshom, and the point that 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. The last sentence should be about RambaN, right? And here's something to ponder: As I wrote previously, the Rambam writes that the greatest miracle of all, is nature's responding to man's behavior, favoring good behavior and punishing bad behavior. Granted, favoring good behavior is miraculous. But l-fi Rambam's shittah, what is miraculous about leaving the practitioner of bad behavior to the wiles of nature? Also, regarding: > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. Obviously, this is just the hava amina. The Ramban did not write that ''everything that happens'' is a miracle. His wording is that the whole [teaching of the] Torah [about reard and punishment] is a miracle. Meaning, as the maskana is, that the Torah's system of award and punishment is miraculous. Secondly, the Ramban does not say that everything is a miracle,without causation, except reward and punishment. The causation between behavior and reward and punishment is an explanation of, not in contrast to, his statement that the whole teaching of the Torah is that there are miracules. > > > :ZL: His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a > : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the > forces > : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, > : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no > minhago > : shel olom, no "it" to nature. > > : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand > : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is > : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified > model, > : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. > > : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, > > : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, > note > : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? > > : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and > : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being > in > : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya > : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? > > :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. > > : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given > : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say > : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. > But > : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... > > It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. It is not his peshat in the Rambam. He does not mention Rambam, much less attribute to him, the ''levels'' peshat, neither in his Torah commentary nor in his Milchamos Hashem. If you can find such a passage, please locate it for me. On the contrary, here is how he addresses the question of how there could be days before the fourth day when the sun materialized. He gives two possibilities. And he gives the ''levels'' approach as an /alternative/ explanation to the answer that the sphere, by which time and days are produced, was in operation from the moment of creation.They are two /different/ ways of answering how there could be days one through three before the existence of the stars, although both answers are predicated on the Chazal-based view that everything in the universe and earth was instantly and simultaneously created in its complete form (besides vegetation and Adam and Chava). And if the virtually identical verbiage to that of the Rambam is an indication that Ralbag was intending to give peshat in the Rambam, note that he is explicitly using that verbiage in the answer granting that ''days'' are units of time, in /contrast/ to the notion of ''days'' meaning ''levels''. And also remember, as I have noted before, that Ralbag explicitly says (Torah commentary, on VaYchulu) V-im nim-tsi-u rechokim meod mei-hakavana asher matzanu kahn, kmo shetireh mimah shebier bazeh haRav HaMoreh besifro hanichbad Moreh HaNevuchim, ViHachcham R. Avraham Ibn Ezra.... that his new approach is /very far/ from that of the Rambam. And he repeats this in Sefer Milchemes Hashem, Presentation VI, ?Part II, Chapter 8, Conclusion. Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. This is how > the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian > like R' Yitzchaq Arama. > But you see, you have to resort to secondary sources to support the claims about what Rambam and Ralbag held, whereas we have the first-hand sources in front of us. The fact is that the Ralbag does not attribute the ''levels''approach to the Rambam, and in fact considers the ''levels'' approach as an alternative to what the Rambam wrote.. Abarbanel is known to repeat ideas of his contemporary, R. Y. Arama. He is also known to have a very eclectic style. You are of course correct that in his 9th shayla he attributes the ''levels'' approach to the Rambam. But look how he does it, and explain to me how it makes sense: > The 9th shayla concerns what is mentioned in the Moreh Nevuchim. Rambam > notes that time ?cannot exist without the movement of the celestial > spheres, the sun and moon. However, this raises ?the question as to how > there could be time before the fourth day on which the celestial spheres > and sun were ?created. The Rambam answered this question by asserting that > in fact the spheres and the sun were ?created on the first day. Thus time > existed for the first 3 days in the same manner as it existed on the > ?subsequent days. He explained that in fact everything ? both the Heavens > and the Earth ? were created ?on the first day. Stop here. Do you not see the Abarbanel explaining Rambam as holding that the days of Breishis were units of time, and not ''levels''? Let's continue: The Rambam cited Chazal that the word ?es? indicated that the creation on > the first day ?included everything associated with the Heavens as well as > everything associated with the Earth. He also ?cited the gemora (Chulin > 60a) that everything that was created was created in its final form. He > also cited ?another statement of Chazal that the Heavens and Earth were > created simultaneously. Thus the Rambam ?believed that the work of Creation > happened all on one day and was not divided amongst six days. He ?claimed > that in a single moment of creation everything came into existence. And of course, the Rambam continues (and Ralbag includes it) that whereas all was created ex nihilo from the first instant of creation, following that was a process of separating the components of the universe, forming things, as he says elsewhere in the Moreh, kach mikach. How then does the Abarbanel say in the next breath: > He explained that the reason ?for the Torah stating that there were six > days of Creation was to indicate the different levels of created ?beings > according to their natural hierarchy. Thus the Rambam does not understand > the word day to be a ?temporal day and he doesn?t read Bereishis to be > describing the chronological sequence of creation?. Kasha reisha al sefa! And note that in shayla 5 as well Abarbanel had written: That which the Torah mentioned of the creation of the stars on the fourth day, made HaRav haMoreh answer, as it seems from his words, in that chapter 30 of Part Three, that on the first day the sphere was created with the stars and light. But their actions had affect on the fourth day upon the vegetation.Such is apparent from the words of the Rav...Perhaps RambaN too meant this, since he mentions this approach in the name of yeish meforshim. And if one is to treat this as Abarbanel changing his mind, well then consider another about-face over 80 pages later (p. 85 in our editions) Behold you see that the opinion of the Rav was ...that all that is mentioned regarding the activity of the six days, ?from the creation of the heavens and the earth, and all of the phenomena, and the creation of Adam and ?his wife, up until ?vayechulu? have no allegory whatsoever, for everything was ?literal to him [the Rambam]. Therefore you will see that in this very chapter, no. 30 in the second section, ?in all which the Rav has explicated regarding the activity of the six days, he did not make an allegory or a ?hint at all. Rather, he did the exact opposite, for he made a concerted effort to support the doctrine of ?creation ex nihilo and accepted all of the verses literally?? Obviously, Abarbanel was not consistent as to whether the Rambam understood the creation days to be ''levels'' rather than units of time. So he should not be cited with such certainty that he held so. ?I would also caution against uncritically accepting A?s description of B?s opinion if A goes on to ?lambaste it, as the Abarbanel did with his original reading of the Moreh Nevuchim. ?(The question presents itself, then, how did the Abarbanel?s contemporary, the Akeidas Yitzcahk, ?and the commentary of the ShemTov?who is not regarded as a rishon?as opposed to the ?commentary by Crescas), and the Abarbanel himself in his second take, get from (a) the Rambam?s ?classical rendition of a six-day meta-natural development of potential created on day one, to (b) ?seeing the Rambam as promulgating that ?the six days are a metaphor for six levels in the hierarchy ?of natural objects: light/darkness, water, minerals, flora, fauna, man??? My theory is that the earlier commentators of the Moreh, such as Narboni, greatly influenced by ?the Aristotelian academia of the time, anxiously imposed their radical views on the Rambam. (We ?see that in the Rambam?s own time, he complained of people radicalizing his views?including those ?who as accused him of (or ?complimented? him for) denying techiass ha-meisim). They hijacked the ?Moreh so efficiently that it became popular to think the Rambam thought like Narboni. This ?became the starting point from which later commentaries saw the Moreh (similar to, l?havdil, Rashi?s ?commentary being one?s first impression of what the Chumash says, and one?s natural thinking that ?what Rashi says is necessarily what the Chumash undoubtedly means.)? > In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, > following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, > there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which > processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the > Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of > time. > Not my issue. > > His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before > the sun. > *In the words of Ralbag the **problem is with zeman before the sun. His answer is that the sphere, even without the sun, produces zeman. * The problem that bothered the early ones, with what were day one, day two and day three measured? Behold, the light-bearers were not in existence until day four! [The answer is that even though the light-bearers did not appear until day four], the heavenly sphere was in existence on day one, and each revolution of it formed approximately one day. Abarbanel puts it that the problem is zeman before the sphere, sun and stars. The answer is that they all existed and formed zeman from the first act of creation. ???"? (?????, ??? ?) (?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? (?, ?-?) ...??????, ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? (??? ? ??? ?), ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???, ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?????; ???? ???? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?):... ??????? ??????: ?? ??? ???? ?????, ?????: ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????, ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? (?????? ??, ??). ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????: ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??????????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? (?, ?) ?* ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ???.* ???? ?????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??????,??? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ????, ????? ???? ???? ??? *.??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? .* *??* ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???, ????? ?? ????? ?????? *???? ??????*, ?? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ??? ????? *???? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????*; ??? ????? *??? ????? ???????,* ?? [??"? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????, ?"?] *?**??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????, ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? *? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??. ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???????, ??? ????? ?????. *???? ????? ????? *??? ???? ?????, ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?????. ??? ?? ????????? ??????? ??? ??????: ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?), ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?????. ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? (??? ? ????? ???? ????), ?????: ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??. ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????, ?? ???? ?????? ??, ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???????, ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? > > But the bottom line,to which we both agree, is that traditional Judaism holds that Creation, regardless of our issue about zeman, was not a natural process. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162531 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 23 02:58:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. : : : Where does Ramban say this? ... This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, it directly from G-d. : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag : permanent at maaseh breishis... Which is not in contradicction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain ways. To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel hapo'el, but still thimk you can reach what the rishonim are talking about? :-)BBii! -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 zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 15:37:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 18:37:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those > events > : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. > : > : > : Where does Ramban say this? ... > > This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > from G-d. Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or uses intermediaries. > > : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times > that > : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag > : permanent at maaseh breishis... > > Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern > of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that > behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain > ways. I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures. Yes, Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but they would be in agreement that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM, and just as much not a ??thing?? ?to RambaM as to RambaN. The disagreement would be whether Hashem at Creation set up intermediary steps ?in creating the world?s components and their behaviors. According to both of them, at the end of the Creation period Hashem established what the normal behaviors (patterns) would thereon be, and up to then the nature of the world was not stabilized. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but both agree that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. RambaM cites Chazal that ?Hashem at Creation also imbued in the things of the world the potential for aberrant behaviors ??(miracles) to be triggered when Hashem so decrees. I do not see RambaN disagreeing, but even if he does, I do not see framing it in terms of a dispute over whether nature is a ??thing.?? It would be a dispute over whether the miraculous natures were imbued at Creation or first initiated at their enactment, and in view of the Chazal cited by RambaM, RambaN would have some explaining ?to do. And of course, although the Rambam strongly objects to the idea that Hashem is constantly recreating the world, he also famously states that Hashem is constantly maintaining it, and that if He would remove His maintenance, the world would cease to exist. ? And if one insists on inferring from RambaM?s words an issue of Nature being considered a ????thing??, as opposed to a mere normal pattern of behavior, consider this quote:? http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=38545&st=&pgnum=14&hilite? The One Who created it [the world] made its general properties as a kiyum gadol. ??...This is what it means when it says, ??I know that all that G-d will make, IT will be ?forever.??...The yesodos ... all these are kayamim l-olom. It is impossible to add upon or take away from them, for it says, ??And G-d MADE [things] so that [people] will be in awe before Him, for ...these [things] stand forever. The above are the words of RambaN, in his Drasha on Kohelles. One could argue therefrom that he considers the general properties of the world as ??things?? that are permanent. Or not. > To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. To the Rambam, as well. > > : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to > : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. > Especially > : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. > > You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel > hapo'el, but still think you can reach what the rishonim are talking > about? No. You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? Zvi Lampel -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban Drasha on Kohelles.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 500027 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 25 17:29:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:29:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the Destruction of Sodom? Message-ID: <20181126012932.GA7767@aishdas.org> See https://www.sciencenews.org/article/exploding-meteor-may-have-wiped-out-ancient-dead-sea-communities or . I am including just a teaser. I intentionally ended with the note that the researcher works at a Xian university, as that does speak toward objectivity. We'll see what peer review says of the evidence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Science News Archaeologists at a site in what's now Jordan have found evidence of a cosmic calamity An exploding meteor may have wiped out ancient Dead Sea communities By Bruce Bower 10:00am, November 20, 2018 Preliminary evidence indicates that a low-altitude meteor explosion around 3,700 years ago destroyed cities, villages and farmland north of the Dead Sea (shown in the background above) rendering the region uninhabitable for 600 to 700 years. DENVER -- A superheated blast from the skies obliterated cities and farming settlements north of the Dead Sea around 3,700 years ago, preliminary findings suggest. Radiocarbon dating and unearthed minerals that instantly crystallized at high temperatures indicate that a massive airburst caused by a meteor that exploded in the atmosphere instantaneously destroyed civilization in a 25-kilometer-wide circular plain called Middle Ghor, said archaeologist Phillip Silvia. The event also pushed a bubbling brine of Dead Sea salts over once-fertile farm land, Silvia and his colleagues suspect. People did not return to the region for 600 to 700 years, said Silvia, of Trinity Southwest University in Albuquerque. He reported these findings at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research on November 17... From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:49:35 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:49:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Weight of a Shekel Message-ID: <20181126204934.GA12575@aishdas.org> No, they didn't find a sheqel, they found something just as good -- a beqa from bayis rishon, as in machatzis hasheqel "beqa lagulgoles". Just multiply by 2 to get a sheqel haqodesh. (Ie a beqa is a plain old sheqel.) (There apparently weren't 1/2 sheqel coins during basyis rishon.) See or https://www.timesofisrael.com/straight-from-the-bible-tiny-first-temple-stone-weight-unearthed-in-jerusalem/ The Times of Israel Straight from the Bible: Tiny First Temple stone weight unearthed in Jerusalem By Amanda Borschel-Dan 21 November 2018, 12:57 pm Volunteer at City of David sifting project finds rare `beka' measure, used by pilgrims paying half-shekel tax before ascending to Temple Mount, in dirt from dig near Western Wall [Picture of weight, bearing the word beqa in kesav Ivri in mirror writing. The caption reads:] A First Temple period weight measure called a 'beka' was unearthed in a City of David excavation in the Davidson Archaeological Park and discovered in the wet sifting project in Jerusalem's Tsurim Valley. (Eliyahu Yanai, City of David) An extremely rare, minuscule biblical stone weight inscribed in ancient Hebrew script with the word "beka" was discovered in rubble taken from excavations at the foundations of the Western Wall. Only a handful of similar stone beka weights have been unearthed in Jerusalem, said archaeologist Eli Shukron... Unlike several hundred years later, during this era, there was no half-shekel coin. Pilgrims brought the equivalent weight, a beka, in silver to pay their tax, which would have been measured out on scales in the very spot under the Temple Mount where the tiny stone weight was unearthed. Shukron said in a press release, "When the half-shekel tax was brought to the Temple during the First Temple period, there were no coins, so they used silver ingots. In order to calculate the weight of these silver pieces they would put them on one side of the scales and on the other side they placed the Beka weight. The Beka was equivalent to the half-shekel, which every person from the age of 20 years and up was required to bring to the Temple." According to the release, the biblical shekel weighed 11.33 grams.... To give you an idea of where that stands halachically, the Rambam's (H' Sheqalim 1:2) 384 se'or. A barleycorn is 0.044 and 0.05 gm, so the Rambam's sheqel would be at least 16.9 gm. Rashi (Shemos 21:32) says that a sheqel is half of a the ounce used in Cologne. Which today we would call .5 troy oz, or 15.55gm. The CI holds it's .51 troy oz (15.86 gm). Once again, the evidence about shiurim from Har haBayis is below even the Rambam's shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:26:21 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:26:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly :> from G-d. : Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or : uses intermediaries. Except that he calls it a neis. It can't both be Divine Intervention AND left to metaphysical mechanics. I mentioned that RDBerger et all never go around back to the first Rambans they discuss to explain what they do mean after all. He does deny teva in the famous comment at the end of parashahs Bo (13:16) (where he refers you back to comments on Beresishis 17:1 and Shemos 6:2). For that matter, he even denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. We have to close the circle somehow. Teva = nisim nistarim. Nistar through allowing patterns, minhago shel olam. ... :> Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern :> of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that :> behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain :> ways. : : I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that : it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow : apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the : behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". (I think this description of the Ramban is the belief most of us leave yeshiva day school with.) : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. Physics does not inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His Action to be hidden by routine. : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim in the usual sense. ... :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : : To the Rambam, as well. To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. To the Ramban, a person who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from Him as needed. Tir'u baTov! -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 llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 27 06:18:44 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:18:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why Didn't The Brothers Tell Yaakov "Yosef is alive"? Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 37:35 35 All his sons and daughters arose to console him, but he refused to accept consolation. He said: I shall go to my grave, mourning for my son. Thus his father wept for him. (?His daughters? probably refers to his daughters-inlaw.) All of them ?arose? to console him. They did not ?go? or ?come?; they ?arose? to console him. ?To arise? in order to perform an act implies that the act is born of resolution, an act one must bring oneself to perform. Until this point, they themselves were immersed in grief. No one feels so much grief as do those who must console a mourner. To see one?s aged father inconsolable, viewing every cheerful thought as a sin, would move even a heartless scoundrel to agonized remorse. He would be too distraught to offer consolation, because he would be in need of consolation himself. But why didn?t any of them attempt to sprinkle soothing balm upon the wound? Why didn?t they reveal to him: ?Yosef is alive!?? The answer: because that would have been the greatest cruelty of all. In the minds of parents, a child who was torn by wild beasts is never lost, but a child who is wicked is worse than lost. Therefore, he who would not aggravate the father?s grief a thousandfold would have to remain silent until the day when Yosef would return and the joy of the reunion would mitigate in the father?s mind even the crime that had been committed by his other sons. Had they told Ya?akov at that time the truth about what had been done to Yosef, Ya?akov would have felt as though he had lost not only one son, but ten sons at one time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 06:39:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gradations of Lifnim miShuras haDin Message-ID: <20181128143951.GA12638@aishdas.org> Surprisingly, not a subject I've thought about before. Apparently, there are different kind of lifnim mishuras hadin callings. See Arukh haShulchan CM 222:8. The SA (se'if 2) talks about the case where someone buys something from one of 5 people, doesn't recall which, and each of them are tov'im for payment. The money is held in escroe by BD until the claimants come to agreement or Eliyahu arrives and sorts it out. And if he is a chassid, he should pay each of them, kedei latzeis yedei Shamayim. The AhS adds: And a chassid adif miyarei Shamayim (YS) because a YS does not want to be mevater his own property in a business matter, and a Chassid is mevater. (Shabbos 120b). Presumably a YS is the person concerned latzeis yedei Shamayim (or else I can't understand the AhS). And this goes on to the case of the yoreish of one of the potential sellers, claiming he would be patur even LYS (Sha"kh, Ramban, Ritva.) Whereas the Qetzos says that while he is patur even LYS, chassid, ra'ui lo la'asos kein mimidas chassidus. So, there seems to be two kinds of lifnim mishuras hadin involved here, and there is a nafqa mina lemaaseh: the YS who is concerned LYS, and the chassid who is pursuing his midas chassidus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 11:48:46 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:48:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Baalus and Chameitz (was: help with 2 sugyot) Message-ID: <20181128194846.GA21056@aishdas.org> On 1 May 2013 (v23n74 ) I replied to a question by RAM with (in part): > But I think the key here is the word "property". I suggested in the past > that there is no such thing in halakhah. (With a probable exception of bal > yeira'eh bal yeimatzei.) There is baalus, but that's a different concept. > Returning to bal yeira'eh as an example... A son does not inherit chameitz > from his father who dies while owning it on Pesach. The issuer hanaah > means a lack of baalus. Even though it's the father's in the sense of > being chameitz she'avar alav haPesach (for the part of Pesach the father > was alive to own it). > As is implied in what RAM writes, baalus is more like custodianship than > what we think of when we hear "property". Which is born out in the word > "baalus" as well. Baalus revolves around control and responsibility, > not an abstract principle of how the world is divided up among people. > My previous thoughts on baalus and qinyan, as shaped by prior conversations > here, are at . Well, Arukh haShulchan Yomi adds another data point -- CM 245:10. Someone gives another a gift and the recipient uses a language of bitul (bitul, mevatel, mevuteles hi, tivateil, etc..) to reject the gift after it reached him, if it's metaltelin, the item is hefqer. The AhS notes the connection to bitul chomeitz that renders it hefqeir. However, he says this is no raayah because chameitz on Pesach isn't in his reshus, it's only made "ke'ilu hi birshuso" by bal yeira'eh. And that's why gilui daata is enough to get the chameitz out of his reshus. But (citing the Ran, beginning of Pesachim), something that is mamash his is different. The AhS concludes that bitul only makes the gift hefqer because it's a gift, but if it were actually his nekhasim, it wouldn't be sufficient. (Now that I wrote all that, I seem to recall someone did along the years mention that bitul chameitz only works because we're talking about quasi-baalus, and not real baalus. But I invested too much to what to skip sending this email now. And besides, I added another maqor.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 28 21:29:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 05:29:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. Message-ID: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to both monetary and spiritual liabilities. I was wondering, according to those who said you can waive the spiritual liability, whether that would also work retroactively (e.g. would somebody escape lashes for less than a penny's worth of damage -if the aggrieved party waived the spiritual damages after the fact of the hit) 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 Nov 30 10:19:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links Message-ID: <20181130181913.GA25124@aishdas.org> Einstein and G-d: http://nautil.us/blog/how-einstein-reconciled-religion-to-science Eistein said things about G-d that appear to contradict -- he both speaks of the Designer of existence and belittles the G-d of religion. Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's -- not emunah in a Borei but our standards, but far from atheism in their self-perception. --- Stephen Colbert explains his faith to Dr Neil de Grasse Tyson https://www.facebook.com/michael.bernstein.86/videos/10100134331341237/ He says that his faith doesn't come from a place of evidence, it comes from gratitude. Until they can explain why we exist rather than not exist, we need some basket to put that gratitude in. A little too Gcd of the Gaps. He could have made the same point using a more Non-overlapping Magesteria approach. IOW, he shouldn't be talking about belief until Dr Tyson and others in his profession can explain why we exist. Rather, he should point out they can't -- "why we exist?" isn't even a scientific question. Science doesn't cover all of human experience. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 18:36:04 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 21:36:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:26 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> RMB : This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > :> from G-d. > > : ZL: Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the > : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas > : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at > : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or > : uses intermediaries. > > RMB: Except that he calls it a neis.... ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' from Hashem than RambaM did. denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: > From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, > all our things and everything that happens to us is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago shel olom. It can't both be Divine Intervention > AND left to metaphysical mechanics. > Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine intervention manipulates but does not undo. The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force .'' > And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits > sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." > > Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. > We have to close the circle somehow. > ... According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". ZL: You are basing a lot on the Ramban using the expression ''hakol begeiras Elyon.'' But that expression, as well as ''neis,'' is no indication of disagreeing with the idea of Hashem intervening and conducting a neis nistar working through intermediaries to manipulate but not undo minhago shel olom. Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim has a chapter on this. And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own through the control of the angels over the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force . And behold the control was /from the time of their coming into being until forever more, *a gezeyras Elyon* [another girsa is Elyonim] that He placed in them/.'' The correct translation of ''gezeyras elyon[im] may even be ''a gezeyra about the upper world(s)/beings/forces,'' with elyon not being a reference to Hashem, just as it obviously is not in the first sentence of this passage. The gezeyas Elyon is what He placed into the forces that produce nature, the minhago shel olom. In the passage where Ramban declares that all that occurs to us is neis and not minhago shel olom or teva, he is contrasting our belief that Hashem, through neis nistar, manipulates minhago shel olom according to our deeds, with that of those who hold that nature runs mechanically with no connection to human behavior. Realizing this answers all that you proceeded to write: > > ...ZL: > : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem > : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... > > RMB: You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. ZL: I cited his repeated explanation of vayehi chein, and now his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12. RMB: [Ramban holds, contra RambaM, that] Physics does not > inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His > Action to be hidden by routine. > > ZL: : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that > : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and > : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of > : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. > > RMB: But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras > Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim > are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? > ZL: This is again your unwarranted inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras Elyon. > > ZL: : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you > : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a > : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much > : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... > > RMB: Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other > says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim > in the usual sense. > > ZL: This is again your inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras > Elyon, which I showed is incorrect. Rambam speaks in terms of Seichel > HaPoel setting up the world's machinery of spheres that influence matters > on earth. Ramban speaks in terms of Hashem creating influencing spheres > controlled by angels. Ramban considers Nature no less an ''it'' than > Rambam. Rambam considers Nature no more an ''it'' than Ramban. > > ... > RMB: :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. > : > ZL: : To the Rambam, as well. > > RMB: To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah > necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. > And RambaN (Devarim 18:13) speaks of Hashem redirecting the normal course of the spheres to act in favor of those who draw close to Him through their avodah. (In fact, Rambam in Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end], too, puts it terms of avodah: "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". According to both, Hashem intervenes to manipulate the machinery of minhago shel olom based upon man's closeness to him. > ZL: : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without > : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? > > RMB: The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is > saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, > he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. > > Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is > hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. ZL: I'll concede that point, although I'm still left with the question that the Rambam refers to minhago shel olom oneshim, too, as the greatest of nissim nistarim. How is abandonment to nature a neis? And he also refers to, for example, the Egyptians being punished for volunteering to fulfill the role of persecutors foretold of in the bris bein habesarim. The plagues were not a mere abandonment to nature... Tsaruch iyun.... > To the Ramban, a person > who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from > Him as needed. > ZL: That's an interesting twist on how to look at oneshim as a chessed. > > Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/03/18, 8:45:33 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban on astrology Devarim 18, 9-13.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2384560 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 4 09:31:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:31:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181204173107.GC16262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 09:36:04PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the :> : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas :> : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at :> : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or :> : uses intermediaries. :> RMB: : Except that he calls it a neis.... : So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar.... Different "it". The Ramban calls everything a neis. The fact that that doesn't imply what you would think if you only looked at those 2 comments doesn't change the fact that to the Ramban, teva is a neis. So: The Rambam acknowledges sekhar va'onesh via neis nistar, for those who earn such HP. (Hashgachah = both sekhar va'onesh.) And yet normal teva is the action of the Seikhel haPo'al, a metaphysical automaton "preprogrammed" by the Borei. The Ramban holds that all of teva is neis nistar, whether it's hashgachah (leshitaso: hashgachah = sekhar), onesh, or minhago shel olam. Again, but in significantly different words: To the Rambam, teva follows minhago shel olam because the Seikha haPo'al has a single mission and lack bechirah. According to the Ramban, teva is a word that means the subset of Divine Action that follows minhago shel olam rather than being selected by HP. I believe you agree that rishonim understand the Rambam's position on teva and the Seikhal haPo'al the way I explained it. I am not clear how you can insist they got it wrong. : ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, : > all our things and everything that happens to us : is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the : manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or : non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day : behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and : everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago : shel olom. Right, but that's not HP. According to both Rambam and the Ramban, not everything that happens to every person is HP. And yet they are all neis. You are also incorrectly deducing from the Rambam's talking about that whih happens to us that he means to exclude things that don't impact human life, such as the growth of a tree in the middle of the Amazon where it possibly effects no one. However, he is saying the Torah is founded on knowing how to view what happens to me personally. Not abstract knowledge about how the world works. That tree in the Amazon isn't on topic. ... : ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling : it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' : from Hashem than RambaM did. Even before we get to our point, not really. According to the Rambam, sekhar is a neis nistar. Onesh is almost always abandonment to teva. (Similarly, to the Rambam on Cheileq, gehenom is kareis is a lack of olam haba, and not suffering in olam haba.) Suffering as onesh is usually just what happens to a human being trying to fight what we would call today the law of increasing entropy. (It's easier to break things than make them.) On rare occasions, there is a Makas Bekhoros, but those are nissim geluyim. After all, leshitas haRambam, sin causes a lack of knowledge of the Borei, and thus a disconnection from Him, and thus a lack of hashpa'ah. HP itself is causal, leshitaso. Just as nevu'ah is causal, and it take a neis for Hashem to hide information from a navi who has enough yedi'ah to be connected up to be able to "look" for it. So, they disagree about whether onesh is HP / neis, even before we get started with our dispute. (Something also mentioned in the shiur from Gush I pointed you to.) :> It can't both be Divine Intervention :> AND left to metaphysical mechanics. : Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem : created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar : v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In : contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine : intervention manipulates but does not undo. And to repeat myself, you're nmistaken. The Rambam has a delegate Hashem gave nature to, and when there is a break from minhago shel olam, Hashem (via mal'akhim, beings higher than the Seikhel haPoal) is intervening. The Ramban does not have such a delegate. When there is a break from minhago shel olam, it's because someone earned Hashem making another kind of decision; another priority rose to the top in (kevayakhol) how He Chooses what to Do. Your reasserting otherwise still doesn't explain why you feel the Abarbanel and Narbonni got him wrong about this idea that a separate seikhel was created to do teva, that just runs minhago shel olam. And in fact, further down you stop denying this and instead argue from the Ramban in Devarim that the Ramban also has such sikhliim. I am not clear where exactly you stand. : The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm : of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each : ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago : shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. Runs like a machine, ie following a minhag. Whereas the Rambam gives it an actual metaphysical machine. : To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing : astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created : the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the : spheres. You are literally quoting a Ramban that says that even though there are kokhavim, mazalos, mal'akhim and sarim which has a nefesh, one cannot worship them or use astrology to tell the future (kesoa'avos hagoyim haheim) because they're only responding to His Will. A navi, who is looking at His Will, can know the future. : ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim : controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and : constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the : stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force : .'' Manhig = controller? : And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that : very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own : through the control of the angels over the spheres. Not on its own. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 04:19:47 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 07:19:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 > From: Micha Berger > > Einstein and G-d: > > ...Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's He said so explicitly ''I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... '' New Times, April 25, 1929, in answer to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/04/18, 7:16:09 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Tue Dec 4 08:24:16 2018 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 18:24:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Tuesday evening) begin Prayer for Rain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Tuesday evening), December 4, 2018, corresponding to the evening of 27 Kislev, 5779, the third night of Chanukka. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: https://www.lookstein.org/professional-dev/veten-tal-u-matar/ (Thanks to Russell Levy for suggesting the article.) In unrelated news, here's what keeps me busy: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/ Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky Post-doctoral Fellow Department of Mathematics Ariel University Ariel 4070000, ISRAEL ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Tue Dec 4 11:25:15 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One clear difference between the Rambam and the Ramban is the value of miracles as evidence; see H. Yesodei HaTorah 8:1 vs. Toras HaShem Temimah Ed. Chavel pp. 146, 150, 152, etc. I think the explanation is hinted at in the Ramban in Shoftim you cited. The Rambam holds that miracles are ad hoc, but the Ramban holds that miracles also follow laws and those laws echo creation. David Riceman Sent from my iPad From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 6 05:32:53 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 13:32:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] seuda shlishit Message-ID: <1c08882303fd4627b3659b0785fb9331@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> It is certainly preferable to either eat bread or stop eating before shekia (or close to it - beyond our present scope). If you partake in a full meal but refrain from bread for a certain reason, leniency has strong grounds. If you are picking at food according to your mood, and even more so if you previously fulfilled seuda shlishit, it is difficult to allow eating as night approaches. (Me- Is this generally followed?) 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 Thu Dec 6 14:45:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:45:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Havdalah or Menorah on Motzai Shabbos Which comes first? Message-ID: Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos - Chanuka? Not a recent question, this situation of competing halachic principles has been the basis of the centuries-old debate regarding which mitzvah has priority and should therefore be performed first. In other words, on Motzai Shabbos Chanuka this annual halachic dispute, simmering since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up... Please see https://goo.gl/oV2gpg YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 7 11:21:41 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 19:21:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: Q. I will be traveling to New York from my home in New Jersey for a Chanukah party at my parents? house and won?t be returning home until late at night. I have the following options: I can light at home at 4:00 PM (which is before sunset); I can appoint an agent (shliach) to light in my house for me at the proper time; I can light at my parents? house; or I can light upon returning home late at night when there are no longer any passersby. What should I do? A. The Mechaber rules that if one will not be able to light the Chanukah candles at the prescribed time, he may light them any time after Plag HaMincha (Shulchan Aruch OC 672:1). Plag HaMincha in the winter is approximately an hour before sunset. However, if one must leave immediately thereafter, it may not be advisable to leave candles unattended. The possibility of using an agent is questionable, since Mishnah Berurah (675:9) rules that when an agent lights for him, the person must stand next to the agent and hear him recite the brachos; obviously, this is not feasible in this case. The third possibility, lighting at one?s parents? home, is not acceptable. One must light where he lives (i.e. the place where he eats and sleeps on a regular basis). Since he does not live in his parent?s home but is merely eating a meal there, he may not light there. One should follow the fourth option and light upon returning home. As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. Therefore, one may light even if it is late and there will be no passersby to see the menorah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 8 17:32:58 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 20:32:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49e62b3e-cb2d-9d77-dbff-c94f400def1e@sero.name> > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit > primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising it, if not to the passersby? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 18:33:18 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:33:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: . Someone quoted the OU's Halacha Yomis: > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. R' Zev Sero asked: > What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising > it, if not to the passersby? I don't think the OU meant to suggest that one isn't yotzay if his family doesn't see the neros. When danger caused us to move the menorah indoors, *everyone* lit indoors. No exceptions were made for those who live alone. It seems clear to me that one is yotzay even if he is the only one to see them lit. Come to think of it, one is yotzay Pirsumei Nisa if no one hears him read the Megilla, or if no one sees him drinking Arba Kosos. Why should Ner Chanuka be different? It is true that the Mishne Berura 672:11 says that if everyone at home is already asleep, then he must either wake someone or light without the bracha. But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants to act like that, we don't stop him." Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 12 21:41:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:41:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music and literature: As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the better strategy? 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 Dec 12 21:44:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? 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 Dec 15 19:22:45 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 22:22:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: <4EBAA25A-8790-4673-AAFF-7E2AC74B5C9A@cox.net> With an extremely unusual exception, all professionals will tell you that the first time your husband assaults you must be the last time. Furthermore the law is clear and unequivocal: Any incidence of a domestic crime must be dealt with by arresting the guilty party, be it husband or wife. I can tell you that any call we get involving a domestic always results in an arrest. Dina D'Malchusa Dina This is the law and we are mandated to follow it. I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve your spouse. Mechila or no mechila, the consequences are serious and the law must be followed. Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 16 11:13:33 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot Message-ID: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of chutz l'aretz. Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? Ben From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 16 12:56:05 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 15:56:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? First thought, just to help the ball rolling. Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? So, there are people actually eating challah in the Rambam's world. Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both being deOraisa. (In particular, it can be taken retroactively; you can eat before hafrashah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Dec 17 08:28:25 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:28:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Asara b'Teves Message-ID: The message of this commemoration is that after the destruction, we must trace its sources and mark its stages; we must look backwards to events that are not earth-shattering and perceive how the seeds of the destruction on the Ninth of Av were planted on the Tenth of Teves. The more we study history, the more we learn that we should not concentrate only on the final act itself, but also on all the stages that led up to it. This also applies to the Holocaust which is probably the worst tragedy in Jewish history. Along these lines we also recite Kaddish on the 10th of Tevet for all those whose date of death is unknown, who perished in the Holocaust. Apparently, the tenth of Teves is "the Day of God" about which many prophets spoke ? the tenth day of the tenth month. (The 10th of Teves is the only fast day that can fall on a Friday). The number ten in kabala is related to the sefira of malkhut, and therefore, the very essence of the day is appropriate to the theme of God's kingship. Chazal teach that at midnight a north wind would blow, rousing King David from his sleep to serve his Creator. It is in the middle of the night, specifically in the depths of the darkest part of the night, that the sovereignty of Israel awakens, and the kingship of God is revealed in the world.May the Kingship of the Almighty finally rule all mankind thus fulfilling the vision of the prophets: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall men learn war anymore; for all men, both great and small shall know the Lord.? Amen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 17 09:09:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:09:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 16/12/18 3:56 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that > : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? > > First thought, just to help the ball rolling. > > Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. I assume Sefardim also, though I don't know this for certain. But the SA certainly says to do so, and only the Rema says the minhag is not to. > They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem > with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump > actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? AFAIK it's got nothing to do with chinuch; the reason it's given to ketanim rather than gedolim is because they have never experienced tum'ah that comes from their own bodies. It can also be given to an adult cohen who has been to the mikveh. The Rema says this is not our minhag because since it's not eaten in EY there is no need for it to be eaten in chu"l. Other acharonim suggest that it's because we have no cohanim meyuchasim, so we're not even certain this child is a cohen in the first place, or because we're worried that the child won't be careful with it and it'll get into people's food, or just that if it's not burned immediately it will somehow find its way to someone who shouldn't eat it. > Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both > being deOraisa. Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan. (Nowadays even chalah of EY is midrabanan, but it has an ikkar min hatorah, whereas in chu"l it's entirely midrabanan.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:25:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:25:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181217172541.GA5532@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:09:38PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both : >being deOraisa. : Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan... Sorry, chalah of crops made from chu"l that were brought into EY are indeed deOraisa, and yes those aforementioned qulos still apply. (Similarly, challah from Israeli grain that was needed in chu"l is only chayav miderabbanan.) 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:14:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181217171454.GA25337@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:33:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the : brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the : opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar : Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants : to act like that, we don't stop him." Going back to the SA (OC 677:3) the mechaber says that *yeish omerim* that if you light at home alone after others have lit there without you, you make the berakhos. Interestingly, the se'if opens "yeish omerim", it's the only opinion quoted. The Rama quote the Mordechai that this is because he is obligated to see the neiros, vekhein nohagim. Ateres Zeqeinim ad loc quotes the Maharash: veyeish cholqin. So, if you want to be machmir to light, (he calls it "rotzeh lahchamir") light without a berakhah. The Maharil says that once you light on your own, you showed you didn't want to be yotzei with the earlier lighting, so you weren't. And that's why it's not a berakhah levatalah. The picture I'm trying to show here is that the discussion about the berakhah appears to be because this is after someone else lit for the home. Not because you're alone. And, if I understand the Mordechai correctly, he appears to be saying that whether or not the purpose of the mitzvah is pirsumei nisah, the actual mitzvah includes just seeing the lights. Perhaps because even internalizing the neis I myself already know about intellectually qualifies as "pirsum". But that's not how R' Moshe discusses it. He simply says that pirsum isn't me'aqeiv. 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 09:05:16 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:05:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] lighting the menora Message-ID: As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. My impression is that most modern poskim certainly in EY disagree and that many/most light outdoors for the public -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 18 09:24:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:24:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Comedy -- is it good for the Jews? In-Reply-To: References: <49f57ed6-82ab-b6eb-2210-00930742efaa@sero.name> <20181211154507.GB6212@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181218172413.GB29597@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:02am EST, R Moshe Y. Gluck replied to me on Areivim in a conversation about a stand up comic at a venue that lost their hekhsher over it: : One can argue that comedy, in it of itself, is assur, independent of : subject matter because of Assur L'maalos Piv Schok B'Olam Hazeh (Berachos : 31a). This gemara makes an interesting contrast to the rather famous gemara (Taanis 22a) about Rabbi Beroqa Choza'ah and Elihahu haNavi in the marke of Bei Lefet. Elihahu points out two beduchei as among those there who would merit olam haba, eiuther because they chear up the depressed or bring peace to those arguing. Given the first "i nami" in Taanis, where's the chiluq to be drawn? Another problem I have understandign the gemara in Taanis. The market in question was full of Jews. (Another person Eliyahu pointed out was noted for not dressing like one, but turned out to be employed by the prison system and he protected the women in his jail.) And "kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq". So why are just these people being pointed out as being "bar alma de'asi"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:28:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:28:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. In-Reply-To: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182837.GA18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:29:12AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability : (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to : both monetary and spiritual liabilities... Does it work at all? You can be mochel nezeq when it's mamon, but corporeal? Wouldn't Shim'on be a rasha for lifting his hand to Re'uvein either way? Related: Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? 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 micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:34:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:34:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] culture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181219183447.GB18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:41:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music : and literature: :> As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even :> the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from :> the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness :> of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. : My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the : better strategy? It has to be slower, when you think you haven't yet assimilated culture and you're trying to hold the line, than when you consciously choose to have a strategy with regard to acculturation, and expect the line to move. One will only have unconscious motion, the other will have conscious change as well. So for the masses, it means less assimilation. Then we have to ask if cultural assumilation is a bad thing. Does Hashem not want us to sing our tefillos to the kosher elements of the sound of our era? Is there a Jewish aesthetic to begin with? Way deep wading in this issue. However, for the yechidim who realize it's going on and that everyone is fooling themselves.... I see a big OTD risk as cynicism is bound to creap in, as well as (including?) a loss of respect for any authority figures who are fooled or caught blindfolding others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:20:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:20:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? In-Reply-To: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182054.GA6255@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting : the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), : animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get : no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) This is the end of OC 1:1. (AhS Yomi for 4th. Yes, cycle 2 is starting in just 4+ months! The first Tur for the AhS to write on was CM, which is why you find the haqdamah there. So "beginning" was ambiguous. Or I'm just a nitpicker.) : Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is : it equivalent of free will? .... I took the se'if to mean that angels have no YhR and therefore lack free will. Animals have no *capacity for* knowledge, and therefore couldn't possibly have a YhT, and thus also no bechirah. Only people, caught in tention between YhR and (properly applied?) da'as have bechirah, and that's why only we get both reward and punishment. : The dogs being : rewarded for not barking? There is an interesting implication from the AhS that animals do get sekhar, and angels do get oneshim. Perhaps it makes sense even without presuming they have bechirah if we take a causal approach to sekhar va'onesh. The animal that does the right thing, even through no credit of its own, is still thereby a superior being than before. Especially if it is more likely to repeat behavior done once (or more likely to refrain if refrained once). And similarly in the reverse, for angels that fail. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Dec 19 22:03:14 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 01:03:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: >I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >your spouse. Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? From isaac at balb.in Wed Dec 19 22:57:07 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:57:07 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Re Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2CC046A4-B9E6-4853-A683-179A213256CC@balb.in> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu---theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively more authentic version of the next Baal HaMesora. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Dec 20 08:12:18 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:12:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You are asking a loaded question so I will have to answer it on a few layers. First of all, I?m not sure what YOU mean by a verbal assault. The legal definition of assault varies from state to state but generally: Simple assault is an attempt to do a serious bodily harm to another person, or actually committing an act to put another in fear of serious bodily injury. Simple assault is usually classified as a misdemeanor. So if by verbal assault, a husband or wife (without touching each other), puts the other in fear of being hurt, then it meets the criteria of a crime (misdemeanor) and in most states mandates an arrest. With that scenario, yes, I would say the same for a spouse who verbally assaults the other. What most lay people confuse assault with is a BATTERY which is any unlawful offensive physical contact with another person, with or without his or her consent. ... Unlike the crime of assault, battery requires that actual contact is made, while assault charges can be brought with only the threat of violence. Though it may seem extreme to say that you don?t deserve your spouse if you commit a simple assault or battery, our own sages have said that if your wife burns your food, you have every right to divorce her. I think it boils down to the specifics and whole picture of each case. I believe your question may have meant what if a spouse speaks disparagingly to his/her spouse. In other words, what if a husband demeans his wife and calls her stupid or ugly, etc. My feeling is that you are dealing with the tip of the iceberg and most likely you have a bad marriage and a dysfunctional relationship. > On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: > > >> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >> your spouse. > > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 20 12:31:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:31:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181220203131.GB27441@aishdas.org> On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: :> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who :> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve :> your spouse. : > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? Hezeq and onaas devarim are different issurim. But they both are forms of harm recognized by halakhah. (Maybe I mean all three are recognized: hezeq haguf and hezeq mamon are different things, with different dinim.) And if the ona'as devarim gets to the point of halvanas panim, it's compared to retzichah. BM 58b lumps OD and pinning a nickname on someone together with eishes ish as sins that cause gehennom to be permanent ("sheyordim ve'ein olim") and ein lo cheileq le'olam haba (59a). And of course, "noach lo le'adam shayapil es atzmo lekivshan ha'eish, be'al yalbin penei chaveiro." (Mar Zutra, BM 59a) Which is taking seriously, not exageration, in discussions of yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. So to ammend my first paragraph, verbal abuse is far MORE vilified by the din than hezeq. I would consider answering: lo kol shekein! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 20 21:43:37 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:43:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer Message-ID: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From a write-up on borer and peelers: "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] Me-1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex county, us, world...............) 2.Is a sieve a sophisticated fork??? 3.No doubt that minhag yisrael includes many who do it-it's just not clear to me how that developed (i.e a priori first principles seem to lead to prohibition) - perhaps a good example of mimetic tradition? 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:22:47 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:22:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: <> Indeed I am always bothered by those who claim that they are not influenced at all but outside culture. Even if not directly we are all influenced by outside forces. There is no such thing today as Jewish music since anything the leviim sang has been lost. Living in Israel sefardi music is much different than ashkenazi music simply because Arabic music is different than Hungarian music. Anyone who learns Rambam is influenced at some level by Greek philosophy. Read rishonim on the reasons for dina demalchuta and compare it to the old defenses of the rights of kings - just happen to be identical. Many rishonim were familar with secular philosophy and even the Ramah knew philosophy. In spite of appearances Chatam Sofer had a broad background and spoke German. All of this without referring to RAL who has a spirited defense of much (certainly not all) of modern literature and parts of modern culture. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:30:25 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:30:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports Message-ID: << Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? >> Certainly mechila works on some level. There are stories of RAL in his younger years playing basketball with the students. Once a student complained that it wasn;t fair because they could not block their rebbe. RAL answered that in playing ball not to treat him as a rebbe. Certainly we are talking about minor contact and not severe wounding Kibud Av ve- Em is a step beyond ordinary treatment of others especially causing a loss of blood. From what I have seen the standard psak is that a doctor should preferably not treat a parent for anything requiring incisions or blood. However, for anything serious that the child is better than others than certainly, he is the doctor of choice. I recall that RMF allows cosmetic surgery only foord "god reasons". This incliudes feeling embarrased by one's appearance and also improvements especially for women for shidduch persons. I assume he would not be happy with various facial "improvements" for senior citizens -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Thu Dec 20 17:33:08 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 12:33:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively better version of the next Baal HaMesora. From mcohen at touchlogic.com Fri Dec 21 06:48:04 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:48:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma Message-ID: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means increase. Therefore not 'blessed is the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever' (artscroll) but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his kingdom be increased forever. His source is olas tamid (which I don't have), and iyun tefilah (which I looked up and I cant find this mentioned) Is this the kavanah that you are all having when you say krias shma? mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:10:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:10:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <20181221151048.GA23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 09:48:04AM -0500, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: : R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means : increase. ... : but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his : kingdom be increased forever. I am vague enough on the translation of the English word "blessed" that translating "barukh" for "blessed" is trading one unknown for a bigger one. As for my own kavanah (when I stop to have one): May the public perception (or: reputation) of the significance (or: importance) of His rule-by-public-acclimation be increased eternally without stop. Explanation: Sheim is name, which would be how others perceive something. Hashem's sheim is thus how He seems to people, which could be reputation and/or perception. Kavod shares spelling with kaveid, heaviness. (We'll discuss livers some other time.) And thus we give honor to significant "weighty" matters. Like massive things, we don't trivially push them around. And so I think of kavod as honor more in terms of significant and important than glory. Ein melekh belo am -- unlike a mosheil, what makes a melekh a melekh is the acceptance of the governed. The Gra has a whole piece on Melekh vs Mosheil and "umosheil bagoyim", until the day when "vehayah Hashem leMelekh". "Malkhusekha malkhus kol olamim umemshaletekha bekhol dor vador." Notice in that last pasuq, malkhus is framed in terms of "kol olamim", and here it's "le'olam va'ed". Le'olam -- for as long as there's an olam. Va'ad -- note the shoresh of "ad", until the missing end. There is another kind of Eternity. Hashem Himself is lemaalah min hazman. Not eternal in the sense of existing for an infinite amount of time, but in the sense that the concept of time doesn't apply. However, His Sheim is a product of us relating to Him, and thus within time -- as long as there is an "am" for Hashem to be Melekh of. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Dec 21 07:35:02 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:35:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <892aea1f-7804-ca75-2a17-2b632b2d08f7@sero.name> On 21/12/18 9:48 am, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: > One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod > malchuso lolam vaaed > > How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. > > R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch > means increase. I don't think this is perush hamilim. It's an additional facet that can add to the value of kavana, but is not required. Another facet is that "baruch" can mean to extend, as in "hamavrich es hagefen", so a bracha represents bring the shefa from the higher worlds to this one. An important thought, but one who doesn't have it in mind, or is even entirely unaware of it, has still said shma properly. Also, sheim is not *just* how others see one; ones name is connected directly to ones essence, as we see from the fact that when someone has fainted we use their name to call them back. But it is mostly used for others, just as malchus is how one relates to others, i.e. dibbur, shechina, reflecting what is going on inside one to the outside world, and yet it remains one of the essential attributes of a personality, and thus it is also one of the sefiros which those attributes reflect. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:34:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:34:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer In-Reply-To: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181221153420.GB23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 05:43:37AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From a write-up on borer and peelers: : : > "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are : > "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] : : 1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex : county, us, world...............) I could understand why the peel normally being eaten might mitigate boreir, as there is no pesoles. But how does it change the status of the peeler? In any case, the AhS (OC 391:22, but the discussion starts at se'if 19 ) only talks about peeling lots of (harbeih) garlic or onions, where he accepts the fact that it is boreier, despite being confused about how it even caqn be borer. There is a clear gemara (Beitza 13b) that says that Ravs and Rav Chiyya's wives would peel barley for them on Shabbos. And the AhS wants to know why garlic or onion would be any different. He therefore concludes that the issur isn't peeling, but the separating of the peels once they're mixed into in the heap. He explains the BY's source Y-mi accordingly. I should point out that when I was a child, no one I knew identified peeling as a form of boreir. Seems it may have been beshitah, and not ignorance. The AhS also talks (se'if 9) about non-mixtures, items that are nir'im la'ayin, like clothes, keilim and books. I do not know what he means by keilim, picking out forks from a jumble in the drawer? I bring this up because this issue was also something I didn't hear of until YU. Seems to me boreir grew a lot when the MB became "poseiq acharon" for all y'all. (Minus Sepharadim, of course, who limit boreir to literal okhel, IIUC.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 10:14:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:14:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20181221181420.GA18815@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:33:08PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the : Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, : whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of : Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic : tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- : performing Masoretic acts and decisions... I am not sure we are correctly using the word "mimetic" when discussing the unconscious copying norms and aborbing the culture of such a small "community" as that of posqim. However, if I understand what you mean correctly, I wrote something similar on Torah Musincs, where I tried to nail down what RYBS and RHS mean by the term "Mesorah". Teasers, as they state my point without proving basis: The word "masorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. ... For regular pesak too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from texts. Kara veshanah velo shimeish talmid chacham, harei zeh am ha'aretz.... If he read scripture and studied law, but did not serve a talmid chacham, such a person is an am haaretz (an ignorant peasant). - Sotah 22a ... Similarly, a poseik needs to pick up that feel, and not only the formal rules. He needs the unstructured knowledge of halakhah. Consider this rather poetic description of how the Rav experienced his shiur, entering the dialog of Torah through the ages as he joins his students in the classroom. Notice how he winds up by discussing this experience as "masorah": ... ... In an article in Jewish Action, Rav Schachter provides his definition of the word. He opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. ... The Rav identifies masorah as the ineffable skill to think like a poseik. Masorah is a skill obtained from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in a culture of mimeticism. ... Without masorah, the poseik has no way of determining which solutions to new problems are in concert with the spirit of previous rulings. Halakhah is not frozen; it does not have inertia, but it does have momentum. Apprenticeship, training under a master, transmits the feel for where the halakhah has historically been taken. Following reasoning found in a minority ruling is appropriate only when one is motivated by the Torah's own principles. The person who speaks halakhah as a first language knows when an innovative change is within "poetic license", and when the result simply violates the Torah's "grammar." As R. Yochanan quotes in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah - the apprenticeship of Torah is greater than its study". :-)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 llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 21 11:29:00 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 19:29:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Is_it_forbidden_to_teach_Torah_to_one_w?= =?windows-1252?q?ho_has_not_said_birchas_ha=92Torah=3F?= Message-ID: I wonder how this applies to restaurants. How are they allowed to serve people who do not make brachas before eating? YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Is it forbidden to teach Torah to one who has not said birchas ha?Torah? A. In regards to birchos ha?nehenin (brachos recited on food), there is a concept that one is not permitted to give someone food if the recipient will not recite a bracha. Offering food to one who will not recite a bracha is a violation of ?lifnei iver lo sitain michshol? (enabling one to stumble) (See Shulchan Aruch OC 169:2). However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l (Minchas Shlomo 1:91) writes that this does not apply to teaching Torah to one who did not recite birchas ha?Torah. Birchas ha?Torah is a birchas ha?mitzvah. Though birchos ha?mitzvos are obligatory, we do not find that Chazal forbade the performance of a mitzvah if a bracha is not recited. He notes that not studying Torah (bitul Torah) is a more serious offense than omitting the bracha. If possible, one should instruct those who have come to learn Torah how to recite the bracha, but if this is not practical, one should teach them Torah in any event. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 17:26:16 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:26:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Angels and Requests Message-ID: . In the Friday night poem "Shalom Aleichem", we ask the mal'achim to give us a bracha. We've often mentioned here that some people avoid this poem because it is either similar to avoda zara, or perhaps might actually BE avoda zara. I call your attention to the morning's parsha, Bereshis 48:16, the pasuk "Hamal'ach hagoel osi." Yaakov Avinu refers to a particular mal'ach and asks that this mal'ach should give a bracha to Yosef's sons. At first glance, this seems to be very similar to Shalom Aleichem. How is this justifiable, in the view of those who consider Shalom Aleichem to be problematic? I came up with two possible answers, and I invite the chevra to critique them, and/or suggest other answers. 1) Perhaps the halachos of avoda zara were less restrictive in those pre-Sinai days, and making requests to a mal'ach was okay for Yaakov but not for us. I suppose this is possible, but the centrality of Monotheism to the avos, it would surprise me. 2) I note that in the immediately preceding pasuk, Yaakov addressed Hashem. If so, then maybe Yaakov was not asking the mal'ach directly for a bracha the way we do in Shalom Aleichem. Rather, he was speaking directly to Hashem, asking Hashem that the mal'ach should give the bracha. This would solve the problem of "Who was Yaakov praying to?", but not the problem of "Where do brachos come from?" If the mal'ach is capable of giving a bracha, that too smacks of avoda zara, doesn't it? All comments are welcome. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 03:08:38 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 06:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bircas Kohanim when when the Shaliach Tzibbur is a kohen Message-ID: . On Areivim, R' Sheldon Liberman asked: > I heard over Shabbos that in chutz l'aretz, during the chazzan's > repetition at shacharis, if the chazzan is a kohen, then during > bircas kohanim, there is an opinion that the tzibbur should > answer "Amein" rather than "Kein y'hi ratzon". > > Has anyone heard this? The critical words here are "there is an opinion". It seems reasonable that somewhere in a vast library of seforim, there might be a sefer that suggests such a thing. Whether anyone actually does this is another matter entirely. I don't remember ever hearing anyone actually do this. I'd even argue against it. It makes about as much sense as if one would answer "amen" during the third stanza of "Shalom Aleichem". In both cases we are asking for a bracha, but in neither case have we actually heard any bracha on which to answer "amen". (When we answer "kein yehi ratzon", it means "please give us that bracha" and not "I believe in that bracha which You gave".) Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 26 08:49:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:49:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shul Message-ID: Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points out. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 27 11:49:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:49:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Amoraic statements Message-ID: Anyone know of any writings on how to think about Amoraic statements that are not sourced but very basic (i.e., why weren't they recorded earlier)? Two quick examples: 1.) Shmuel - dina dmalchuta dina (the law of the land controls), 2.) Rav-Tisha achlu dagan vechad achal yerek-mitztarphin.(9 who ate grain and 1 who ate greens combine[for a zimmun of 10]} 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 Dec 27 11:50:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:50:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sukkah Yeshana Message-ID: <0ba366bf435347f8ac060c596a575ca0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The Mishna in Sukkah (9a) discusses Sukkah Yeshana which one would have thought meant an old sukkah (schach) yet the discussion in the gemara indicates that it is an issue of lishma (intent). Why didn't the Mishna use the language of lishma? The gemara then posits a pasuk as the source of Beit Shammai's position, then asks doesn't he need that pasuk for something else, and replies ein hachi name (yes) and so quotes another pasuk instead. What was the point of Ravina/Rav Ashi including the rejected pasuk as part of the record? 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 seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Dec 30 09:44:16 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:44:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, etc. Message-ID: > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on > Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me > Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. > Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points > out. That's not why they talk. They talk because they saw their parents or other adults talk. They learned that talking is perfectly acceptable. The fact that the Shul has not followed the Mishna Berura and appointed people to end the talking merely reinforces the talkers' understanding that talking is OK. It's like asking why people cheat on their taxes. They don't cheat because they're greedy. We're all greedy. But the tax-cheaters don't have a red line. I admit sometimes the davvening is too long for me, and I get restless. But I never talk. And bli neder I won't davven in a shul where there are talkers, even if it's the only shul in town. Ruins it for me. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 18:45:48 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 21:45:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine posted: > Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because > davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there > are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people > get restless. If there were people who can keep quiet during the weekday minyanim, and only talk on Shabbos, then I would consider it to be a reasonable explanation. But in my experience, the same people talk regardless. If someone talks during a weekday maariv, then shaving twenty minutes off of the Shabbos morning won't prevent his restlessness. The authors of the linked article suggested: > Not talking until the conclusion of Chazaras HaShatz, including > the time between when we finish our silent Amidah and we are > waiting for the chazzan, is doable, it is realistic, it is a > fair expectation of those attending and it is the minimum to be > respectful of our friends and neighbors. Sadly, IMO that's not doable, and not realistic. I'd like to think that I'd be satisfied if they'd be quiet merely from when we finish our silent Amidah until the chazan begins. THAT is a minimum for being respectful of our friends and neighbors. They don't even have to be silent for a noticeable improvement. Halevai they would hold it down to a whisper. (And it doesn't count as a whisper if they can be heard 20 feet away.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 03:22:36 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 06:22:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: I should have concluded my previous post with this: Despite my pessimistic tone, I praise those who are working towards a solution. I have seen many corrective attempts fail, but that doesn't mean there's no way to fix it. Talking in shul is a serious problem, and I apologize if my frustration made it sound otherwise. Akiva Miller From mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Oct 3 08:32:16 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 11:32:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: <1db301d45b2e$43dda750$cb98f5f0$@com> Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz? (not sepharadim) I was surprised to see it done. Sources? Thanks, 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/ ======= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 2 22:30:47 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 01:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3e882718-3c29-80fa-6211-ff7172a97fba@sero.name> On 30/09/18 14:13, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. I think you meant the Ramban. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 23:18:08 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 09:18:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] V'zos Hab'racha In-Reply-To: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> References: <20180930181353.GA16585@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:23 AM Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: And, according to the Rambam, the first diberah isn't one of the 613. So > go figure out how /he/ understands the idea that 2 were not taught via > Moshe. > According to the Rambam, the first diber _is_ one of the 613, and this gemara is his proof text -- see Sefer Hamitzvot Mitzvot Ase #1. Assuming that "Rambam" is a typo for "Ramban", see his hassaga on the Sefer Hamitzvot. Ramban holds that the second diber includes two of the 613 (don't make idols; don't worship them). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Wed Oct 3 00:23:19 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:23:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:43:14 +0000 From: "Professor L. Levine" > From Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra ... >> In 1921 the great bibliographer (and much more) Yitzchak Rivkind >> .... On Simchas Torah they would open the Aron Kodesh >> when saying Aleinu, both at night and during the day, and while singing >> the Niggun of Mussaf of Yom Kippur would bow on the floor exactly like >> we do on Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur. When he asked for the source of >> this Minhag he was told it comes from the Gra... Interesting. The Robshitse Rov had a similar practice, falling on his face during the hakofos. (It is reported that one year, after bowing during hakofos [the first time?], he commented that only he and his son Yaakov [of Melits] understand the secret. After Yom Tov, it became known that R' Yaakov too had participated in this rite.) (Another story tells of how the grandson of the Kosnitse Maggid, R' Elo'ozor, spoke lightly of this minhag [made fun?] to the Robshite Rov's son, R' Eliezer of Dzikhov, whereupon R' Eliezer protested vehemently, saying all his father's customs have a very high source. On his return, R' Elozor's wagon tipped and he was thrown out of his carriage, falling, as we do on Yom Kippur, on his face. He saw this as a retribution for having spoken lightly of the minhag.) From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Oct 3 09:16:33 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:16:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra Message-ID: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 01:17 PM 9/30/2018, R. Zalman Alpert wrote: >The kluiz of the GRaA in Vilna was essentially the only place in Vilna >and all of Lithuania that followed minhage HAgra to the kotzo shel yud >Chaim Grade a lost talmid of the Chazon Ish and a Vilna native mentions >this in his wonderful novels about shil life in Vilna > >Because the Jslm settlement in early 19th cen was started by disciples >of the GRAthe Rivlins,etc these minhogim becamr and remain the standard >for at least the yishuv hayoshen of Jslm and beyond that group > >And thats how we know these customs in realism rather than from seforim >The Litthuanian yrshivas did not follow these customs nor did kohol,and >certainly not the chassidim of Lithuania who after WwI played an impt >role in Jew rel life in greater lita including Vilna My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and are practiced by many there. Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the Torah? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 3 14:51:19 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 17:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For > example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the > Torah? Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim of the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 14:46:37 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:46:37 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >are practiced by many there. >Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >Torah? It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the original Minhag. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 3 15:32:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:32:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading : the Torah? While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does make a similar point. ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. 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 JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 3 15:42:28 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 22:42:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. > _______________________________________________ This is a description of the fact but not an explanation of why this was a halachically acceptable result (ie where is this exception to the minhag hamakom rule) Kt Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 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 Wed Oct 3 15:54:51 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <16705774-1a3c-c42c-0f78-317676dc6114@sero.name> On 03/10/18 17:46, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > On October 3, 2018 9:16:33 AM PDT, "Prof. Levine via Avodah" wrote: >> My understanding is that the GRA never meant for his minhagim to be >> practiced by the general public, but only by his disciples. Thus I >> find it \ironic that his minhagim became widely accepted in EY and >> are practiced by many there. > >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading the >> Torah? > > It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they > vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, > they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. > > So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter > Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the > Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the > original Minhag. That is a different issue, and one that was once controversial and that one can still question. Here the issue is much simpler, because when Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 18:16:02 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:16:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> Message-ID: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. Because if there was, each returnee would have to adopt the Minhag Hamakom the moment he hit an inhabited city. In contrast, there were no religious Jews left in England after the expulsion, so the newcomers can (and should) follow their old minhagim. The same would presumably apply when Jews started coming back to Spain a few decades back, and unlike Moroccans in France a few decades before. But, as I wrote before, it seems that the Minhag is to follow whatever Minhagim you were used to, especially if you have enough landsmen to create a breakaway community. On October 3, 2018 2:51:19 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >On 03/10/18 12:16, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> >> Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? For >> example,? why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading >the >> Torah? > >Why should they have? Even if they were fully aware of the minhagim >of >the previous community that used once upon a time to exist where they >now settled, why would they be bound by them? In what way were those > >minhagim superior to their own? When Spanish-Portuguese Jews renewed >the Jewish presence in England should they have adopted the presumably >French minhagim that English Jews practiced between 1090 and 1290? > >-- >Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all >zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you >prosper >_______________________________________________ >Avodah mailing list >Avodah at lists.aishdas.org >http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Wed Oct 3 21:54:40 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 21:54:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 3, 2018 3:32:20 PM PDT, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. What does he hold about Sefardim moving to France or Germany (which had a continuity - Germany going back well, at least a thousand years and France, while it had a break, did have a religious Ashkenazi community before and after the war). On October 3, 2018 3:54:51 PM PDT, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >o Here the issue is much simpler, because when >Jews moved back to EY there was no local community, and thus no local >minhag. That's why I cited the example of the S-P Jews settling in >England in the 17th century, and not that of the Ashkenazim who followed >them. Whether or not the Ashkenazim should have adopted S-P minhagim, >there's no question that the S-P were not required and had no reason to >adopt the (presumably French) minhagim of the medieval community. When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 4 06:19:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:19:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways. _______________________________________________ The gemara (Bava Metziah 83b) discusses what hours a worker gets paid for based on the Torah "standard." The gemara queries why not just find out what local practice is? The first answer is it's a case of a new city which was nkutai. Rashi defines nkutai as meaning its residents came from multiple other cities, with multiple other practices. Perhaps this is a model for minhag? New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care what we do? 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 Thu Oct 4 10:17:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:17:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> <2c43212ba5a2401c812e1935095f83b3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181004171737.GA32625@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:19:57PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : New Question: In establishing new city practices, should there be a : preference for the Torah "standard" or did the Torah only set a standard : for default situations but really doesn't see it as a paradigm or care : what we do? BM 83b is talking about norms for business, which is likely an entirely different use of the word "minhag" than in issur veheter. For example, when we say "minhag mevatel halakhah" in CM discussions, we are relying on the presumption that both parties would take compliance to local business norms for granted, and a deal can have any conditional both parties agree on. In this CM sense of minhag, there is no reason to assume that halakhah would have problems with other norms emerging, since they are based on the agreement of all parties. But that's a whole different topic than Ashk vs Seph differences in the other 3 Turim, which is where we started. That's minhag in the sense of: 1- Rgional pesaq when other regions hold differently (eg bet yosef meat); or 2- Extra-halachic accepted prohibitions or obligations (eg avoiding qitniyos). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 09:16:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:16:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: <20181003205226.GC17060@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181004161626.GF25881@aishdas.org> Moving this from Areivim. On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 4:28pm -0700, Rabbi Meir Rabi wrote on Areivim: : The Beis Hamikdash wasn't inclusive. More than that, (according to some : opinions) there were professions which weren't obligated to do Aliyah : LeRegel because they smelled bad and couldn't be Oleh Regel with everyone. The beraisa (Chullin 4a) says that dog fertilizer gatherers, tanners and copper smiths are "peturin min hare'iyah". The Rambam tells them get get cleaned up and go (Hil' Chagiga 2:2), the Mechaber (Kesef Mishnah ad loc) explaining that we hold like the Rabanan, not that beraisa. But even if we held like that beraisa that's whether they have a petur for not coming, not an issur to come. In fact, inclusivity might be the whole reason /why/ the Rabanan don't hold like the beraisa. But lo ra'isi eino ra'ayah, so to speak, so naniach someone else does take a harder line, what would that mean? Kehunah is not inclusive of all baalei mum. But attending... The BHMQ is inclusive on the basis of things not dependent on the person's own decisions. No one, not even a nakhri child of an eishes ish, is excluded by virtue of who he is. (In the nakhri's case, up to the soreg, but still, that's true of all nakhriim.) You're talking about someone excluded because of what they chose to do. (Again, given said "some opinions".) Admittedly, too many people lack options. But someone who really wants to be oleh regel who is still forced by circumstance to an unpleasant job would choose a different one. Or beg, if they value aliyah laregel more than the protection from sin offered by "yafeh salmud Torah im derekh eretz". My point is, it's a choice, and not the same kind of exclusion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The cost of a thing is the amount of what I call micha at aishdas.org life which is required to be exchanged for it, http://www.aishdas.org immediately or in the long run. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:46:34 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:46:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra In-Reply-To: <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <107a3fd9-58dd-7d41-8e06-34936e794e63@sero.name> <9AA49F08-3D80-44DC-B1F4-2BFD3B3C5043@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <1b84de96-ba9a-be08-b14f-3941c6ca49ec@sero.name> On 03/10/18 21:16, Rabbi via Avodah wrote: > Was there a Jewish community in Israel between the time of the > Yerushalmi and when "they" returned to Israel. No, there was not. The First and Second Crusades utterly destroyed the communities that had survived the Roman and Arab occupations, and the communities that started resettling EY in the Ramban's day were all immigrants who brought their chu"l minhagim with them, including the minhagim of paskening like the Bavli, keeping two days of Rosh Hashana, and not benching lulav when the first day of Succos falls on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 11:51:23 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:51:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20181003223220.GA25881@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0f6cfe7e-6504-98a8-c784-c122f84a59ca@sero.name> On 03/10/18 18:32, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:16:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > : Why didn't those who returned to EY practice the minhagim of EY? > : For example, why didn't they go back to the 3.5 year cycle of reading > : the Torah? > > While this is hard to picture, as there was no continuity between the EY > community of Minhag EY of Chazal's day and the current Yishuv, ROYosef does > make a similar point. > > ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to > switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. > He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old > minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi > Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 4 12:10:49 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:10:49 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rabbi wrote: 'When was there no Jewish community in Israel? I was under the impression that while the Sanhedrin ceased, and Yeshivas presumably ceased, there was always a Jewish community there. Especially by the early Gaonim, Israel was no longer under Roman rule anyways.' Agreed. Yerushalayim didn't have continuity as we know via the Ramban finding less than a minyan there when he arrived, but Chevron AFAIK had continuity from Chazal to 1929. I think Teverya did too. The museum of the old yishuv in the Old City refers to the 'mustarvim' as one of the communities in 19th century Jlem, those who were culturally pretty Arab and claimed descent from the pre-crusades community. For more info this wikipaedia page: History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel is well footnoted. So if there's well documented continuous Jewish presence and even communities in EY throughout, how did the SA set minhagim in EY such that ROY held they were obligatory on new arrivals? What happened to pre-existing customs? Or is it that the disruption and wax and wane of communities over EY with continuous small scale aliya meant there was no such such thing as minhag hamakom? Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 4 14:48:15 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 17:48:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181004214815.GD14160@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:10:49PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not : countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to assume : such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? I think it has more to do with communication and transportation changes than a change in principle. The new metzi'us is that we're much more aware of what people five towns over are doing. On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 02:51:23PM -0400, Zev Sero replied to my post: : >ROY believes that if an Ashkenazi makes aliyah, they really ought to : >switch to Minhagei Sepharad. On the grounds that the SA set minhag EY. : >He does later find heterimg for Ashkenazim to continue with their old : >minhagim, but he does believe it's just that, a heter, and if an Ashkenazi : >Israeli wished to switch, by all means they should do so. : But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his : whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all : the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there : were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument : works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? Well, you might have a question about Edot haMizrach, but EY? Didn't you just write about how the Jewish settlement of EY in the 15th cent wasn't all that dense? But I don't think this is relevent, anyway. Let's say they were wrong to take their minhagim with them. Even if the change in minhag was wrong, the normal practice in EY did indeed change. Unlike the situation once that norm was lost and no new consistent minhag emerged (on all but a few issues). So, I could see ROY saying that right or wrong about its establishment, the SA's minhag still stands as the minhag hamaqom. OTOH, invoking the SA means that he is bringing a textual component to the establishment of minhag. IIRC, ROY frames it in terms of the fact that the SA was written in EY, not that the Mechaber got there due to one of the first large yishuv in centuries, nor the yishuv itself. So perhaps we need to know more about ROY's model of minhag before spending so much time on guesses like the one above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 20:13:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 23:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem Message-ID: On Areivim (subject line same as here), several people have bemoaned how difficult it is to use a wheelchair (and many other assistive devices) in the Old City in general, and the Kotel area in particular. In terms of absolute, quantifiable, objective fact, I can't imagine how anyone could dispute that. I am bringing the topic to Avodah in order to discuss what our feelings and attitudes should be towards this situation. Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I often remark that we are fortunate to live in a time when the technology has allowed us such efficient wheelchairs. Our economy has allowed us to make building codes that require ramps and such, which would have been laughably expensive just a few decades back. Ditto for "kneeling buses" and the like. But it seems to me that you don't need technology or wealth to realize that if the shul is built at a median altitude, it will be easier for *everyone*. And yet Chazal thought it is a better idea to make the shul look impressive. Surely I'm missing something here. Can someone please set me straight? Thanks Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 19:04:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 22:04:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz Message-ID: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > Has anyone heard of a ashkanz minhag to do birchas cohanim > on chol hamoed in chutz la?aretz? (not sepharadim) > I was surprised to see it done. > Sources? I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 4 21:10:16 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 00:10:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/18 15:10, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > > Further question: minhag hamakom seems to be a function of cities not > countries. Yet recent poskim, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, seem to > assume such thing as 'minhag EY'. When was such a concept first discussed? Perhaps the first post-Talmudic book on halacha was a booklet on the differences between minhag EY and minhag Bavel. So the concept of minhag EY goes back to at least the time of the geonim. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 05:01:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:01:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! Message-ID: >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna?s instruction[1] and codified by the Shulchan Aruch,[2] world Jewry started reciting ?Gevuros Geshamim B?Tchiyas HaMeisim?, better known as the formulaic insert ?Mashiv HaRuach U?Morid HaGashem?, in the second bracha of Shemoneh Esrei. This addition, showcasing the Might of G-d by mentioning the fact that He is the only One who has the power and ability to make rain, is considered so imperative that one who forgets to insert it must repeat the whole Shemoneh Esrei.[3] As there are no vowels in the Gemara or Shulchan Aruch, an interesting question arises: what is the proper way to pronounce the Hebrew word for rain (???) in this sentence? Is it Ge shem (with a segol under the letter Gimmel; eh sound) or is it Ga shem (with a kamatz under the letter Gimmel; uh sound)? Although the word for rain is pronounced Ge shem when saying the word by itself, still, its proper pronunciation might be changed when part of a sentence. Contemporary halachic authorities used various rules of Hebrew Grammar (dikduk) to come up with the proper solution. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 5 05:28:54 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:28:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 8:01 AM >From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 >> On Shemini Atzeres, as per the Mishna's instruction... With all due respect for the many great g'dolim who weighed in on this issue and came up with explanations about what the proper pronunciation should be, they came late in the game, after grammarians had already started changing the pronunciation. The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 07:37:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 10:37:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:01:40PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4903 I have yet to see a discussion that starts at the beginning. Bemechilas kevod everyone who holds "gashem", and who am I to argue against the Gra, the Netziv, the CC, R' Aharon Kotler, R YS Elyashiv, or Rav Moshe? But this article gets closer, by mentioning Sepharadim and the Levushei Mordekhai. Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:28:54PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : they came late in the game, after grammarians had already : started changing the pronunciation. : The fact is that all ancient vocalized mss. (from the time of the : rishonim) have geshem. All that I have ever seen do, whether S'farad, : Ashkenaz, Italian, or Teimani. There are hundreds. And so there can be : no reasonable argument about what the Rishonim said. But this doesn't prove that our mesorah was necessarily that there was a significan pause after "umorid hagashem". Yes, the Teimanim say "Jafen" on wine, and yet still say "geshem" here with a segol. Their mesorah is that is is not a pause. But for Ashkenazim, those older manuscripts do not prove whether or not there is a pause, since the diqduq they used would have "geshem" either way. As for Nusach haAri, Lubavitch's Alter Rebbe liked R Wolf Heidenheim's (Ravah's) siddur and diqduq, so his Nusach Ari was one of the early adopters of these language innovations. Interestingly, this means that most Ashkneazim today are davening in a nusach that is primarily a haskalisher attempt to reconstruct an authentic nusach, that is based on some ahistorical assumptions of what "authentic" was, to boot. And R/Dr Mandel is the only person I know who unwound that shift from Mishaic to Biblical Hebrew across all of davening. Unless you're willing to take that drastic step ("sabe'einu mituvakh, vesamcheinu biyshu'asakh"), saying "geshem" when most of your Hebrew is Mishnaic could something different than it did in those manuscripts, depending if a pause was intended. And, depending on whether the phrase might even be an exception to the usual rules of diqduq. (See R Spitz's article.) We simply can't know. R' Spitz concludes: Postscript: This is just one of a number of places where the majority consensus of Poskim maintain that dikduk decides the proper reading of tefillos.[30] Although many Gedolim through the ages spoke about dikduk's importance,[31] unfortunately its study at present is much neglected. In the words of Rabbi Yisroel Reisman in his excellent book Pathways of the Prophets:[32] "The myth of the lack of importance of (at least) a minimal amount of knowledge of dikduk must be dispelled. This is an area where a small amount of time and effort go a long way. Let's do it!" But to some up this post, we also need to know *which* diqduq. To provide the footnotes for that last quote: [30] See at length Rabbi Yisroel Reisman's Pathways of the Prophets, "Rules of Dikduk" starting on pg. 312. [31] For example see the Rambam's Peirush HaMishnayos (Avos Ch. 2, 1), Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim 142, 1), Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah (Ch. 5, 3), Shu"t Chavos Yair (124), Shu"t Sheilas Ya'avetz (vol. 1, 10), and Bnei Yisaschar (Introduction to Igra D'Kallah and Mayon Ganim 13, 6), all cited in the aforementioned chapter. [32] Pathways of the Prophets (pg. 325). L'iluy Nishmas the Rosh HaYeshiva - Rav Chonoh Menachem Mendel ben R' Yechezkel Shraga, Rav Yaakov Yeshaya ben R' Boruch Yehuda, and l'zchus for Shira Yaffa bas Rochel Miriam and her children for a yeshua teikef u'miyad! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk Fri Oct 5 07:14:32 2018 From: dcr.man at hotmail.co.uk (D Rubin) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:14:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An interesting discussion on this is given here by Dr Shnayer Lehman https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm YUTorah Online Online study of the Jewish holidays, Parsha, Halakha and Talmud by Yeshiva University www.yutorah.org From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 5 04:54:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 07:54:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When Sefardi and Ashkenazim Meet Message-ID: <56.57.22391.E4157BB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Rabbi Eli Mansour discusses the convergence of Sefardi and Ashkenazi traditions in contemporary Israel. Please see the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgoo.gl%2FWT2Hjq&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C97625655127d4ae2115708d62aad6b61%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636743321668910329&sdata=qGd8srOfQuC0kDFzrWfAVXfNbcQiB%2BvvgPyGWe3HehQ%3D&reserved=0 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 04:45:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:45:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchas cohanim on chol hamoed in chutz la'aretz In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5310ADD1-3CFE-455E-A5FD-9847E3F075C7@sibson.com> > > I've never seen it nor heard of it (until now), but I can easily imagine a reason behind it: The main (only?) reason to connect Birkas Kohanim with Yom Tov is the level of simcha that we do have on yom tov but not at other times. (Rama 128:44) According to Shulchan Aruch Harav 529:6, the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov applies equally on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. Thus, I can see how one might conclude that the reasons for Birkas Kohanim are equally strong on Yom Tov and on Chol Hamoed. > > Akiva Miller > > > _______________________________________________ > But do they duchen at shacharit on yom tov? 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 Fri Oct 5 08:00:43 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:00:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> References: , <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 10:37 AM ... > Yes, in the Leshon haQodesh of the Tanakh, "gashem" is the correct pausal > form. And, if one davens in the language of the Tanakh, then "geshem" vs > "gashem" boils down to asking whether this is one item in a long list, > or a phrase with a significant pause (esnachta or sof-pasuq, or in sifrei > Eme"s, oleh veyoreid). > The reason why Sepharadim end the berakhah on wine with "gefen" is because > they more often daven in Chazal's Hebrew, rather than the Tanakh's. And > Mishnaic Hebrew doesn't have pausal forms. ... A slight correction to R Micha's post: as far as we can tell, Chazal Hebrew DID have pausal forms. But they were not based on trop, of course, nor even on on the end of a sentence. They are used consistently in a case of parellismus membrorum in L'shon Chazal, and I am pretty sure in some other situations as well, according to the evidence from the oldest mss. with vocalization, such as the famous Kaufmann ms. of the Mishnah. But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: ??? ???? ?????? ?????, ???? ?? ?? ??????? ...? ?????? ????? ???????? ??????, ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? [For those in digest text mode and therefore can't see the Hebrew, this quote begins "LaKeil Barukh, ne'imos..." -micha] To the best of my knowledge, all old nuskah'ot have "yittenu." Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 5 06:14:47 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 13:14:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3252f45264ff47778db42a4dcee99b7d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities of young folks. At face value, this halacha seems to be teaching that the accessibility needs of the minority are less important than the impression that the edifice would make upon the majority. Can this really be? I---------------------------------- IMHO Thomas Kuhn?s thoughts on paradigm shift are applicable here. Western liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be (e.g. I might like to do the avodah but I?m not a cohain) So yes, it could really be (but I?m not qualified to say it is) 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 seinfeld at daasbooks.com Fri Oct 5 08:40:01 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:40:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: 7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY: 1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts scientific History, that?s not a kasheh on the Torah, it?s more like a sha?elah - ?Why did HKBH write this? What?s He teaching me here?? 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no significant debate about that. 3. We don?t know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek ? sounds a lot like the descriptions we have of the Big Bang. 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round. They really do look that way. So either HKBH made them looking old for some reason, or they really are old. A person can ignore the question and say, ?It?s enough for me just to believe,? but the Gemara (and plenty of Rishonim and Acharonim) says that we have an obligation to study Nature to the best of our ability. 6. There are plenty of things that the smartest scientists admit they don?t know. For instance, they think that right after the moment of creation (Big Bang), the entire universe inflated instantly, like someone blowing up a balloon. Just to make this clear. There are patterns in the universe that defy logical explanation. In order to explain these patterns, it has been proposed (and accepted by many but not all cosmologists) that from 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second until 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 second after the Big Bang, the universe expanded at an exponential rate (in that short moment it got 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and then the expansion slowed down. They have good reasons for believing this theory. It helps explain some of the bizarre things that we see when we look through our telescopes, chiefly, the fact that the universe appears to be the same in all directions. Yet they have no idea what could have caused this inflation. Worse for them, the current rate of expansion has been proven to be accelerating, but again they have no idea what invisible energy source could be causing this. It would be far simpler to say, ?It looks the same in every direction because it was created at the current size; there was no Big Bang and no expansion and no inflation.? But wait, we see that it is indeed currently expanding. Doesn?t that prove the Big Bang? - Expansion doesn?t prove anything. It?s a fact that requires a theory to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously expand. - Maybe this bizarre things accelerating expansion that we see, along with hypothetical inflation, are just the artist?s signature on His artwork? For after all, the only thing that can cause acceleration is more energy. The best rational explanation for this invisible ?dark? energy is that Hashem continues to be mashpia on the world and wants us to know it, without being too obvious. But wait, we also know that the stars are zillions of miles away from us, and given the known speed of light, their starlight should have taken millions or even billions of years to reach us. Doesn?t that prove at least that the universe is mighty old? - No, it doesn?t: see #5 above. 7. Yet to constantly answer, ?Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, ?What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with ?Hashem does it? without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. So what?s the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, or was it just made to look that way? I don?t know, but I?m personally completely comfortable with either answer. Neither answer can (to my understanding) be proven nor disproven. I suspect they are both true. That, as my grandfather z??l would have said, is my 2-bits. Your critical feedback welcome. Good Shabbos Alexander Seinfeld jewishspirituality.net From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 5 08:25:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:25:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on Marriage Message-ID: The following are excerpts from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 1:28 28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. "????????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ????????????: 28 God blessed both of them, and He made both of them responsible for the fulfillment of mankind?s mission. ??????? refers to marriage, the union of the sexes for production of human fruit ? children. Just as the choice energies and saps of the tree become ?free? in its fruit as an independent germ (see above, v. 11), so the noblest traits of godliness and humaneness of the father and mother unite to produce an independent human germ. ?????? refers to the family. r'vah = to multiply. Begetting children is not sufficient in order for the human species to multiply. Even in the case of many species of animals, increase of the breed is dependent on care of the young; and in the case of the human species, such care is absolutely essential ? even if viewed only from a physical standpoint. A human child has no chance of survival at all, if his parents do not provide him with care from the moment of his birth and do not continually promote his bodily well-being and development. Not the birth, but the care is the true cause of human increase. But r'vah includes more than this. The parents are obligated to reproduce themselves through their children: They must recur in the image of their children; and the children are to resemble their parents ? not only physically, but spiritually and morally. The parents are to plant and nurture in their children the best of their spiritual and moral powers. In short, their duty is to form and educate their children spiritually and morally. Only then will they recur in the image of their children and fulfill the mitzvah of ?????? . ?????????? refers to property (see Commentary, v. 26). Man is commanded to master the earth and subdue it. His task is to acquire the products of the earth and to transform them, so that they become fit for his purposes. Acquisition of property is prerequisite for the tasks of home and society. Property serves as an instrument with which home and society achieve their aims. Thus, the acquisition of property becomes a moral duty. The mitzvah of ??????, however, is written here last, which implies a limitation: There is no moral value to property, unless it is devoted to home and society. It is a person?s duty to acquire material assets, in order to build a home and to further the society. He should not build a home and support the society in order increase his assets and his wealth. The mitzvah of ???????????? is given at once to both sexes; they are to collaborate in harmony so as to fulfill this mission of man. Nevertheless, before establishing his home, man must first acquire material assets, and this duty ? subduing the earth, so as to further man?s aims ? is primarily incumbent only upon the male. For this reason the duty of marriage and of establishing a home is assigned directly only to the man, and only to him is it given as an unconditional duty. To the woman it is given as a conditional duty; it applies to her, only when she joins her husband. (See Yevamos 65b.) These commands place the Divine imprint on every aspect of familyand communal life. The Torah does not recognize the compartmentalization of life into God-oriented or ?religious,? on the one hand, and profane, untouched by things Divine, on the other. God claims all of life for His service and for the fulfillment of man?s mission as adom. This applies, first and foremost, to family and communal life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 5 11:59:27 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:59:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom (was: Simchas Torah & a Lost Minhag of the Gra) In-Reply-To: <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> References: <10.E9.26511.5DBE4BB5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <384901D5-0187-46E8-99AF-24A0395B9154@opengemara.org> Message-ID: <20181005185927.GB26105@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 02:46:37PM -0700, RMR wrote: : It seems that, despite the simple Halacha, when a large exodus (when they : vastly outnumber the original community) of people land in a new country, : they keep their Minhag and drown out the old Minhag. : So Ashkenazim who landed in the US kept their minhagim from the Alter : Heim (and didn't become Sefardi), and when Sefardim who landed in the : Ottoman Empire after the expulsion stayed Sefardi and didn't adopt the : original Minhag. I think it's more that minhag hamaqom is about the community, not the geography. If so many new people move in that they overhwelm the old community, they also overwhelm the old minhag. However, when Edot haMizrach got to the US in the late 20th century, many of them moved into existing communities and neither drowned out the old minhag nor did they adopt it. I think they should have done the latter, since minhag avos is only a "thing" when there is no minhag hamaqom. (Except in places like Deal, NJ, which is predominantly Syrian) And for many minhagim, the existing community -- from Yekkes to Vizhnitzers -- did have a single practice. This gets me to an issue left unresolved in a previous discussion of minhag hamaqom: Does minhag hamaqom apply piecewise, or only when there are so many practices that are consistent that there is a general feeling of unity of pesaq. For example, we talk about there being a "minhag hamaqom" in EY about things like saying Shir shel Yom after Shacharis even when there is a Mussaf, or Hakafos after Hallel. But the list of things in which the vast majority of the observant communities of Israel agree upon is quite small. Heterogeneity is the norm. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 12:31:12 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:31:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99B66C72-E111-47AA-ABA5-8E2A753AE7A4@opengemara.org> On October 5, 2018 8:40:01 AM PDT, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: >7 things every Jew should know about Ma'aseh Bereishit, even if it was >not taught in BY: >1. The Torah is not a history book. It is not Historia. It is Toras >Chayim. If it says something that sounds historical but contradicts >scientific History, that's not a kasheh on the Torah, it's more like a >sha'elah -- "Why did HKBH write this? What's He teaching me here?" ... >4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the >descriptions we have of the Big Bang. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work -- according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). >7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit >facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, >"What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem >does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, we >would be much poorer, and possibly less safe and healthy. Besides giving >us practical wisdom (how to predict hurricanes, how to fight cancer, how >to build stronger bridges), knowing the details about how these things >work should increase our sense of wonder and our Emunah. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Oct 6 11:38:57 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 21:38:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 6:13 PM Mandel, Seth via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But in this case I do not have to send people to look at mss. We have > at least one example in the davening, where all traditions agree that > "pausal" forms are used, even though it is not the end of a phrase, > and there is no difference between Ashkenaz, S'farad, Italy, or Teiman, > in the first b'rokho before QS in the morning: Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei gever" in birchot hashahar? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 5 15:42:10 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C9B4494-797A-437D-B042-3D7AAD5FEFBD@opengemara.org> 1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? 2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the world was created old). 3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan Eden)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 7 05:56:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 08:56:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181007125626.GC4739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 06:22:12PM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they : also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla : for geshem. I think that's the usual. After all, in Tefillas Geshem we don't just continue the list "mashiv haruach umorid hageshem, mekhalkeil chaim bechesed..." The pause before "Livrakhah velo liqlalah" is less of a question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From isaac at balb.in Sun Oct 7 00:22:12 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 18:22:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I say Geshem (as per R' Soloveitchik et al) I was davening in a Chabad House on Succos and noticed that whilst they also say gEshem in Shemone Esreh, they say gAshem in the actual Tefilla for geshem. From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Sun Oct 7 12:30:33 2018 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:30:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] BDE Moras Shulamith Bechhofer Message-ID: Information from RYBG on facebook: Kevurah for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h,will be at Har HaMenuchos. My brother, Horav Yochanan Meir shlita sitting shiva for 2 days from Monday night after the kevura until Wednesday afternoon in Ramat Shlomo, number 37 Shtefenesht Street by the Schaefer family. Shiva for my mother, Moras Schulamith bas Horav Dov Yehuda a"h will be at my mother's apartment 146 Beach 9th Street, apartment 4D, Far Rockaway, New York. Beginning Monday morning, Shacharis at 7:30 am, Mincha and Maariv at 6:05 pm. Please try to come be menachem avel before 10:00 pm. I will be returning to Monsey for Mincha Gedola on Friday at 1:15 pm, Maariv Motzoei Shabbos an hour after shekiah, and Shacharis on Sunday morning at 7:30 am, at our house, 3 Zabriskie Terrace. Besuros Tovos. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Sun Oct 7 13:03:01 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 20:03:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message Message-ID: I thought Alexander Seinfeld?s post on this subject was very interesting. I would, however, make one small change. Instead of writing ?7 things every Jew should know about Ma?aseh Bereishit, even if it was not taught in BY,? I would say: 7 things I and some other Orthodox Jews believe about ....? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 01:34:52 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:34:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant past. For example, in the recent controversy over Judge Kavanaugh the following appeared in a world street journal article Christine Blasey Ford was believable and sincere when she told her story of being assaulted by a young Brett Kavanaugh. So was Judge Kavanaugh when he categorically denied her claims?and none of her purported eyewitnesses have any memory of the gathering she describes. They can?t both be telling the truth, but it is possible neither is deliberately lying. The article then goes on to describe how one's memory is affected by (unconscious) attempts to heal emotional wounds. This leads to repression of embarrassing memories or memories becomes less clear over time Furthermore, the adolescent brain (9 to 25) is not fully developed. Middle adolescence (14 to 17) is a time when teens have little connection to the past or future and think only of the present. (In Israel at least 14-17 year olds are very conscious of their future and especially army service at 18) ----------------------------- I don't personally agree with all the details of the article but the total impression is that two people in their 50s testifying about an event in their teen years should be taken with a big grain of salt. Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so would probably pass "drishot"; As an aside I am aware of dayanim questioning witnesses. Is their anyting in halacha about the defendant giving his version and being questioned by the dayanim? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Oct 7 19:16:55 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2018 22:16:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi thanks for your comments. >1. Torah isn't a history book, but it also happens to teach history.? Not necessarily. Meaning, at times it does, but not always in the way that secular people use the term History. So we should not compare the two. I?d rather say, ?It contains historical information? >2. The problem with this answer is that it really doesn't answer it, as >the chronology still doesn't work - according to science, there were no >plants before the sun and the moon. So either it's all a parable (and >there doesn't need to be any correlation between Torah and science), or >you need another answer (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer that the >world was created old). We don?t have to make it work. The point is that most people frankly have no clue what cosmology says about origins (other that it?s complicated and somewhat mystical), and they often dismiss Torah because it appears to them so unsophisticated. Peeking at the Rambam gives one a clue that we have a Mesorah of a extremely sophisticated, complicated and mystical Bereishis. >3. The question is if we're working within nature or without. So >hurricanes are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a >source that nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted >from Gan Eden)? No I don?t. But I believe I saw in Rav Hirsch that Adam was first created outside Gan Eden and only put in there for the test. From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 8 05:24:45 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:24:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46de6a96-5987-0a36-1097-b2c09f3d0ebd@sero.name> On 08/10/18 04:34, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Nevertheless, halacha would completely rely on their testimony. Note > that Blasey Ford gave details and was certain of her version and so > would probably pass "drishot"; She certainly wouldn't. The most glaring problem with her claim was precisely that she could not fulfil the most basic drishot: "when and where did this allegedly happen"? Without being able to specify these it becomes "eidut she'i ata yachol lehazima" -- it's impossible to claim that the accused was elsewhere that day, let alone the witness. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 8 06:26:27 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:26:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit Message-ID: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:42:10 -0700, Rabbi wrote: The question is if we're working within nature or without. So hurricanes > are natural, but Beriya very well may not (do you have a source that > nature started from day 1 vs day 6 or when Adam was evicted from Gan > Eden)? *Yes, Chazal and the Rishonim all understood that the six day creation process was not a natural one.* ''All of creation was created fully formed''. At *ma?aseh b?reishis* the ox was created not as a calf but as an adult [Rashi in *Rosh Hashanah* 26a s.v. *shor sheh-hu par*]; and Adam was likewise created as an adult standing fully erect, the Talmud reports, within the same 24-hour period. The idea that Creation was anything less than a totally miraculous process, not conducted through natural processes at all, ''accelerated? or otherwise, is rejected by the *Maharal* (*Be?er HaGolah*, p. 83, *Be?er Four*): Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory?not by means of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. The *Rambam* explains in *Moreh Nevuchim *that it is illegitimate to base conclusions about the origin of the world by examining how the world looks now and assuming that the processes that would now produce such results were responsible, because the nature of things at their origin is different. EVERYTHING produced comes into existence from non-existence; even when the substance of ?a thing has been in existence, and has only changed its form, the thing itself, which has gone ?through the process of genesis and development, and has arrived at its final state, has now ?different properties from those which it possessed at the commencement of the transition from ?potentiality to reality, or before that time. Take, for example, the human ovum as contained in the ?female's blood when still included in its vessels: Its nature is different from what it was in the ?moment of conception, when it was met by the semen of the male and began to develop. The ?properties of the semen in that moment were different from the properties of the living being ?after its birth when fully developed. It is therefore quite impossible to infer, from the nature ?anything possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the ?condition of the thing had been at the time this process commenced. Nor does the condition of ?a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and ?attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually ?existing, you will fall into great confusion: You win reject evident truths and admit false ?opinions.? Let us assume, in our above instance, that a man born without defect had after his birth been ?nursed by his mother only a few months; the mother then died, and the father alone brought him ?up in a lonely island, till he grew up, became wise, and acquired knowledge. Suppose this man ?has never seen a woman or any female being: he asks some person how man has come into ?existence, and how he has developed, and receives the following answer: ''Man begins his ?existence in the womb of an individual of his own class, namely, in the womb of a female, which ?has a certain form. While in the womb he is very small; yet he has life, moves, receives ?nourishment, and gradually grows, till he arrives at a certain stage of development. He then ?leaves the womb and continues to grow till he is in the condition in which you see him.'' The ?orphan will naturally ask: ''Did this person, when he lived, moved, and grew in the womb, eat ?and drink, and breathe with his mouth and his nostrils? Did he excrete any substance?'' The ?answer will be, ''No.'' Undoubtedly he will then attempt to refute the statements of that person, ?and to prove their impossibility, by referring to the properties of a fully developed person, in the ?following manner: ? When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and remained alive, able to move?? ? If any one of us would swallow a living bird, the bird would die immediately when it ?reached the stomach, much more so when it came to the lower part of the belly; if we ?should not take food or drink with our mouth, in a few days we should undoubtedly be ?dead! How then can a human being remain alive for months without taking food?? ? If any person would take food and would not be able to excrete it, great pains and death ?would follow in a short time--and yet I am to believe that man has lived for months ?without that function?!? ? Suppose by accident a hole were formed in the belly of a person, it would prove fatal, ?and yet we are to believe that the navel of the fetus has been open?!? ? Why should the fetus not open the eyes, spread forth the bands and stretch out the legs, if, ?as you think, the limbs are all whole and perfect?!? This mode of reasoning would lead to the conclusion that man cannot come into existence and ?develop in the manner described.? We, the community following in the footsteps of Moses and Abraham, believe that the world came into being IN such-and-such a form, and BECAME such-and-such FROM such-and-such (*haya kach mi-kach *), and such WAS CREATED AFTER such. Aristotle comes to uproot our words, bringing proofs against us based upon nature in its stabilized, perfected and active state. As for us, we declare against him that this is legitimate evidence [for determining processes that must have occurred] after nature?s having settled down in its fully developed stage; but in no way does this correspond to something?s characteristics at its being brought into existence, and produced out of absolute non-existence (MN 2:17). Shabbos marks the cessation of a process that was ongoing beforehand. If G-d's method of development of the world was through the same natural laws and processes in effect now, what ceased on the first Shabbos? None of the things mentioned above [the creation of Eve from Adam, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge, the history of the serpent and the events connected therewith] is impossible, because THE LAWS OF NATURE WERE THEN [UNTIL THE END OF THE SIX DAYS] NOT PERMANENTLY FIXED (Ibid. 2:30). The Ralbag uniquely understands specific statements by Chazal to be saying that Hashem created virtually everything simultaneously and instantaneously on the first day, all in their fully developed form (with the exception of the growth of vegetation of the fifth day) and that therefore the ?days? of Creation are ?categories.? This makes the creation process even less natural. It is noteworthy that the approach of the Ralbag is to build the understanding through the teachings of *Chazal*, and not through rejecting them on the basis that they differ with the science of the day. Zvi Lampel > > > > > [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/08/18, 9:21:07 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Oct 8 07:38:02 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 10:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Noach An Interesting Insight Message-ID: Last week God created the world. This week (some 1,656 years later), God destroys the world. Interestingly, the Baal Hatanya (Shneur Zalman of Liadi) writes that the flood has never ended and continues until this very day. We are all subject to the floods in life. We are flooded with all sorts of problems, issues, conflicts, etc. ? some more, some less. The world is still chaotic but when we do our part to minimize our personal floods, we help to minimize the floods of the world. The flood of money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy. Theodore White (American political journalist and historian) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 11:37:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 14:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:34:52AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. : Nevertheless, scientific studies have shown that one's memory is colored by : many factors. This is especially true if the event occurred in the distant : past. Chaqirah is the ability to answer specific questions about the when and where of the event: 1- Which shemitah cycle 2- Which year in the cycle 3- Which month 4- Day of month 5- Day of week 6- Hour of day 7- Where And the SA discusses what we do now when we don't use 1&2 as the primary means of identifying the year, if the person is off by a day in the month, but has the correct day-of-week so that it's an obvious calendar mistake not error, etc... There is also the regular notion of cross examination, derishah. Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, asked of each eid separately. And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. So let's talk more about dinei mamonos, where neither hasra'ah nor eid echad neeman be'isurim apply. Still, we confabulate memories. Especially emotionally laden ones like something a heated argument is churning over. But can two eidim confabulate identically when they can't hear eachothers' cross-examination? But I would like to really focus on is: : In halakha the highest level of trustworthiness in 2 witnesses. I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. If so, why would we hold terei kemei'ah? After all, if dozens of people say the same thing, why would we believe two holdouts equally? For that matter, what would eidus be more trustworthy than even "smoking gun" level evidence? I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. But I fear that more than one paragraph on this topic would annoy people who didn't go for the idea in prior iterations. So, unless there is interest expressed, I will stop here. 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 larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Oct 8 14:39:41 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 17:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben Shapiro's take on abortion. YL Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when he speaks and is being interviewed. On Sunday, at the conclusion of the latest edition of The Ben Shapiro Election Special on the Fox News Network, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro used the last segment of the show to mount a powerful assault on abortion that was unlike any seen on a network news show before. Shapiro showed pictures from ultrasounds and illustrations of babies at various stages in utero to support his case, aware that when women see ultrasounds of the babies they are carrying, they are much less likely to consider having an abortion. Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. The later the abortion takes place, the more brutal the procedure, but no matter the brutality of the procedure, it is obvious that abortion is not some mere optional surgery to be performed for convenience. And it?s even more obvious that those who want to protect the lives of the unborn aren?t trying to control women?s bodies. Those who cherish abortion are trying to control and dismember the bodies of the unborn. Think about that next time you see a radical feminist in a Handmaid's Tale outfit suggesting that you?d better respect her right to carve apart an unborn baby in the womb or you?re some sort of fascist. No more euphemisms. See https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F36835%2Fwatch-shapiro-gives-fiery-unprecedented-assault-daily-wire&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=%2Bqenj6TOK0BiMopCLwHGel5WMFGPn5BJJ7Onf2R6yuM%3D&reserved=0 and especially the video at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Ftime_continue%3D27%26v%3DpoB8aIXI0Yo&data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C8c78e2a117da481ca2e508d62d5ae29c%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C0%7C636746265711503960&sdata=kLq3f6Bo%2F9X3rP4HXORP3uhB5Wo6hC1ifHM%2BVBGt9j4%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 8 19:50:38 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:50:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <72.C7.08159.D9ECBBB5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20181009025038.GA29143@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 05:39:41PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Shapiro then reached the apex of his argument: :> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of :> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. Well, Rav Moshe holds as much, but most posqim do not. Shapiro is conflating the fact that Yahadus considers abortion a serious avlah with Pro-Life rhetoric that the avlah happens to be retzichah. Halachipidia has the following list (my translitations): What is the Prohibition? 1. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein - abortion is considered murder. However, this murder does not come with a death penalty. There are some cases of murder when the murderer does not get the death penalty. One of these cases is someone who murders one who is terminally ill. [4] 2. Rabbi Issar Unterman - abortion is considered abuzraihu deretzichah akin to murder.[5] 3. It is a violation of the positive commandment of peru urvu Part of the commandment is to allow every potential soul to come into being, and if one does abortion, they cannot do this. [6] 4. Spilling the seed/Onanism. The fetus is more similar to the basic seed than to a human, so destroying the fetus would be like destroying the seed.[7] 5. Aborting the fetus is injuring the mother (Chavalah). Exodus 21 says that if two men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and there is no death, but the fetus is miscarried, then they have to pay a monetary payment. So the fetus is more a part of the mother than a separate life. [8] 6. It is a Rabbinical prohibition. There is no clear prohibition in the Torah, so our only real sources are the rabbinical sources.[9] 7. According to the Zohar, one who kills a fetus is guilty of destroying God's handiwork. [10] it is unclear if this constitutes a different view of the technical prohibition, or if this is just a reasoning explaining the severity of abortion. A punishment unlike that for murder is detailed. Notes: [4] Iggros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat, Part 2, Chapter 69 [5] I.Y. Unterman, Noam VI (1963), 1-11 as cited in David Feldman, Birth Control In Jewish Law [6] Yevamos 63b [7] Talmud Bavli: Niddah 13a; Chavos Yair, Siman 31 [8] Exodus 21:22 [9] Sanhedrin 72; Tzitz Eliezer, Jerusalem, 1963, volume VII, number 48, p. 190. [10] Hok L'Yisrael, Shemot for Monday, Zohar, Shemot 3b Note how most shitos do say the fetus is not a person. #5 in particular is based on the idea that the fetus is an organ of the mother. (Which is also consistent with pen paqua.) No.s 3, 4 and 7 are about stopping the process of later producing a person. Likely #2 (abuzraihu deretzichah) as well, although it could be some other near-retzichah connection. And as for #6, it depends which deOraisa the deRabbanan is supporting. But even so, not retzichah, no human life yet. As the Bach explains the Rambam's position... You can abort a fetus to save the life of the mother a moment before it would have crowned, because it is kerotzeiach -- LIKE a rotzeiach. But it's not actually a rotzeiach, which is why in the same situation but a moment later, once the baby did crown, one could not commit infanticide to save the mother. A fetus before crowning is not subject to the same issur as after. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 9 11:04:42 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:04:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 Message-ID: In June 1990 Light Magazine published an article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer dealing with "his life in perspective; what is Torah Im Derech Eretz? ; his attitude toward modern Hebrew; and his mida of emess and bitachon. The article is at Light Magazine Article about Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer June 1990 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 9 15:26:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> References: <20181008183757.GA14191@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181009222604.GA27505@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 02:37:57PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote: : Every question is asked at least three ways, and in different orders. AND, : asked of each eid separately. : : And if we're talking about 2 eidim with regard to a sin/crime, the eidim : had to have given hasra'ah. So it's not simply relying on memory; they : had to at the time have participated in trying to stop the sin. .... REMT, kedarko beqodesh, gently corrected me in private. The eidim testifying need to have witnessed hasra'ah, and didn't have to have given it themselves. Which means that the tail of my post applies to sin/crim as well, not only dinei mamunus (as long as it's not eid echad ne'eman be'isusim). I think what I said about confabulation vs indepent derishah vechaqira of each eid separately, and (more importantly) my argument for not assuming that the neemanus accorded eidus isn't because we necessarily consider it the least fallible both still stand. Chodesh Tov! 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Thu Oct 11 01:20:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:20:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom Message-ID: << But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? >> The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a sefardi community and ROY's claim is that the Ashkenazim should have followed the existing sefardi customs. Obviously the talmidei hagra and the chassidim didn't agree. How far one goes back is part of a responsa by RMF that one who davens "chassidic" can change to Ashkenaz but not the other way since the original minhag was Asjkenaz and changed by the early chassidim. So according to RMF the fact someonepnes great...grandather 10 generations ago davened in nusach Ashkenaz has halachic meaning As to minhag EY and minhag Yerushalayim most date back about 100 years ago and a few to the days of takmidei hagra and the early chassidim. Almost none to earlier than that. The minhag of having a single drummer at a wedding in Jerusalem has mostly been replaced by a single organ player that can simulate a whole orchestra. Others claim that it holds only in the old city or that it was established by the old yishuv some 100 years ago and they are not part of that community One widespread minhag EY from the talmidei hagra and hasidim is not to wear tefillin on chol hamoed. Even in this case I have heard of some olim who put on tefillin after they return from shul. One really ancient minhag in Yerushalayim refers to not leaving a corpse overnight and so having funerals in the middle of the night. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 03:01:59 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:01:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fish With Legs?! In-Reply-To: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> References: <17.10500.435.225210.1539246491.1010184.2Jm@a2plmmsworker01.prod.iad2.gdg.mail> Message-ID: In Parshas Noach, we read about how Hashem brought the Great Flood and destroyed all living creatures, save for those inside Noach?s Ark and the fish in the oceans, who were spared as well. It would be fascinating to find out on which side of the Teiva a ?fish with legs? would have been. Would it have been considered a fish or an animal? Far from being a theoretical question, this actually happened when... To find out the full story, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Fish with Legs?!" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 02:58:05 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:58:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach Message-ID: The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both immorality and dishonesty?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 09:49:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the First Pasuk in Noach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011164903.GC19398@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 09:58:05AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is part of RSRH's commentary on the first Pasuk in Noach :> It is far more difficult to remain morally pure in an age of immorality :> than to remain honest in an age of dishonesty. : : I ask, "What are the implications of living in today's age of both : immorality and dishonesty?" The Meshekh Chomah notes... Pausing here for a shameless plug: I am now giving a quick (15-20 min) talk on Facebook Wed nights 9:30pm EDT. This comment is from that. So, the MC notes... That the dor hamabul sinned both - sexually - ki hishchis kol basar; and - financially - chamas. And he writes about the opening pasuq, based on a Rashi on the Gemara (AZ 6a): tamim -- anav ushefal ruach tzadiq - [bemaasav -gemara] - belo chamas RMShK writes that Noach "bedorosav" -- his 2 doros -- had very different challenges. Living in the pre-flood dor, being a tzadiq bemaasav and not influenced by the general dishonesty and sexual license around him, was the greater challenge. (How often does someone cut ethical corners because "that's how business is done now?") However being tamim in his midos, his anavah, was easy. The culture didn't value his tzidqus. However, in the post-flood dor, everything existed becaus of him. And the people around him had learned from the experience of tending to the animals for a year. Little challenge from peer pressure, but a much bigger challenge keeping his ego in check. This is a point the MC makes on "Malki-Tzedeq melekh Shaleim" -- the year in the midbar was a lesson in sheleimus, and that's his part of the foundation of Y-m. Avrahama added "behar Hashem Yeira'ah" to make Yerushalayim. (And thus the "-ayim", pair, in the name.) See MC Bereishis 22:14. Back to the point, it would seem that chazal attribute both difficulties to Noach's pre-flood life. It too was an "age of both immorality and dishonesty". 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 llevine at stevens.edu Thu Oct 11 08:58:19 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:58:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood ? make the ark [to consist] of enclosures for animals ? and cover it inside and out with pitch. In any event, a tavah is shaped like a box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ has no relationship to the one Noach built. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 11 07:06:55 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:06:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Longevity of Minhag haMakom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/10/18 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> But does he even address the question of what right the SA, or his whole >> Sefardi community, had to set minhag EY, or the minhag of all the other >> countries they colonised after gerush Sefard, when there were existing >> communities with contrary minhagim? What argument works for them and >> not for the subsequent Ashkenazi mass immigrants? > > The argument is that when the sefardim came there was no established > community in EY due to the crusades etc. So they could establish a new > minhag. However, when later the Ashkenazim came there was a > sefardi?community But this isn't the case. After the crusades destroyed the original EY community with its minhagim, a new community was established by olim, who brought their mihagim with them from chu"l, and by the time the grushei Sefarad arrived there was already an established community. And what about the rest of the Mediterranean, where there were thousand-year-old communities? Leshitaso shouldn't the Sefardim who settled in each of those countries have adopted the local mihagim? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 11 06:10:16 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:10:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices Message-ID: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were an ongoing situation? 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 Thu Oct 11 07:29:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:29:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching Torah to Women Message-ID: Although throughout the ages there were Jewish women who were learned and revered1 the concept of formal education for women is barely a century old.2 Before this time, they would learn whatever was necessary from their parents.3 Girls generally did not go out of the home, and were often illiterate.4 The modern school system teaches many subjects to the girls, including Chumash, Halachah, Navi and Mishnah. Some even teach Gemara.5 Girls learn Chumash in depth with Ramban, and study more halachah than boys in yeshivah.6 The Bais Yaakov movement was spearheaded by Sarah Schenirer with just twenty-five girls in 1917,7 as a reaction to many factors8 which had changed the status quo.9 Since then, hundreds of girls? schools have been created. For more on this topic Click here to download "Teaching Torah to Women" For information about the history of the Bais Yaakov movement see https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note the curriculum of the Bais Yaakov Seminary in Krakow starting on page 77. In particular, Five Books of Moses: This included the study of the Five Books of Moses in the original and in its entirety with the commentary of Rashi and Rabbi Samuel Raphael Hirsch. and German: Instruction in the correct oral and written use of the language. The goal of this course was to provide the teachers with the ability to read by themselves the important religious literature of Hirsch and others which were written in the German language, as well as selected classical works such as the poetry of Schiller, Goethe, Nathan the Wise by Lessing, Zweig, and Beer-Hoffman. Times have indeed changed, have they not! YL study times. of the Five -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 10:04:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:04:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: <20181011170422.GD19398@aishdas.org> I got to the Arukh haShulchan's discussion of Chazal changing the entire definition of qinyan. MideOraisa, paying would be the qinyan. But Chazal were afraid that sellers wouldn't properly safeguard the item between payment and handing it over to the buyer. After all, any loss or damage is the buyers, ownership was already transfered. So, chazal made various qinyanim that demonstrate the buyer taking the item. The Torah gives the halakhah. Chazal realize that given the low state of the people around them, the halakhah would have cons that outweigh the pros. So, they change it. Reminds me of pruzbul or heter isqa, cases where in order to help someone who needs a loan get one, we allow suboptimal loan arrangements. In each case, a different validation for doing so: - Qinyan in general allows custom and agreement by both parties override the default law. - Similarly heter isqa was always technically allowed; our rabbanim just standardized a means of utilizing this alternative financial arrangement. - Pruzbul is violating shemittah derabbanan. So, while the gemara requires the motive of helpoing the poor get loans to even violate the ke'ein deOraisa, tHillel didn't rewrite Torah. But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and limit the damage. So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? 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 micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:01:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:01:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011190137.GG27474@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 03:58:19PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:14 :> In any event, a tavah is shaped like a :> box or chest, unlike a boat. It is wide at the bottom, tapering toward :> the top, the reverse of the shape of a boat; for it is not designed to cut :> through the water, but to be borne on the surface of the water. : Clearly the ark that was built and is shown at https://arkencounter.com/ : has no relationship to the one Noach built. True; it's just the reconstruction of some Xians, given the text and the assumption that it was build not to capsize. RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis for Noach et al not to have capsized. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Oct 11 13:34:12 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:34:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. Again read RSRH's commentary and you will see how he arrives at his conclusion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 12:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:14:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Handicapped Accessibility in Jerusalem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181011191454.GA19331@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:13:44PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Orach Chayim 150:2 (it seems to me) teaches the halacha that - all else : being equal - the town's shul should be built at the highest point in town. : I can certainly see the kavod and prestige that would result from such a : location, but wouldn't this also make it difficult for the weak and : elderly? I can't imagine that this halacha was speaking only to communities : of young folks. RJR suggests that the advantage to the tzibbur would indeed trump the disadvantage for the individual. On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 1:14pm UCT, he wrote: : ... Western : liberal thought is very focused on the individual, AIUI traditional Jewish : thought is more on the klal with each individual playing their role : and being fulfilled with that role no matter what it be... The comment RAM was replying to (I think) was my discussion of the advantage to the majority of the community of being pushed to think about those who need more help. IOW, not accessible shuls for the sake of those who need accessibility, but for the sake of those who need practive remembering as they pursue qedushah they they must consider others. (Especially leshitas RSShkop, where qedushah is /defined/ as commitment "leheitiv im hazulas". Not exclusively so.) I think it's simply that the hill wasn't thought of as a major inconvenience. And perhaps an obstacle likely to keep someone from coming wouldn't be a proper place for your elevated shul. Or, possibly that yes, this halakhah was only speaking "when all else is equal". Tir'u baTov! -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 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 11 13:10:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:10:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 01:10:16PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : If you were in a situation where you could only pray with a minyan : once that day (Shacharit or mincha-assume a non-Torah reading day), : which would you choose? Why? Would your answer be the same if it were : an ongoing situation? I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood of feeling anything. 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 Oct 11 16:42:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 19:42:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 09:38:57PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : Is there any nusah that says "shelo `asani eved" and/or "mechin mitz`adei : gever" in birchot hashahar? I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing But look at the Kaf haChaim OC 46 s"q 18. So I know they did in 19th cent Baghdad. However, ROY is recorses in Qol Torah vol V pg 20 as promoting gaver and aved. But in the cases we started with -- gefen and geshem. Also, Rav Pa'alim vol II, OC #25. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Oct 12 04:36:37 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 07:36:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah References: Message-ID: At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. > >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, >including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the fulcrum is >where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity is above the >fulcrum, balance is difficult. Just compare keeping a broom veticle when >you hang the end of the handle between two fingers with the broom below >with keeping it balanced standing on your palm. It would be another neis >for Noach et al not to have capsized. First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because HaShem kept it afloat. Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different before the flood than after it. In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the flood were the same as they are today? If they were different before the flood, then your physics analysis does not hold water! >:-} ( have no basis for asserting that the laws of physics were different before the flood, but it is possible in light of the different climatic conditions.) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 12 05:26:57 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:26:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Minyan Choices In-Reply-To: <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> References: <60fe04d7f35148a69eea0dd646c49bdf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20181011201024.GA19485@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7285ED0D-3270-486A-9AD2-8DBA569E7AF4@sibson.com> [Micha:] > I hope you are really what I would choose, and not what I should choose. > Because lehalakhah, Qdushah and the greater number of Qaddeishim give > priority to Shacharis. Not to mention there being no heter in the morning > to compromise the mitzvah at hand for plans of a later mitzvah. > But what I would prefer is minchah, in a heartbeat. Shacharis has all > that lead in. By the time we get to Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, I can > have kavanah. Minchah -- minyan allows for a greater change of context. > Here I am coming from the workplace, the only prep is Ashrei (or an > abbreviated Qorbanos and Ashrei). I need the minyan to have any likelihood > of feeling The question of relative priorities is always complex. I don't think this question has an algorithmic response Other than if you say all other things are equal, Which of course they never are. Kt Joel Rich From mandels at ou.org Fri Oct 12 05:33:15 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:33:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Geshem or Gashem?! In-Reply-To: <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> References: <20181005143743.GB19383@aishdas.org> , <20181011234203.GA32218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Transliterations mine, but I tried to be more consistent with RSM's already present transliterations. -micha] From: Micha Berger Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:42 PM > I believe Ashkenaz used to. Manuscript research is more RSM's thing Since my name was mentioned, I think R. Micha was inviting me to add my ha'penny's worth. The Ashkenaz mss. all have gover. As due Yemenite mss. I do not remember what most S'faradi mss. have. One thing that people are only partially aware of, including many rabbonim who decided to comment on grammatical matters without the necessary study, is that L'shon Chazal is a different language than Biblical Hebrew, but that Chazal grew up knowing T'NaKh by heart, and so sprinkled their language with Biblical quotations, just as English writers leaven their language with quotations from Shakespeare or the Bible. Those quotations are in the archaic dialect of English that was spoken in the 16th-17th Century when Shakespeare lived and the King James translation was done. and do not represent the language spoken by a 21st Century writer. Similarly the language of T'filla as composed by Chazal uses their spoken Hebrew, which we call L'shon Chazal, but it is as full of quotations from the T'NaKh as a raisin bun is of raisins. Which makes it often difficult to distinguish what is L'shon Chazal from what is a quotation. I am writing a treatise about this, which God willing I will publish one of these days, which will contain proofs and various strategems to distinguish what is what. But if the language is found in a posuk, you can be sure it is a quotation. And the phrase ????? ??? [mitz'adei gaver] appears twice, once in T'hillim 37 and once in Mishlei 20, once at the beginng of a phrase and once at the end. It seem fair to me to assume that they used the form at the end of a phrase to put in the b'rokho, and so I would argue that the b'rokho is incorporating the language of ?????? ?????????-?????, ??????? ???-??????? ????????? [MeiYY mitz'adei-gover, ve'adam mah yovin darko.] and so it would be "gover," as the mss. I saw have it. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com Fri Oct 12 07:20:01 2018 From: loooking.for.inspiration at mail.gmail.com (Looking ForInspiration) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: Hello! This is my first post to aishdas.org, so forgive me and direct me if needed. Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both? Thank you in advance. Mordechai From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 12 08:20:24 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181012152024.GE12524@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 07:36:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : At 03:01 PM 10/11/2018, Micha Berger wrote: : >RSRH's teivah is his own reconstruction. He could be wrong too. : >Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the water, : > .... It would be another neis : >for Noach et al not to have capsized. : : First of all, the entire saving of Noach, his family, and the : animals is a miracle. It is not, IMO, something that would happen : in the "natural" course of events. Hence, the ark could indeed : have been shaped the way RSRH asserts and stayed afloat, because : HaShem kept it afloat. Which I noted. However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compell him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about apparence except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. : Also, we know that the nature of the world was different before the : flood than it is today. IIRC, there are midrashim that say that : there were no seasons as we have today and that vegetation grew at a : much faster rate. In short, climatic conditions were very different : before the flood than after it. : In light of this, who says that the laws of physics before the : flood were the same as they are today? Saying the world had a different climate doesn't mean the laws of nature changed. It could mean the earth changed. There is no reason to believe science itself changed since; and in fact some reason to believe it hadn't. After all, "mikol melakhto asher bara E-lokim la'asos" was before the first Shabbos. The notion that the universe changed in a new fundamental way since isn't 100% in concert with that. Although I realize "nishtaneh hateva" has numerous explanations, I don't know if any require believing the laws themselves changed. :-)BBii! -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 rabbi at opengemara.org Fri Oct 12 09:57:31 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:57:31 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Welcome on board! I didn't look up that sugya itself, but it could be that it was a Mishna Rishona Mishna Achrona thing. Like the reason that the Halacha in Machlokes VeAchar Kach Stam is different than in a Stam VeAchar Kach Machlokes. Also, regarding who actually wrote the Mishna - it's a Machlokes Rashi (who said (in Eiruvin, in the Samechs on the sugya of More Halacha Bifnei Rabbo) that the Mishna wasn't written in the Gemara's time) and the Rambam (who said that Rebbi wrote the Mishna). I heard that it boils down to the two Girsas of Rabbi Sherira Gaon's famous letter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 19:31:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 22:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > But my point is, in all three cases the Torah addresses people > on a higher plane than the people Chazal encountered in > reality. The deOraisa didn't accomodate human frailty. (And in > the case of shemitas kesafim, if the deOraisa applied, > halakhah still wouldn't have an accomodation.) I think your cases are great examples of how Hashem deliberately left room for us to "improve" the Torah somewhat, thereby partnering with Him, exactly as you've explained. > And yet, eishes yefas Torah -- lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR. > Something TSBP (and natural morality) tells us is immoral is > not prohibited by the din. Human limitations are taken into > account, and the Torah instead tries to channel the urge and > limit the damage. > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted > keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be > when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than > the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged > YhR? Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her (unless he follows the prescribed procedure). That's what is meant by "lo dibera Torah ela keneged YhR." The only solution is the one prescribed by the Torah itself; there is nothing for Chazal to add. Alternatively: D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. Chazal can forbid shofar on the years when RH is on Shabbos, but they can't ban it entirely on Yom Tov because of musical instruments being muktzeh. So, given that the Torah DOES allow one to take the Yefas Toar (after following the prescribed procedure), how might you word your proposed d'rabanan? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 12 14:16:21 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 21:16:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Which Actions Have Value Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 6:16 You shall make a light for the ark and finish it within one cubit of the top, and set the entrance to the ark in its side; you shall make it with lower, second and third stories. God chose one man who was to save himself, his family and the animal world; he would be able to save them and himself ? only if he would do everything just as God had commanded him.?Gadol ha-mitzuveh ve-oseh me-me she-aino metzuveh ve-oseh (Kiddushin 31a) is a fundamental principle in Judaism. Contrary to prevailing opinion, a person?s actions have value only if they constitute the performance of God?s Will. What a person does on the basis of his own judgment, and the like, is of secondary, uncertain importance. During the 120 years that passed between God?s announcement to Noach and the actual onset of the flood, Noach could have done so many things: he could have built a hundred arks, and so forth. Scripture?s sole intent, however, is to say that Noach did exactly as God had commanded him; the rest he left to God. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 14 09:02:01 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 16:02:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] In sight Into Korbanos Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 8:20 20 Then Noach built an altar to God and took of every pure animal and of every pure bird, and offered ascent offerings upon the altar. la Shem; our offerings are directed to the aspect of God?s rule that desires not destruction, but life. '? is the source of all life and of all future existence, and He is ready at all times to grant new life, new vigor, and a new future. Symbolically, one offers his own life in order to win new life from God; one offers oneself up to God in order to be consecrated by God and to be elevated to a holy life on earth. One does not bring an offering to a vengeful, angry, bloodthirsty god. Rather, one who brings an offering devotes to God?s Will every pulsebeat, every nervous impulse, all muscular strength. To make an offering means to win from God eternal life. One does not offer up an animal; one offers up himself through the animal. When a person offers an animal before God and leans his hand upon it; when he slaughters it, collects its blood, dashes its blood upon the altar, and surrenders its head, legs, breast, and carcass to the flames ? in doing so he offers to God his own blood, his own mind, his own muscular strength, and surrenders himself completely to the fire of God?s Will, as set down for Israel in the Torah. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 14 20:08:41 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 23:08:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lech L'cha "Go For It" Message-ID: <406EA56D-CA2C-4FE0-B5F1-5C237B5152BE@cox.net> 12:1 Vayomer HaShem el Avram: "Lech L'cha," etc. The gematria of Lech L'cha is 100. So Avram was being told that life is a compromise: 50/50. And if he lives with give and take (50/50), he ends up with 100%. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 00:53:35 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:53:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special Message-ID: < Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. >> Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. Killing a fetus is not murder and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 01:12:31 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:12:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses Message-ID: << I don't think the power of two eidim lies in trustworthiness. I would put the ne'emanus of eidim in my pet theory about halakhah being about reality-as-observed. Evidence isn't observation. Eidus is. Add the ability to compare stories, and we have established something on the level of metzi'us. (Which, I remind you, is phrased to be about that which can be "found", not that which exists in principle.) And metzi'us doesn't deal in more or less likely. Qol kavu'ah applies to doubts that open in in once-observed realities. >> First anything I brought from the Kavanaugh case was simply it was that stoty that made me think of the issue. The details of that story are immaterial. The basic question was that recent studies demonstrate false memories and especially from years ago and when the wirnesses may have been teenagers when they are not yer completely developed. On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered neveilah. The Taz doesn't like such a scenarion but many others disagree with him. They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:45:24 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89a90ad8-4240-fb55-2d1d-fba96a91819b@sero.name> On 15/10/18 04:12, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to > death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Mon Oct 15 05:49:36 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <0A43202F-B23C-41DE-A4E7-8002ED599973@tenzerlunin.com> ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of modern techniques versus two witnesses. * * * They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif and not the metzius. Timtum halev occurs when one one eats something prohibited. Eating pork that is mutar (eg it is less than 1/60) does not cause timtum halev I am not sure everyone agrees with R. Rappaport).? ISTM that there should be a significant difference between executing someone when you have definitive information (I won?t use the word evidence) that he is innocent and eating a piece of meat that, although it in fact came from a non-kosher animal, is treated halachically as kosher. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 07:16:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:16:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] two witnesses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015141643.GA20844@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:12:31AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death : even though the facts might not be true. : More important it raises the whole question of DNA samples and all of : modern techniques versus two witnesses I didn't think I was implying that. If there is evidence -- regardless of DNA's own issues -- but not eidim, the facts are not established to the point of chiyuv misah. If there are eidim to convict, but the evidence points otherwise, the dayanim can't close derishah vechaqirah until they resolve the conflict to their own satisfaction. Given the whole bit about "achas leshev'ah / leshiv'im shanah", perhaps their own satisfaction should be to a "beyond reasonable doubt" kind of standard. (Maybe the person had a mum exactly where the knife entered would probably be considered by most of us "beyond unreasonable doubt".) : I am now learning with R. Rappaport about contradictions in halacha. In : particular about a group of animals that were schected and later a problem : was found in a piece of meat and one doesnt know from which cow/sheep it : can from. Without going into all the details ic could happen that parts of : the cow are considered kosker while parts of the same cow are considered : neveilah... The case in the SA that I remember : They hold (like Micha) that the psak determines kosher and treif : and not the metzius. That is a misphrasing. I said that pesaq relies on how we perceive the world -- and in fact this perception is the meaning of the word "metzi'us". (Which, I will note again, comes from "matza", which doesn't imply theoretical objective existence.) The nearest I come to the way you put it would be to say that matters like probability go into how we think about an unobserved unknown. Evidence is a matter of changing the odds, not of establishing definitive metzi'us. ------------------ And my pet theory is an extension of R' Aqiva Eiger's teshuvah (#136) explaining the difference between kol deparish, where rov matters, and qavu'ah. RAE makes is a chiluq between rules of birur when the reality is unknown (kol deparish) and ones where the reality was established but the halakhah is unkown. Treating this as a very broad kelal, eidus changes a kol deparish type question into a qavu'ah. Which is why rov no longer epplies, and terei kemei'ah. Evidence without observation keeps it a kol deparish question, although it does shift the odds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 15 03:40:52 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:40:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15/10/18 03:53, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life.?>> > Nevertheless halacha does distinguish between a fetus and a born infant. > Killing a fetus is not murder According to some. > and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. And as Ronald Reagan pointed out, if you're not sure whether something is murder, then committing it is at least reckless endangerment. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 08:50:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:50:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 06:40:52AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >and in fact achronim debate exactly what the prohibition is : : With the Rambam's view, that it *is* murder, being a prominent option. Except that the Bach explains that's is NOT what the Rambam holds. Which is why Rotzaiach 1:9 distinguishes between aborting to save the mother before crowning, and not committing infanticide a fraction of a moment later after the baby crowns. If abortion were murder, there would be no shift in priorities between the mother's and baby's lives before and after birth. Or: A "KErodeif" (as the velad isn't doing anything itself to risk the mother) who isn't a full person may be killed, but once born, ein dochin nefesh mipenei nefesh. Rashi (Sanhedrin 72b "yatza rosho") says that the unborn fetus isn't subject to "ein dochin NmPN" because it isn't a nefesh yet. The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 09:01:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:01:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> References: <20181015155059.GA26972@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015160131.GB26972@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:50:59AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : The Bach makes the Rambam conclude like Rashi, which I think the : contrast of halakhah 9 forces you to without the Bach. The Rambam : cites the kelal of "ein dochin" only in the 2nd case. Why? The Arukh laNeir (Sanhedrin 72b) writes that the chiluq is that in the second case we cannot isolate whether the child (once crowned) is the mother's rodeif, or the other way around. The IM (CM 2:69) writes similarly. But neither deal with the Bach's question of how that means "ein dochin" is the principle in particular invoked to explain why we cannot kill the baby after crowning, but not the fetus a moment before. Also, how is it true that we always know before crowning that it's the fetus in the mother's way, but if the head is partly out, we don't? Balebatishe question.... Let's say it's the umbilical cord vs the mother's blood loss -- does that dynamic change with crowning? But in any case, my point was that the Bach means that we cannot say as a certainty that there is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam about whether a velad is a person. Just that some acharonim take him to say so. And once you look at acharonim, variants on the theme that is definitely Rashi's abound. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 06:48:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 09:48:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna Message-ID: *Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:20:01 -0400* *From: Looking ForInspiration >* *To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org * *Subject: * *Hello!* *This is my first post to aishdas.org , so forgive me and direct me **if needed.* *Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that **when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, **it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this **mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author?* *I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, **Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone **can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible **as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it **would be much appreciated. Did Rebbi write all the Mishnayos (and if so, **the question above is a strong one)? Did Rebbi write some, but in Baba **Kamah he stopped at the 4th Perek, and someone else wrote the rest of **Baba Kama? Did Rebbi or the other authors of the Mishna, if any, write **the Mishna from memory, or compiled previously written text, or both?* *Thank you in advance.* *Mordechai* This should be helpful: >From Rambam's Letter to R. Pinchas HaDayyan (In R. Sheilat's edition, Teshuva 140): ...every decision that he [Rebbi Yehuda HaNassi] presented without attaching an author's name originated [not with him, ?but] with other sages. And those other sages as well were not the originators of those decisions, ?but [merely stated how they understood what they] obtained from the mouths of others, and the ?others from still others, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. .. [T]hey ...explicitly stated in so many places, ?Rebbi ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue A, and presented them anonymously; but he ?endorsed the words of So-and-so regarding issue B, and presented them anonymously.".This ?openly states that whatever Rebbi endorsed as final halacha, and considered the proper ?practice to follow, he stated without associating anyone?s name with it. And in so many places ?the Gemora says, ?This anonymously-stated halachah is an individual?s opinion [and not the ?majority?s]?--Rabbeynu did not mentioned the names of any of them [--neither that of the ?individual whom the halacha followed, nor that of the majority]. ? ?[Only] when it came to matters that Rebbi did not consider settled, but still debatable, and ?about which he did not lean one way or the other, did he state both opinions in the names of ?their proponents (?R. So-and-so says this, and R. So-and-so says that?) mentioning the names ?of those sages, or of recently living ones, from whom he heard those opinions--but [still] not of ?their mentors or mentors?-mentors' names. For at the time, many people still followed one ?opinion, and many still followed the opposing one. Suffice it to say that he [himself] told us ?explicitly why, in some of the mishnas, he attached names:? And why do we mention the words of Shammai and Hillel only to negate them [by ?adding that the majority of sages disagreed with both and decided differently]??to ?teach the following generations....? ? And why do we mention the dissenting words of ?individuals along with those of the majority...???So that if a Beis Din will agree with the ?individual?s opinion and rely upon it....[R' Yehuda (ben El'ai) added:] And why do we ?mention the words of the individual together with those of the majority only to negate ?them??So that if a person reports receiving a teaching other than that which was ?accepted by the majority....?? ...it was only necessary to mention opposing opinions during those times ?that some practiced one way, and others practiced a different way, when some obtained the ?law according to one sage?s opinion, and some according to another sage?s opinion. End of quote from Teshuva. Regarding stam mishnayos that contradict, each mishna had its own author and, following Rambam, Rebbi placed them in the order he did. One explanation is that he changed his mind, and his pesak is identified by the rules of stam v'acher kach machlokess (machlokess meaning a mishna with an opposing view, not necessarily a mishna contaning two views), and vice versa. However, the majority of Tannaim in Rebbi's day did sometimes differ with him. And in cases where the Beis Din Gadol did not put the issue to a formal vote, later authorities, even Amoraim, did not necessarily follow Rebbi's decision. Regarding the last point, check out Rambam's payrush, followed also by the Rav MiBartenura, on the mishnayos at the beginning of Eidiyos, and see how it differs from that of the Raavad and Tosefos Shantz Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 10/15/18, 9:02:19 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Sat Oct 13 20:23:41 2018 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 23:23:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [Moving this aspect of the discussion over from Areivim. Subject line is mine. -micha] On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:35 PM Micha Berger via Areivim wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 01:26:50PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: >: I am surp[rised that you did not suggest that men begin wearing >: tephillen the entire day as was apparently the custom in ancient >: times... > For people who had desk jobs. > Laborers didn't, for pragmatic reasons. And in an agrarian society, that > was most men most of the day, except in the winter. My impression was that the heter to not wear tefillin (issur to wear tefillin) only applied to particular cases, such as one who was carrying a burden (of a particular size or content, i.e., excrement) on their head, but that a normal farmer/craftsman/laborer would generally wear tefillin the entire day. A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did not wear tefillin, but it is critical of this practice, and although the gemara appears to give a justification of such (while still maintaining its objection to the reality), it is not along the white collar/blue collar axis. Josh From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 15 11:18:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wearing Tefillin All Day In-Reply-To: References: <20181012174525.GE18486@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181015181859.GE5656@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 11:23:41PM -0400, Joshua Meisner via Avodah wrote: : A braissa on Shabbos 130a indicates that many people did : not wear tefillin... The context is, any mitzvah, like milah, that people were moseir nefesh for when there was a government deceree is still muchzeqes beyadam. Tefillin was given an example where there never was such a history, and therefore our commitment remains less. It says "merupeh beyadam", not that people weren't wearing them at all, which is what you say here. Nor, more on-target for our discussion, that people were wearing them just for davening instead of all day. Possible referants: Tzeduqim wore their tefillin on the bridge of their noses (bein einekha). So many Jews were nikhshal. Or maybe there were sects who believed like the Qaraim or R that there are no physical objects involved at all to keep the ideas in sight and at hand. But it just struck me -- most likely, that they weren't careful to keep a guf naqi. After all the gemara reads: ... kegon tefillin, adayin hi berufah beyadam. DEamar R' Yanai: tzerichim guf naqi... What's that dalet doing there in "de'amar" if R' Yanai wasn't discussing said ripui? RGS writes : Here's a question for you: Why don't men wear tefillin all day long? The mitzvah is not just during morning services; it is throughout the day (cf. Tur, Orach Chaim 37). So why don't we wear them all day? The answer to this question is historical... There is textual evidence that already in Talmudic times there were many people who did not wear tefillin.... His argument here is the same as yours. ... The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 13a) specifically condemns those who never wear tefillin. This laxity by many on wearing tefillin continued into the Middle Ages. Tosafos (Shabbos 49a sv. ke-Elisha) write that one should not be surprised that at that time people were lax in tefillin, since they were in the times of the Talmud also. This is attested to in many other places, and in the times of the Geonim there are even implications that almost no one in the land of Israel wore tefillin. The Beis Yosef (Even Ha-Ezer 65) quotes the Kol Bo who suggests that in some communities ashes are not placed on a groom's forehead because the community members do not wear tefillin. There was even a responsum by R. Sherira Gaon, copied in many medieval works on halakhah, answering a question about whether it is yuhara (haughty) for a yeshiva student to wear tefillin when no one else does. It seems that in order to defend this practice, some rishonim utilized the idea that one who wears tefillin needs a "guf naki - clean body". The Shibbolei Ha-Leket (Buber ed., p. 382) quotes one view that "guf naki" means that a person is clean of sins.... Sefer Ha-Chinukh (no. 421) states that "guf naki" does not refer to someone who has no sins or impurity, implying that someone else had suggested that it did. The author explicitly condemns those who are strict on the holiness of this mitzvah and thereby deprive the masses of the mitzvah. Rather, "guf naki" refers to the ability to refrain from passing gas and thinking improper thoughts while wearing the tefillin. R. Moshe of Coucy (Semag, mitzvos aseh no. 3) tells of how he would travel around thirteenth-century Europe, preaching to people that they should wear tefillin during the morning prayers. Even if they cannot control themselves all day, people can certainly maintain a guf naki for the prayer services (that is the view of Tosafos [Pesachim 113b sv. ve-ein]; Rosh [Hilkhos Tefillin, no. 28 and Beis Yosef [Orach Chaim 37]; footnote 8 in the Schlesinger edition of Semag assumes the Semag agrees). Evidently, this practice of wearing tefillin only during morning prayer services took hold and the prior practice of widespread abandonment of the mitzvah slowly turned into minimal performance of it during the morning prayers. However, someone who cannot control himself and cannot maintain a guf naki may not wear tefillin. Despite the biblical obligation, someone in a definite situation such as that should not wear tefillin at all (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 38:1). For this reason, the Arukh Ha-Shulchan (Orach Chaim 38:6) rules that those who are not obligated in the mitzvah of tefillin -- such as women -- should never place themselves in even a doubtful position of not maintaining a guf naki. ... 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 Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il Tue Oct 16 00:45:18 2018 From: Ezra.Chwat at nli.org.il (Ezra Chwat) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:45:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> References: <20181015201638.GC26938@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <85b0325c428741fcb0a9d98b30ef7206@Ex1.Nli.loc> [Micha] wrote: > Borne on the surface of the water means all the weight is above the > water, including the center of gravity. As it bobs on the water, the > fulcrum is where the bottom hits the water. When the center of gravity > is above the fulcrum, balance is difficult. Great insight, it's pshat in [Beresheet VII: Vateilekh hateivah al penei hamayim] meaning, all of it above surface, as in Gen I 2. Although there are a plenty (majority) sources in [lehon miqra] and [lehon chaza"l] where the meaning clearly infers partial immersion below the water surface. [Doq vetishkach] search and see. In any case this also sheds literary light on the two images presented for [lechem hapanim] (Menahot 94b): [sefinah roqedet] vs [teivah perutzah]. Why these images instead of description? Perhaps theres a message here about [teivat Mosheh] or [teivat Noach] Here's Rashi's drawing (source ) Dr. Ezra Chwat |Manuscript Bibliographer Department of Manuscripts The National Library of Israel, Jerusalem Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, P.O. Box 39105, Jerusalem 9139002 ezra.chwat at nli.org.il | www.nli.org.il From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Tue Oct 16 05:10:21 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:10:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses Message-ID: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Zev Sero commented: ?On Micha's remarks it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though the facts might not be true. As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway.? What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Oct 16 05:25:28 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:25:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: On 16/10/18 08:10, Joseph Kaplan wrote: > Zev Sero commented On Micha's remarks: >>> it implies that the court can sentence someone to death even though >>> the facts might not be true. >> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, >> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. > What, if anything, does this teach us ? about Halacha or morality or the > value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel > Rich?s question: Is this what God wants? Well, we *know* that it is indeed what He wants. That is surely beyond all question. All we can discuss is *why* He wants it, and what lessons we can draw from this counterintuitive fact. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:16:00 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:16:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> > RMB: > > > So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted keneged YhR, > or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be when the buyer takes > posession of the merchandise, rather than the seller takes the money? > Again, all for the sake of keneged YhR? It is in general true that the Torah prefers to regulate strong emotions (like greed and lust) rather than to extirpate them. See for example Hagigah 9b ?yaeh aniyusa liyehudaei ??, and yet the Torah doesn?t prohibit wealth (though see Parshas Shoftim 17:16-17), though historically several communities have enacted sumptuary laws. And see H. Deos 1:4-5 about the difference between a tzaddik and a hasid. The Rambam implies (at the end of 1:5) that he prefers tzidkus to hasidus but see H. Deos 6:1 that this applies only in a virtuous society. It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical level, however, I don?t see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. But there?s a more important point. What?s weird about war is that it?s not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say ?hasatan mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama? that?s partly because the soldiers don?t have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over his lifetime. So it makes a lot of sense that k?nagged YhR is specifically mentioned in the context of milhama. David Riceman From driceman at optimum.net Tue Oct 16 08:35:09 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42DB0493-2688-4FB1-B731-24A6D9C76BC7@optimum.net> [Corrected as per a follow-up email. -micha] RMLFI: > I have done some quick research through the Hakdamas Hamishna Larambam, > Klallei Hamishna, and some other sources, but nevertheless, if someone > can direct me to sources and research on as much detail as possible > as to *what transpired in the process of the Mishna being written* it > would be much appreciated. If you really mean that read through YL Epstein's "Hakdamah L'Nusach HaMishnah". Albeck wrote a (shorter) "Hakdamah L'Mishnah" and, IIRC, [Epstein also] wrote a "Hakdamah L'Sifrut HaTanaim". There's a mahlokes rishonim whether the mishna is a sefer peak or an encyclopedia of sources. This is related to the machlokes amoraim about whether halacha k'stam mishna. But it is possible for mishnayot with contradictory anonymous conclusions to have been edited by the same person. David Riceman From t613k at aol.com Wed Oct 17 20:57:38 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 23:57:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Shape of the Tavah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16685525a33-1ec3-bc74@webjas-vac183.srv.aolmail.net> In a message dated 10/15/2018 ? From: Micha Berger >> However, RSRH's observation that Noach built a teivah, not a boat, didn't compel him to say that the box was atop the water, or that the bottom was larger than the top. For that matter, the Torah describes it like it was shaped like a brick -- just length, width and height, no other details about appearance except the tzohar, if the tzohar was a window. << >>>>> ? ? ? The bottom may have been flat but not the top.? See Ber 6:16 "A window [tzohar] shall you make for the Ark, and to a cubit finish it from above...." (ArtScroll translation) ? I understand this to mean that the sides of the ark, at least the upper level, were slanted so that rain would run off (the reason most roofs of houses are slanted rather than flat).? At the top it only one square cubit wide, where the window (if the tzohar was a window, or possibly an LED light) was set in place. ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 18 03:08:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 06:08:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181018100847.GF26742@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:29:42AM -0400, Toby Katz wrote: : He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on : this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does : not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, : let alone the same as murder... This "let alone" undermines his whole thesis. Few akharonim take the Rambam to mean that abortion is murder, and of those who do, not all hold like their understanding of the Rambam. : We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these : issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians : recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that : Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. Or even to start with the assumption they are similar. It is best to just look up our views, and then see pragmatically which party to work with. Rather than identify with either camp and risk assimilating their values. 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 t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 17 21:29:42 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 00:29:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shapiro Gives Fiery, Unprecedented Assault On Abortion On His Fox News Special In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166856fb576-1ec2-bc2f@webjas-vad102.srv.aolmail.net> ? From: "Prof. Levine" > IMO many people do not really understand the implications of an > abortion. I certainly did not fully grasp this until I saw Ben > Shapiro's take on abortion. >> Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator who is >> Orthodox. Indeed, he proudly wears a yarmulka all of the time when >> he speaks and is being interviewed. ... >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... Ben Shapiro is a brilliant commentator and makes a powerful case against abortion. He also makes a Kiddush Hashem by publicly identifying as an Orthodox Jew and always wearing a yarmulka. However, I am troubled by this statement of his: >> Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of >> fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life...... He has been influenced by Christian (especially Catholic) thinking on this subject, and is probably unaware of the Jewish view. Halacha does not consider the killing of a fertilized egg to be the same as abortion, let alone the same as murder. If a young woman is raped c'v the very best and most prudent thing she should do is take the "morning after pill" which prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum. To many Christians the morning after pill is exactly the same as abortion or infanticide, but the Torah does not view it that way. When a certain couple with whom I am intimately acquainted were undergoing IVF treatment in order to have children (which they ultimately did, B'H), they asked their most serious shailos of a very prominent posek in Baltimore. One shaila was what to do with excess embryos that were created in the lab. An embryo is just a fertilized ovum that has developed into a tiny little ball of cells, could be just eight or sixteen cells at first. When you hear that embryos are created in a lab and sometimes frozen to be thawed and implanted at a later date, please do not imagine that little babies are in the freezer. (Only in Lakewood are young humans put in the freezer.) Since multiple pregnancies are hazardous for the mother and often do not have a good outcome for the babies, as a rule no more than three embryos are implanted in the uterus at one time. In IVF powerful hormones are given which often result in the release of multiple eggs at ovulation, which in turn result in multiple embryos at fertilization. But if you are not going to implant more than three, what do you do with the extras? The posek told the couple that they could do what they wanted -- freeze the extras for a later attempt, or discard them. Catholics would consider the discarding of these little balls to be the same thing as murder, and possibly they would consider putting them in a freezer to be child abuse. We Torah Jews have more in common with devout Christians on these issues than with secular Jews and gentiles. At least pro-life Christians recognize such a thing as morality. But it is a mistake to assume that Jewish (Torah) views and Christian views are identical. I suspect that Ben Shapiro is not aware of a very important distinction. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 05:40:28 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:40:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" Message-ID: >From https://goo.gl/7m1UWj Halacha L'kovod Shabbos - "Use of Hairspray on Shabbos" One is permitted to spray one's hair (e.g. sprinkle or hand-pat water on frizzy hair) on Shabbos as long as it is not very wet, because the Melocho of Melabain (cleaning or scouring) does not apply to the human body. (If the hair gets very wet it may not be squeezed out since hair is subject to the prohibition of S'chita - squeezing). However, the use of hairspray which will stiffen the hair and form a structure may involve the Melocho of Boneh (building). If one sprays the hair first and then styles and shapes it; this would be prohibited on Shabbos because it is similar to Boneh. However, some poskim permit the use of hairspray if one is careful to first style and shape the hair, and then only afterwards add the hairspray. When done in this manner the loose hair is shaped at the time of styling, and does not resemble Boneh because the hair is loose. The subsequent spraying merely acts to retain a pre-existing shape. Once the hair has been sprayed it can no longer be shaped, styled, or touched. {We mentioned previously that the use of hairspray on Shabbos does not involve the Melocho of Zoreh.} Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah 302, Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa 14:50:131, Kitzur Hilchos Shabbos re:Gozez:5:16, Biur Halacha 303:27, Hilchos Shabbos R' Shimon Eider, Minchas Yitzchok 6:26, Sefer 39 Melochos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 19 05:31:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:31:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hirhurei tshuva Message-ID: <7e7b234b4f3d4d51bc22ea4cdc8114d5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> The Artscroll Yom Kippur machzor has the following comment (I could not find the GRA's statement in Aderet Eliyahu). "David replies with just two words: "I have sinned to HASHEM." Nathan answers, "[If so] God has removed your sin and you will not die. "The Vilna Gaon notes that according to the Masoretic text there is a space after David's brief confession, even though it is in the middle of a sentence. This implies that David wanted to say more - he felt that he should go into more detail about his sin and the sincerity of his remorse - but was so overcome by remorse that he could not speak. He didn't have to. Nathan broke in to tell him that he had been forgiven - because his confession, brief and incomplete though he thought it to be - was utterly sincere." Me-Do you think this thought coheres with the following insight from R'YBS: "In response to this Divine verdict, R'Yehudah HaNasi cried, marveling at how some individuals merit the World to Come only after a lifetime of effort, while others acquire such reward after only brief effort. The Rav emphasized that the executioner not only earned a share in the World to Come, but achieved the same level as did R'Chananya in this regard. "Why did R'Yehudah HaNasi have such an emotional reaction to the afterlife destiny of the executioner? The answer is that although prior to this incident R'Yehudah HaNasi had certainly understood the redemptive power of teshuvah, he had not previously appreciated the redemptive power of hirhur Tshuva, "awakening" of teshuvah. If teshuvah is indeed a multistep process, involving sin recognition, remorse, and resolve, how can an individual possibly be considered righteous after only a moment's thought? Only through hirhur Tshuva, which is spontaneous, instinctive, and sudden. In one second, an individual can live the jarring experience of awakening from spiritual slumber." 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 Fri Oct 19 07:03:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:03:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Most Profound and Far-Reaching Vision of the Future Ever Permitted a Mortal to Behold or to Utter Message-ID: In his commentary on Bereishis 9:25-27 25 He said: Cursed be Canaan; he shall be a servant of servants to his brothers. 26 And he said: Blessed be God, the God of Shem; may Canaan become their servant. 27 God will open [people?s] emotions to Yefes, but He will dwell in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be a servant to them. RSRH provides deep insights into a number of important topics. He writes 25?27 We have here what may be the most profound and far-reaching vision of the future that God ever permitted a mortal to behold or to utter. The entire history of mankind ? past, present, and future ? is contained in these three verses. and then later on The spirit of Israel does not produce ecstatics who lose their grip on reality and go mad. Judaism yearns for God?s closeness, but requires of man clarity of thought, a composed and sober mind. Ecstatics who ?merge with the divine? lack freedom of choice; they imagine that they themselves do nothing, but that God acts through them. This is not the way to serve God. Our task is to make use of the intellect and the freedom God has given us, in the earthly sphere which He has assigned to us; to serve God faithfully, conscientiously, and with a clear mind. Only thus will we attain the highest perfection a person can reach; only thus will our actions be sanctified, and will we be worthy of God?s closeness. IMO there is so much of import in his commentary on these verses that I have taken the trouble to post it at https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/profound_far_reaching_vision.pdf If you take the time to read this, you may well find insight into what we see going on in the world today as well as what has happened in the past and will happen in the future. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Oct 19 03:15:51 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:15:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?=93Honor_your_father_and_your_mother=2C?= =?windows-1252?q?_lest_you_be_punished_through_your_children!=94?= Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 9:24 24 When Noach awoke from his wine, he learned what his youngest son had done to him. Nevertheless, it is shocking that Noach curses Cham through his child. This constitutes a serious warning: ?Honor your father and your mother, lest you be punished through your children!? Cham must not sin against Noach, lest he be punished through Canaan! Sins that children commit against their parents will be punished by the manner in which their own children, in turn, will deal with them! The same rule applies in the development of the generations. The younger generation must stand reverently at the grave of the generation that preceded it. It must take a garment and cover the nakedness, the weakness, of its forebears, and at the same time receive from them their spiritual legacy, so as to build its own future. Only then will the generations develop like a flourishing tree. But if the new generation gloats, like Cham, over the ?nakedness? of its ancestors; if it sees only their human frailties and derides their spiritual tradition; if the sons scornfully sever the bond with the generation of the fathers ? then their own future, too, is only a dream: Just as they sneered at the memory of their forefathers, so will their own descendants sneer at them. Cham is always the father of Canaan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Oct 21 07:14:12 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 10:14:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayera "We have to teach empathy as we do literacy." (Bill Drayton) Message-ID: <0D74D2E3-332B-4E5B-9E58-56B4273FC281@cox.net> 1) The following is a beautiful reflection of Jewish sensitivity. The original source of the story is not known. See Bamberger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 1939), p. 209, note 17/ "Once, Abraham's love of strangers clashed with his zeal for God. He invited a wayfarer to his home and, finding the wayfarer praying to his idol, chased him away. God reprimanded Abraham severely: 'I have borne with him these many years although he rebelled against Me, and you cannot bear with him one night?!' Abraham had realized his sin and did not rest until he had brought the stranger back.? (Benjamin Franklin composed his "Parable against Persecution" on this very theme). 2) The Sidrah opens by saying that God appeared to Abraham [Gen. 18:1], but when Abraham applies the vision to his own world he suddenly sees three men standing before him [Gen. 18:2]. Abraham is the religious man par excellence for he sees God in the human situation. Franz Rosenzweig Based on the puotation in On Jewish Learning, ed. Nahum Glatzer (New York: Schocken, 1955), p. 124 3) 18:2 "And he lifted up his eyes and he saw, and, behold, three people....." Who were these three people? Michael, Gabriel, and Rafael. Michael came to inform Sarah that she would bear a child; Rafael, to heal Abraham; and Gabriel, to overturn Sodom. (Bava Metzia 86b) 4) The sin of Sodom consisted not only in what the people did but in what they failed to do. Thus, no one raised a voice in protest when the crowd molested Lot's guests. Failure to protest is to participate in the sins of a community. (Gen. R. 50:9) This is reminiscent many years ago of Kitty Genovese, a woman in Queens, N.Y., who was screaming for help at the top of her lungs in a major apartment complex, and not one person lifted a finger or even phoned the police. This woman was killed due to the negligence of every person aware of her screams. Are we raising our voice in protest when we witness people being hurt? "The dew of compassion is a tear." Lord Byron (1788-1824) One of the greatest British poets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 21 16:38:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 19:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:18:17AM -0400, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: : I don't understand why it would need such long : deliberation or a long teshuvah to demonstrate what every school : child knows, that a mumar remains a Jew. You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein's "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity". (Reprinted in Leaves of Faith. ch 3 pp 57-84) http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage (When I hit that URL, the article was available on Google Books in its entirety.) It isn't as open-and-shut that "Yisrael, af al pi shechat'ah, Yisra'el hu" is as universal or as much as a given as most of us were taught in school. We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the qiddushin are chal. But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking Hoacheia 17a. Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim even though their conversation had been accepted for generations before then. RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. Including, RAL writes, Brother Daniel or any other meshumad applying for citizenship under the Law of Return. 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 rabbi at opengemara.org Mon Oct 22 02:45:07 2018 From: rabbi at opengemara.org (Rabbi) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:45:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> References: <20181021233817.GA32608@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On October 21, 2018 4:38:17 PM PDT, Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein... > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage ... > We think in terms of Yevamos 47b, that a geir who *later* reverts to > practicing his old religion is stil a Jew, and if he gets married the > qiddushin are chal. > But in Yevamos 16b, after R Asi is chosheish that a marriage to a > non-Jew might be a marriage to someone from one of the 10 shevatim, > Shemu'el responds that the 10 shevatim aren't Yisrael anymore. Invoking > Hoacheia 17a. > Chullin 6a invokes parallel reasoning to excluding the Kusim ... I didn't learn that sugya in a while, but I was under the impression that it's a machlokes Rishonim how to learn the Aseres Hashevatim (I think it's the Meiri there). Some learn that they were a horaas shaah. Others learn like you wrote, that one who is a min is considered completely not a Jew. The thing is that the Halacha doesn't follow those Rishonim, as we're still Choshesh for the Kiddushin of a Min (who does give up their Jewish identity). From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Oct 23 23:02:52 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:02:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters Message-ID: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim B:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to harvest because? they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. The Radbaz explains that since the workers aren't experts, they will either give too much pe'ah or too little.? Meaning, the issue is technical, not that they aren't chayav to give and therefore they can't do it. What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or twice with them. Ben From eliturkel at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 07:51:20 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:51:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: << RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed not be Jews. >> RAL is the most persuasive essentially after several generations. It is hard to believe that someone who converted to Xtianity in the middle ages would have descendants who are Jewish through the mothers when all connection to the Jewish world is lost. I once read that there are 80 million descendants today from the Jews in Spain that left Judaism. While we only count those through the maternal side this would still give a lot of "halachic" Jews for people who might be strong anti-semites today. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 25 06:33:46 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:33:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: Message-ID: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we say lo palginon (we don't split)? 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 Oct 26 11:06:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:06:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026180609.GA18376@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:40:01AM -0400, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : 2. We know that Adam HaRishon was created 5,779 years ago. There is no : significant debate about that. Quibble: +/- 168 years during Galus Bavel, and perhaps other issues. Also, the Seder Olam, R' Yossi bar Chalafta (acc. to Yavamos 82b & Niddah 46b), is only one tanna among many. For that matter, he is "only" the primary author, as it quotes people who lived later than RYbH. Of course there are machloqesin about many of his positions. (Our calendar is Sefer Olam chronology with a different year 0. Seder Olam numbers the year of Adam's creation as 0, and we use year 1 for the week before Adam, so that our numbers are SO + 2. But the same age.) But in a much smaller scale than you intended to, there are numerous debates. I have a pet theory that these factors are the reason why shetaros, and in particular gittin, explain the year is only as "beminyan she'anu monim kan ba'ir Ploni-ville..." But in any case, since lemaaseh no din relies on the year, pesaq doesn't apply, and machloqesin neither have to be nor even can be resolved. : 3. We don't know for certain the meaning of the 5.9 days before Adam : HaRishon. The sun was created on Day 4, so what was the meaning of a : day before that, if there was no sun? Not clear. The Ramban is clear -- a yom was 24 hours on a hypothetical clock, the way we measure time now. R' Dessler explains the Ramban as equally saying that a yom was 1,000 years. Which wouldn't be long enough to help, but it gets weirder -- not just any 1,000 years, but a millennium of the 6,000 of world history. According to REED, the Ramban correctly holds that time is non-linear. (Michtav meiEliyahu vol II pp 150-154, Yemei Bereishis veYemai Olam, I paraphrase it paragraph by paragraph at ) R' Dessler writes that the arrow of time and the whole concept of a time-line is specific to how human beings perceive reality, and even that only as people have done so /after/ the cheit. Which gives him the room to say that the scientific age of the universe is not so much wrong as choosing a less than optimal way of viewing a problem that doesn't admit any one answer. The age of the universe is 6 millenia or so plus 6 days as seen from the perspective the Torah advises us to adopt. But that doesn't make some other answer less correct, or less useful for some other purpose. : 4. Learn the Ramban on the first perek -- sounds a lot like the : descriptions we have of the Big Bang. : 5. There are things in this world that look millions of years old. To deny : that they look that way is like denying that the Earth is round.... Well, the Ramban on bara mentions hyle, which is the Greek for chomer in chomer vertzurah (which they called hylomorphism). So Hashem first made substance without form. Or maybe, less hard to imagine, the current substance, but in forms that no longer exist. Now, Quantum Mechanics is nothing at all like hylomorphism, but... According to Big Bang theory, in the first fractions of a second after yeish mei'ayin, things were so hot that individual particals had no identity. What now appears to be four kinds of particles, for kinds of fields, mediating forces was just one mush, not so mention the particles we think of as matted. As things cooled, the symmetry split again and again until the types of particles and forces we know today differentiated. Does sound like chomer beli tzurah. : - Expansion doesn't prove anything. It's a fact that requires a theory : to explain it. We know and believe that for some reason when HKBH made : the world 5,779 years (+ 6 days) ago, he decided to make it continuously : expand. How do we explain "Shakai"? That He said "dai" and the expansion ended, no? : 7. Yet to constantly answer, "Hashem just did/does it that way" is a bit : facile and reminds me of young people who give this answer when asked, : "What causes a hurricane?" If we dismissed every question with "Hashem : does it" without looking into the mechanism that HKBH uses to do it, : we would be much poorer... But there is no way to disprove "the universe is young and Hashem had His Reasons for doing it that way", reasons we can't identify. We might want answers that feel less facile, but that doesn't make it false. Might just be human hubris, to need a universe we can understand. That is different than what you're talking about, which is more similar to separating a scientific study of cause with a Torah study of purpose. But it does raise the question of whether "a bit facile" is a meaningful RELIGIOUS problem. You want to know the science, fine. But life's values doesn't rest on it. Nor should you assume science can't his a wall. : So what's the answer to point #5 above? Is the universe vastly ancient, : or was it just made to look that way? REED says both. Because, in his typical Kantian perspective, he has science address the world as humans perceive it, believing the world as it exists "out there" is actually unknowable. And so, the world before eitz hadaas and observation by human consciousness of our sort is amenable to different descriptions. Each capturing a different shadow of the basic unknowable. On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature*. While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. That natural is just a term we use to describe the patterns by which Hashem usually acts. It is all "by Himself". >From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> + When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. :-)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 From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:41:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:41:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Non Jewish harvesters In-Reply-To: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> References: <6be10d51-8ae8-4497-3ea2-42811bd88d68@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181026184149.GC20611@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:02:52AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam, Matanot L'anayiim [2]:10: Do not hire non-Jewish workers to : harvest because they are not experts in leket and pe'ah. ... : What is the issue then? The farm owner tells them "Harvest up to here : and leave areas A, B, & C alone". If needed, the owner does it once or : twice with them. I assume you're llimiting your question to pei'ah. Because leqet requires getting out of a habit when you're in the middle of gathering. And for the same reason, why not worry about shikhechah? I would think that even with instructions, it's leqet and shikechah that's hard to get used to and get right. :-)BBii! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Fri Oct 26 11:36:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:36:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Apparently conflicting Stam Mishna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181026183619.GB20611@aishdas.org> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:20:01AM -0400, Looking ForInspiration via Avodah wrote: : Up until the end of the 4th Perek of Baba Kama, Stam Mishna holds that : when there is doubt, Hamotzi Mechavero Olov Horaayah. In the 5th Perek, : it holds that when in doubt, you divide the money in doubt. Does this : mean that Shisha Sidrei Mishna does not have just one author? It didn't. The mishnah took a 3 generation process: R' Aqiva, R Meir and Rebbe. Stam mishnah is usually like R Meir, although the gemara at times proves a different maqor, not even the final redactor. (Stam Sifra keRabbi Yehudah, even though the Sifra is not by Rebbe, but by his student, Rav.) You have statements like on RH 19b, where you're told the mishnah is not in accord with R" Yehudah haNasi. So the notion that the opinion of the mishnah is necessarily the opnion of the redactor is not a given. Nor is the stam mishnah always R' Meir. Therefor conflicting opinions isn't proof of multiple redactors. (Although,as I wrote, redaction was one school, not one person.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:05:56 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:05:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two witnesses In-Reply-To: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> References: <5AC8E342-892F-41B9-AD76-54E74B198F6B@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20181028150556.GB10183@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:10:21PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : Zev Sero commented: :> As evidenced by the fact that if the witnesses recant after the verdict, :> even if their recantation seems credible we execute the person anyway. : What, if anything, does this teach us -- about Halacha or morality or : the value of human life or anything else? Or perhaps to paraphrase Joel Perhaps it tells us that more die when the appeals process is endless? And thus, once the case is closed, it's closed. And we trust G-d to insure that any miscarriage of justice in the case is just in the broader context. Just thinking out loud to keep the topic going... It needs more discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Oct 28 05:04:29 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:04:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 28 08:19:23 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:19:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf : The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of them a couple of decades ago. Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an artificial evolution of halakh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 10:09:08 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 13:09:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: At 11:19 AM 10/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:04:29PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: Please see >http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. > >And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >them a couple of decades ago. > >Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an >artificial evolution of halakh. I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that RYBS said this. In any event see http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf From there The findings in this article seem to confirm the judgment of some scholars that the rabbinic sources cited by R. Epstein should not be taken as accurate and that they require independent confirmation from the original sources.61 Certainly the inconsistencies found in MB cast serious doubt as to its value as a completely accurate historical account. We will never know what lies behind the puzzling inaccuracies in R. Epstein's oeuvre, nor is it for us to speculate. R. Menachem Kasher, after setting severe strictures about the reliability of R. Epstein's citations, nevertheless expresses a charitable understanding of the circumstances that may have brought this about. Noting R. Epstein's statement in MB that he lived a "life of suffering" (hayyei tsa)ar), R. Kasher writes that R. Epstein was a "great man" (adam gadol) whose )) is "a monumental work" (avoda anakit), and he attributes the many inaccuracies in the work to R. Epstein's difficult and inordinately busy life which did not permit him to check his sources as carefully as he should have. One old lesson emerges reinforced from all this-a lesson for researchers in any field, especially the field of Torah scholarship. Primary material must be carefully examined, and if only secondary sources are available, their veracity must be meticulously ascertained. Rayna Batya seems to have been an extraordinary woman, but the inaccuracies in R Epstein's telling of her story cloud our ability to know her and her absorbing story. We close this article, which is written in sadness rather than glee, by noting one final irony. When Mesorah Publications published a translation of R. Epstein's MB, tided My Uncle the Netziv, it deleted certain key words.64 The passage in which we learned of Rayna Batya's scholar- ship was one of the changed passages. The original passage, for example, mentioned the venous books she used and included, among others, Mishnayot and books of aggada. In the English translation, these books were deleted from the list, causing much indignation in the scholarly world at this attempt to revise history. How ironic it is that this effort to "sanitize" R. Epstein's reputation should have inadvertency hit upon the truth: that the story of Rayna Batya lie many other elements in MB and Torah Temima are in fact in need of serious revision. _________________________________ In light of all this can we really be sure that the Netziv read newspapers on Shabbos? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:25:15 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 12:09 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the > accurateness of his writings. The person who told me this claimed that > RYBS said this. > > In any event see > http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%201/Rayna%20Batya%20and.pdf FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition article would Certainly qualify. HM From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Oct 28 14:35:04 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 17:35:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 05:25 PM 10/28/2018, Harry Maryles wrote: >FWIW RAS strongly defended the Mekor Baruch and was highly critical >of its critics. He referred to Them basically as midgets compared to >R' Baruch Halevi Epstein. Of which the author of this Tradition >article would Certainly qualify. IIRC Rabbi Meir Fund is the one who told me that RYBS said that there are many inaccuracies in the writings of the Torah Temima. Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be well documented. YL From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sun Oct 28 14:49:03 2018 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:49:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <20181028151923.GA15933@aishdas.org> <8EA345B4-C599-4C70-B2E0-0B45790216DE@yahoo.com> <15.18.22391.AAB26DB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <5E34DB8F-9432-4A3B-BD90-808E37069230@yahoo.com> On Oct 28, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Did you take the time to read the Tradition article? It seems to be > `well documented. I glanced at it. But I did not read it. All I was doing was saying what my rebbi told me personally HM From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 19:06:13 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 22:06:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > You should see R' Aharon Lichtenstein > http://books.google.com/books?id=_QshqTu9nGIC&lpg=PA363&pg=PA57#v=onepage > ... > RAL offers three different approaches to resolution. He ends > up siding with #3, that the convert in Yevamos is someone who > reverts to the rituals of his old religion. But someone who > goes beyond that to give up their Jewish identity would indeed > not be Jews. One must be wary of the phrase "would indeed not be Jews". As RAL reiterates there, over and over, "Jew" can mean different things in different contexts. For example, Please see what he wrote there on pages 66-67, distinguishing between "shem Yisrael" and "kedushat Yisrael": > If we ask, in purely descriptive terms, whether anyone born of > Jewish parents is a Jew, the answer must be yes. As an epithet, > the term "Jew" remains applicable to any individual who was > ever endowed with Jewish status - even to a mechumad. Hence, he > is obligated to pursue a Torah life, and should he decide to > return, he would perhaps require no new conversion.[38] > However, if we ask whether a meshumad has anything of a Jewish > personality and character, and whether, therefore, he continues > to be endowed with the personal status of a Jew, the answer is > a ringing no. He remains a Jew without Jewishness. What he > retains is simply the descriptive epithet: shem Yisrael. Of > kedushat Yisrael, however - of the sacredness of the Jewish > personality, that which essentially constitutes being a Jew - he > is bereft. > [38] The first point, that the obligation remains, is certain. > The second, that reentry would not necessitate gerut, is open > to question. One might argue that even for one who is endowed > with shem Yisrael, the recovery of kedushat Yisrael requires > gerut. It may also be contended that gerut would not be required, > but only because the return to the fold would retroactively > cancel the earlier renunciation. My point is that - according to RAL - even the very most extreme meshumad, who severs his connection to the Jewish people so completely that he has totally lost his kedushat Yisrael, still has shem Yisrael, and IS STILL OBLIGATED IN MITZVOS. This is a critical distinction. To refer to such a person as a non-Jew would easily mislead people to think that he is now relieved of his Jewish obligations. It would be most tragic if the meshumad himself was led to such a conclusion, for it would divest him of the last shred of motivation to return. He would think of himself as an ordinary outsider, for whom gerut is totally optional. (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say about the next generation. Suppose we are talking of a woman meshumedet, who still has shem Yisrael, but abandoned her kedushat Yisrael. Do her children have shem Yisrael or not? It has always been my presumption that her children (and the children of her daughters, etc etc ad infinitum) would be obligated in mitzvos, but this article makes me wonder about that. To phrase it in more technical terms: For a newborn to have shem Yisrael, does it suffice that his mother has shem Yisrael, or must she also have kedushat Yisrael?) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:03:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baptized Jews and the Law Of Return In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181029190301.GE13649@aishdas.org> So, here are the three shitos RALichtenstein discusses about how to resolve the apparently conflicting gemaros. 1- The Rashba (Yavemos 22a) takes the case of the marriage of a backslid geir (Yevamos 67b) as primary. And the gemara about Kusim does not mean that Chazal reject their attempt at conversion. Rather kol demeqadeish al daas chakhamim meqadeish gives Chazal the power to deny the validity of their attempts to marry (other) Jews. Variant on this theme: 1b- The Ittur (quf, Qiddishin 78a) says that R' Yehudai Gaon says that Chakhamim DO allow their marriage to a Jew, and that the statement is about stam yeinam, shechitah, and other laws that are limited to maaminim. Th SA (YD 159:3) similarly says that we may not pay a Kusi ribis, but we may charge him. 2- HaGahos Mordekhai (Yevamos 107) holds that the person is literally not a Jew -- but. Because we cannot know the extent of someone's apostacy, we aren't mindreaders, for something as major as eishes ish, we recognize lechumerah his marriage to a Jewish woman. 3- R' Chaim Solovei[t]chik notes that the Rambam WRT seider nashim (Ishus 4:15, Issurei Bi'ah 13:17) as following Yevamos, like #1. And yet WRT taharah, Peirush haMIshnayos (Nidda 7:4) says a Kusi's body is not metamei tum'as ohalim, because nakhriim don't. R' Chaim says that Yevamos refers to a geir who returned to his old practices, in RAL's terms "an apostacy of action". But the Kusim and the 10 Shevatim not only changed behavior, but also ceased identifying as Jews. The opinion I mentioned earlier as R' Aharon's was his following his wife's ancestor. The quote RAM provides from Leaves of Faith pp 66-67 I saw more as a subject - object distinction. In his own eyes, he has the din of a Jew. But in the eyes of how others are supposed to relate to him, he does not. And it's the latter -- how are we to classify others -- that was under discussion. To quote RAM on another point: : (As a side point, I am somewhat disappointed that RAL focused so totally on : the status of the meshumad himself. I would love to know what he would say : about the next generation... RAL writes a little later: > It might be be argued that it only applies to a mass secession, whereby > not only an individual but his whole social context becomes uprooted. Or > one might contend that only the children, born in complete ignorance of > their origins, are affected, whereas the apostate, paradoxically, might > remain a Jew. 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 emteitz at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 09:17:40 2018 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:17:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: RMicha Berger wrote: >>And yet, the Netziv spen[t] Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. >>One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from >>the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of >>them a couple of decades ago. To which RDYitzchok Levine responded: >I have been told that R. Baruch Epstein was not known for the >accurateness of his writings. Even granting RDYL's source, there is quite a difference between accuracy in the quoting of sources and accuracy in conveying an eyewitness account. The former would attribute carelessness and imprecision to R. Boruch Epstein; the latter would accuse him of being an intentional liar. Even granting the inaccuracy of his writing, it has no bearing whatever on the accuracy of what he attests to having seen. However, even if the N'tziv did read the newspapers, it is may have no relevance to the current discussion. As RMB cited, it was the haskala press. The Netziv may have been reading it for the purpose of "v'da ma shetashiv," which I believe would render his reading permissible on Shabbos. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 29 12:54:42 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:54:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kim lei bdraba minei: In-Reply-To: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <0e4db2fb102746408f679e37ef678106@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181029195442.GF13649@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 01:33:46PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Kim lei bdraba minei: Given the difference in the requirements for : accepting testimony in capital and civil cases, could one be found not : guilty for the death penalty for an act with capital implications but : have to pay damages for the monetary damages from that act, or do we : say lo palginon (we don't split)? QLbdRM applies to chaivei misos shogegin. Because it's shoegeig, BD doesn't kill him, but because he violated a law that carries dinei nefashos, he is off the hook for paying a plaintiff as well. Although in the case of shogegin, the Maharshal says he is chayav to pay midinei Shamayim, even if the court can't force him to pay, and the Qetzos questions this. REWasserman (Qoveitz Shiurim 93) says there are two issues -- which crime to try and which punishment to give. Because in the case of shogegin, there is only the first -- we try for the worse aveirah, but HQBH still holds him accountable for the onesh of the lesser one, since that's the only onesh he is up for. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 18:40:39 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 12:40:39 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Toivelling a flower vase more used for food Message-ID: Is the classification of Kelie SeUdah determined by the manufacturer or the user? The Gemara (AZ 75b) rejects the proposition that scissors acquired from a G require Tevillah, only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. The reason we may have thought scissors do require Tevillah - since once Kashered, all food taste is gone, it's like a new device. In fact that's how the Gemara knows that new utensils do require Tevilla. Now, if new devices require Tevillah then it's got nothing to do with the food of the G. In that case scissors should also require. The Gemara rejects that because only Kelei SeUdah require Tevillah. Meaning it's got something to do with food, at least in the potential. The Ritva however, is troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food of a G. He explains that nevertheless, since they will be used eventually for food they have some connection to food, therefore even new utensils of a G require Tevillah, and he adds, because they're going to a sacred (kosher or Jewish?) use. But why was he troubled by the fact that it's not yet been used for food? Could this mean that if the G never intend to use it for food, but as a flower vase for example, but the Y chooses to use it for food, that it does not require Tevillah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Oct 30 09:04:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:04:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Freshly Brewed Coffee- on Shabbos? Message-ID: >From the article at http://cor.ca/view-891-freshly-brewed-coffeeon-shabboshtml.html It is well known that there are various grades of roast of coffee beans, from light roast to dark roast. When does a coffee bean become fully roasted to the extent that halacha would allow for it to be cooked on Shabbos? Poskim have expressed doubt as to whether roasted coffee beans have the status of a food that is baked or roasted.8 Due to this doubt, we are not prepared to provide the heter to use microground coffee on Shabbos, even in a kli shlishi.9 ee the above URL for much more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Oct 29 14:12:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 21:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: Pasuk 24:4 in Bereishis says 4 But you shall go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son, for Yitzchak. RSRH comments: Eliezer is to be guided by two considerations: First, l'vni; she should be worthy of being the wife of my son; she should justify my hope that she will become my daughter even as he is my son. This is the general requirement regarding her character. But two people can each be of the most excellent character and still be incompatible. Hence, l'Yitzchak; Eliezer should make sure that the woman is compatible with Yitzchak's individual character. Avraham rejected the daughters of Canaan, preferring an Aramean woman for his son. Let us bear in mind, though, that the Arameans, too, were idolaters. Thus, the reason for Avraham's decision was not the idolatry of the Canaanites, but their moral degeneracy. Idolatry is basically an intellectual error, and that can be corrected. Moral degeneracy, however, takes hold of the whole individual, heart and soul. Hence, even a man such as Avraham could not hope to find among the Canaanites a modest, morally pure woman as a wife for his son, a woman who would bring with her a nobility of spirit and the purity of morality, as a pearl for his home. [Email #2. -micha] Someone who is a rabbi with broad based knowledge sent me the following in response to my earlier message with this subject line. It is amazing how RSRH always can find something so very thoughtful and true. The Rambam alludes at the same matter: that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo, and so he will lose his Chelemer in the Olam HaBo, while it is very possibly that he might do t'shuvo for hillul Shabbos, even if only on his deathbed. RSRH was indeed the kind of very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations. YL From t613k at mail.aol.com Wed Oct 31 00:16:31 2018 From: t613k at mail.aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 03:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> From: "Prof. Levine" >: Please see >: http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Reading%20Newspapers%20on%20Shabbos.pdf >: The author points out that many are unaware of these halachas. My father asked me not to read novels on Shabbos. He didn't say anything to me about reading non-fiction. I was a teenager at the time. I said he asked me, not he told me. I understood that novels were not Shabbosdig. Secular novels, that is. There were almost no Jewish novels back then. It is possible that he phrased it as a request rather than halachic statement because he did not want to impose on me some stricture that might turn me off. Possibly we are now discussing chinuch advice for parents of teenage daughters rather than hilchos Shabbos. From: Micha Berger > And yet, the Netziv spend Friday night reading the haskalishe newspapers. > One of the things in My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of excerpts from > the Torah Temimah's Meqor Baruch, that got BMG to recall a mailing of > them a couple of decades ago. > Add to the list of issues with rewriting the past that it can cause an > artificial evolution of halakha. Not Friday night and not maskilishe papers. I have a copy of the letter that was sent out by the Lakewood Cheder School, recalling the book <> which it had sent out as a fundraiser. The letter does not say what is wrong with the book. All it says is, <> There seems to be a little dig there at the Torah Temima, R' Baruch Epstein, who was the Netziv's nephew and also a ben bayis in the Netziv's home and of course a talmid of the Netziv in the Volozhin yeshiva. But apparently because he thought his uncle was human, a very great man but still human, he somehow didn't <> know his uncle. After the death of his first wife, the Netziv married the sister of the Torah Temima (yes, married his niece), thereupon becoming not only the uncle but also the brother-in-law of the TT. Who nevertheless never really knew his uncle/brother-in-law, according to Lakewood. My father (R' Nachman Bulman) wrote a haskama for the book My Uncle the Netziv, which is a translation (by Moshe Dombey) of parts of the TT's memoirs, called in Hebrew <> The book came out in 1988. To quote part of my father's letter, which is the first page of the book: > The experience of Torah life derives first and foremost from Torah > learning. But the impact of Torah learning is immeasurably richer when > the lives of living Sifrei Torah, of Torah Sages, become educative models > for our people. Further, such lives are vital links in the chain of Jewish > historical knowledge. Mekor Baruch is a matchless compendium of biography, > memoirs, and lore....A glowing portrayal of Volozhin and its last central > figure, the venerable Netziv, is a major part of the work.... I ran into a friend of mine in Brooklyn shortly after Lakewood recalled the book, and he asked me, <> At that point I had no idea who the Netziv was and had never heard of the book or of the Lakewood recall, but I knew my father. <> was my instant reply. I called my father up and asked him for the lowdown. He said that some people in Lakewood were upset because the TT said his uncle read newspapers, but it was because Lakewood was unfamiliar with the papers mentioned in the book. My father actually laughed out loud as he told me this. <> (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was amused by this, too. <>) I will quote a couple of paragraphs from My Uncle the Netziv, to give the flavor of the book and of the humanity, the depth and breadth of the Netziv's personality. He used to say that he considered the newspapers like greetings from the entire world and therefore waited expectantly for their arrival. [They were weeklies that arrived on Friday.] He would not look at the paper Friday night as that time was set aside for reviewing [his Torah learning]. He would save his perusal of the paper for Shabbos morning [after kiddush]. It upset him greatly when one newspaper slandered another....My uncle's wrath was particularly provoked by his favorite papers--the Magid and Levanon--who could not seem to talk about each other with any sense of dignity and derech eretz....The owner of the Levanon, Yechiel Brill, had unilaterally decided that his paper would be the sole voice of the rabbinical community and Torah outlook on all the issues of the day....to his great chagrin, he found out that many rabbonim and members of the Torah community were also avid readers of his arch rival paper, the Magid... The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe newspapers! I recently heard, by the way, that My Uncle the Netziv is once again being sold openly in Lakewood seforim stores (apparently it has been reprinted) and no one remembers that old controversy anymore. They will sell you the book without putting it in a plain brown wrapper, and I wouldn't be surprised if some people read the book on Shabbos. -Toby Katz t613k at aol.com From micha at aishdas.org Thu Nov 1 10:11:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:11:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181101171103.GI32359@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:16:31AM -0400, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : (The other thing that upset Lakewood, according to my father, was the : book's portrayal of the Netziv's first wife as a woman who loved to : learn and had seforim piled high on her kitchen table. My father was : amused by this, too. <>) Also, Zionism. The Netziv supported Chovevei Tziyon. I enjoy pointing out to people that although Zionism was a hotly contested issue in 19th cent Eastern Europe, it was not a communal division line. And so the Netziv's yeshiva had no problem having R' Chaim Brisker as its segan RY. (We really don't see Zionism opening up as a community-defining matter until sometime during or shortly after WWI. The Agudah's first attempt to have a Kenesiah Gedolah was interrupted by that war. Many rabbanim were stranded on the way to it. Including RAYKook, who spent WWI in Switzerland and then England. On their second and successful attempt, in 1923, being a Zionist made you ineligable for membership in the Agudah, and RAYK wasn't invited.) : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic ways.) Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com Thu Nov 1 04:37:27 2018 From: jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com (Joseph Kaplan) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:37:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Difference Between Idolatry and Moral Degeneracy Message-ID: ?that moral failings may be much worse even than Hillul Shabbos and AZ, because they corrupt a person to a degree that he will never be able to do t'shuvo,? This is, indeed an intelligent and worthwhile statement. Yet it also is, as I see it, basic common sense that does not require a ?very special and unique person that only comes around every few generations.? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Nov 2 06:29:57 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:29:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Between Eating Meat and Milk Message-ID: >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. I know that there are various customs as to how long one must wait between meat and milk. Is waiting between meat and milk a Rabbinic obligation or is it a custom? A. The Gemara (Chullin 105a) states in the name of Rav Chisda that one who eats meat is forbidden to eat cheese afterwards, but one who eats cheese may eat meat. Mar Ukva qualifies that when he would eat meat, he would not eat cheese until the next meal. There is disagreement among Rishonim as to how to understand the ruling of Mar Ukva. * Rambam held that Mar Ukva was teaching us that one must wait approximately 6 hours, the length of time between meals. Shulchan Aruch follows the opinion of Rambam although he states precisely 6 hours. * Tosfos understood that Mar Ukva meant that once one eats meat, it is forbidden to eat cheese until the meal is concluded by reciting Birkas Hamazon. In addition, the mouth must be cleaned. The Rama follows the opinion of Tosfos, but writes that there is a minhag to wait one hour and that the custom of those who are careful is to wait 6 hours. Interestingly, the common German custom is to wait 3 hours. So while all agree that there is a definite Rabbinic obligation to wait between eating meat and milk, there are different opinions as to how long one must wait. For Sefardim who follow the ruling of Shulchan Aruch, waiting 6 hours is an absolute obligation. For Ashkenazim, who follow the ruling of the Rama, the obligation ends once one cleans out one?s mouth and recites a bracha acharona. Waiting one hour, three hours, or six hours are different customs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Nov 4 06:33:48 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 14:33:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Asking a Non-Jew to Perform Melacha Part 1 Message-ID: Please see http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/Amira%20l'Akum%20101.pdf The author is Rabbi Shmuel Stein, originally from Brooklyn, is a talmid of Mesivta and Yeshiva Torah Temimah, Yeshivas Yagdil Torah in Eretz Yisroel and Bais Medrash Govoha. Rabbi Stein teaches the popular Wednesday evening In Hilchos Shabbos Shiur and writes a review sheet which is disseminated each week before Shabbos. He organizes the Kollel?s youth programs including Masmidei Erev and Miami Masmidim program. Rabbi Stein is the new resource director at Yeshiva Elementary school and teaches at Mechina of South Florida. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Nov 4 21:03:58 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 07:03:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166c8fb188f-1ec6-8820@webjas-vae180.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: [Micha wrote:] > On 11/1/2018 7:11 PM, [RnTK] via Avodah wrote: >: The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the >: Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe >: newspapers!> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos Haskalishe newspaper. > About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist > papers. I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content is like. If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content In addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based content. I don't think of these papers as being Torah publications, rather they are party newspapers that include some Torah". I would ask a different question though: What constitutes a Torah publication? Does it have to deal with parshat shavua, Gemara, mussar, exclusively? Would reading about an opinion piece, written by a rabbi, on world affairs constitute Torah? Rav Kook regularly wrote news columns. What about a mixture of Torah and news? How much of each? Is the content of each article reviewed to make sure that it doesn't violate the laws of lashon ha-rah? From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 09:22:56 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 17:22:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 25:27 27 When the lads grew up, Esav was a man who understood hunting, a man of the field, and Ya?akov was a totally dedicated man, living in tents. Our Sages never hesitate to point out to us the errors and shortcomings, both great and small, of our forefathers, and precisely thus they make Torah great and glorious, heightening its instructiveness for us (see Commentary above, 12:10). On our verse, too, an observation made by our Sages indicates that the sharp contrast between the two grandsons of Avraham was caused not only by their natural tendencies, but also by mistakes in their upbringing (Bereshis Rabbah 63:10). As long as they were little, no one paid attention to the differences in their hidden natures (see v. 24); they were given the same upbringing and the same education. Their parents overlooked the cardinal principle of education: 'chanoch lanar al pi darco, ?Bring up each child in accordance with his own way? (Mishlei 22:6). Each child should be guided in accordance with the path intended especially for him, the path that suits the qualities and tendencies latent in the depths of his personality, and thus he should be educated, both as a man and as a Jew. The great Jewish task is basically one, but the ways of its fulfillment are manifold and diverse, as human character traits and paths of life are manifold and diverse. Precisely for this reason, each child must be brought up al pi darco; educate him to the one great goal, according to his own unique way, in keeping with his potential. To attempt to educate a Ya?akov and an Esav together in the same classroom, in the same routines and in the same manner, to raise both of them for a life of study and contemplation, will inevitably mean to ruin one of the two. A Ya?akov will draw from the well of wisdom with ever-increasing interest and desire, whereas an Esav will hardly be able to wait for the day when he can throw away the old books and, together with them, a great life-mission, of which he was taught in a one-sided manner, totally unappealing to his nature. For much more on this topic see Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 12:49:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 15:49:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah Message-ID: <20181105204918.GA15965@aishdas.org> The AhS discusses length a few times, but I just passed CM 218:1. It ends: And know that according to the measure in our country of Russia, every 4 amos in the gemara is 3 arshin of ours, which is 7 regel ["fut"] which is one sazhen. And every tefach is 2 vieshoks. Well, there is the translations from wikipedia's page on "Obsolete Russian Units of Measurement" >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete_Russian_units_of_measurement>. 1 fut = 30.48 cm (= 1' British Empirial) = 3/7 arshin 1 arshin = 71.12cm = 2-1/3' 1 sachen = 3 arshin = 2.1336m = 7' So, 4 amos = 3 arshin 1 ammah = 3/4 arshin = 3/4 * 2-1/3 ft = 1.75' = 21" 1 vershok = 1/16 of an arshin = 4.445cm = 1-3/4" Meaning a tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 ammah) Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). Given the round numbers the AhS is working with -- 3/4 of a local unit of measure -- RMF and the AhS could differ only by rounding tolerance. 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 llevine at stevens.edu Mon Nov 5 13:16:27 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 21:16:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? Message-ID: RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf For more on this see https://www.ajol.info/index.php/samj/article/viewFile/157422/147034 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 5 13:35:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 16:35:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What kind of Twins were Yaakov and Eisav? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181105213511.GA31108@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:16:27PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : RSRH says that Yaakov and Eisav were identical twins. See : http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/identical_twins.pdf There was a 1979 paper by [Dr?] Philip Lanzkowsky in the American Academy of Pediatrics Journal on the topic. The AAP Journal even cites RSRH! Abstract: Polycythmia as a result of twin-to-twin transfusion in monozygotic twins has only been recognized as a clinical entity in the last few decades. The first recorded case of polycythemia in the newborn due to twin-to-twin transfusion, however, was reported in the Bible: "And when her (Rebekah) days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first came forth ruddy, all over like a hairy mantle; and they called his name Esau...". Genesis XXV, 24-26. A ruddy newborn twin is a clear description of polycythemia in the newborn presumably due to twin-to-twin transfusion. According to Hirsch,[1] despite the contrastrating differences between Esau and Jacob, they were identical twins with complete exterior similarity. Twin-to-twin transfusion occurs in 15% of identical twins. One may further speculate that because of the marked intellectual and emotional differences between Esau and his brother Jacob, that Esau's intellectual restrictions might very well have been evidence of brain damage due to cerebral sludging as a result of polycythemia or kernicterus due to uncorrected hyperbilirubinemia pursuant to polycythemia. "... nothing is new under the sun.... It has already been in the ages before us."[2] The article itself is behind a paywall, though. The problem is that Rabbeinu Chananel quotes R Yosi that Yaaqov was conceived first. And R' Yosi is an amora. As my kids and I each learned in our respective parashah classes in elementary school, Yaaqov was allegedly really the bechor, because the pebble that comes out of the vessel last was the one put into the vessel first. It's the one nearest the exit, after all. I say allegedly, because bekhorah doesn't really go to the second twin. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Nov 5 13:36:32 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 16:36:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] RYS and His Son Going to College (was Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos Message-ID: <38.4E.22391.2E7B0EB5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:17 PM 11/5/2018, R Micha wrote: >HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper. For example, >they did a piece on Yom Tov Lipman Lipkin's (a/k/a Lipman Yisroelovitch >Lipkin, as he was registered under) going to college for a degree in >math, and praising R' Yisrael Salanter for being liberal enough to let it >happen. (In reality, there is no indication RYS agreed to the decision. >And the son ends up OTD, so at some point father and son part hashkafic >ways.) He did not agree with nor approve of his son's decision to get a college education. >> From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 1 pages 313 - 314. >>R. Israel, however, was deeply distressed that his son had >>abandoned the study of Torah, since the son had excelled so well in >>it in his youth. The father derived no comfort at all from the >>son's remarkable achievements in the world of science, and cut off >>his support during all the son's student years. R. Israel exerted >>every effort to restore his son to Torah study. When Hamaggid >>reported in 1865, that "Mr. Lipkin was on his way to Koenigsberg to >>engage in advanced research, "the editor added that this was the >>son of R. Israel of Salant, and that he was "a pride to his saintly >>father, the Gaon, as well, may he live, who did not prevent the son >>from attending lectures at university, and so to integrate Torah >>and science, for the greater glory of the sons of our people." A >>few weeks later the same periodical (No. 11) carried a letter over >>the signature of R. Israel with these remarks: "Since Truth is the >>lamp at the feet of the righteousness that goes about on earth, I >>find it my duty publicly to proclaim that no glory accrues to me, >>as the slip of your pen would seem to indicate, in respect of my >>son. On the contrary, to me this is a 'bitterness of the spirit'. >>My heart grieves at the path which my son has wanted to set for >>himself. Whoever loves his soul and has the power to persuade him, >>to turn his desire not to run counter to my will and wishes, will >>do a great favor to one as depressed in spirit as I am today". >>Nor was there any contradiction between R. Israel's personal >>attitude and his simultaneous efforts to spread Judaism in academic >>circles. There was nothing in his views to prevent him from trying >>to infiltrate Torah inside the walls of the university and to >>influence students. Furthermore, he employed every means at his >>disposal to guard his son against straying from Judaism. He >>journeyed specially to St. Petersburg to extract a three-fold >>promise: that his son would observe Shabbat, refrain from eating >>trefah food, and not shave. [27] He would say that were he able to >>disguise himself as a woman, he would go to work in the restaurant >>patronized by his son, so as to supervise the kashrut. He also >>requested R. Isaac Blazer, then rabbi in St. Petersburg, by mail, >>to keep an eye on the son. [28] In this way, it is said, the son >>remained a loyal Jew. >>[27.] As related by Rabbi A. D. Berkovsky. Presumably this was the >>journey to St. Petersburg undertaken that year, 1872, as mentioned >>above, in connection with his political activities. R. Naftali >>Amsterdam is reputed to have related that, when R. Israel was in >>St. Petersburg, several of the university professors remarked to >>the son that they would want to see what made his father so great. >>The son suggested that they ask his father the most difficult >>question in geometry they could propound. They submitted a problem >>which had engaged their minds at that time. R. Israel studied it >>for a few minutes, and solved it to the astonishment of all the >>specialists in the field (told by R. Abraham Braude). >>[28.] R. Israel's last letter to R. Isaac Blazer concerning his >>son's conduct elicited the reply that the son had not tasted >>gentile baked bread for the past three months R. Israel understood >>this to imply that his son had been dead for three months, since no >>other bread was available in the capital. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From t613k at aol.com Mon Nov 5 19:18:40 2018 From: t613k at aol.com (Toby Katz) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:18:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> From: Micha Berger : The Levanon and the Magid were both Torah publications. So no, the : Netziv's Shabbos relaxation did not consist of reading maskilishe : newspapers! [--old TK] HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of whose paper.) About my earlier mention of the Netziv's Zionism, both were Zionist papers. ? ?>>>> ? You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? When we speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a secular intellectual and academic movement and of? people who were not religious and who were often virulently anti-religious.? Wissenschaft des Judentums types. There definitely were secular, anti-religious journals being published in Europe in the 19th century, some in Hebrew, others in European languages.? These were not the journals that the Netziv was reading and discussing with his talmidim on Shabbos morning after kiddush. ? You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. ? The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were definitely Orthodox.? However, the use of words like modern, worldly, charedi, Orthodox and Zionist is anachronistic.? Those terms weren't used in the 19th century as they are today.? Nineteenth century Europe was not 21st century America.? Yechiel Brill, the editor and publisher of the Levanon, was a <> only in the loosest sense of having worldly interests and being a little bit on the modern side of the frum spectrum, but he was anti-Haskalah and anti-Reform.?? ? I don't know why you want to paint the Netziv as an avid consumer of secular newspapers.? That is just not accurate. ? Now, Ben Waxman wrote: ? >> I have never looked at these papers so I have no idea what their content >>is like. >>If their content was anything like what today's so-called Torah >>publications (Yated, HaModiya, etc) are like, much or even most of their >>content was similar to what any other newspaper put out. These papers all >>write about the daily news with some restrictions on sexual content. In >>addition to the regular content, they have some additional Torah based >>articles. But these articles are definitely the minority of the content. >>So if the papers that the Netziv read were anything like today's papers, >>he read mainly the news and in addition maybe some other Torah-based >>content. Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view.? The letters to the editor could be long, weighty essays themselves.? You can't really compare them to Hamodia or Yated.? They were more like an Orthodox version of today's _Commentary_ magazine, but with more flame-throwing. ? The main thing they had in common with today's charedi newspapers is that they did not carry pictures of women.? But then again, they did not carry pictures of men, either. No pictures of anything!? Just pages and pages of words.? ?:) ? Ah, I remind myself of that song from <>?? ? Words Words Words I'm so sick of words I get words all day through First from him, now from you Is that all you blighters can do ? All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the far side of the moon. ? ? ? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com ? ============= ? ______________________________ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 23:28:59 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 09:28:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles Message-ID: This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgluck at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 6 05:10:10 2018 From: mgluck at mail.gmail.com (Moshe Y. Gluck) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 08:10:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sent: November 6, 2018 5:37 AM Cc: marty.bluke at gmail.com This was printed in todays Yated (Hebrew) https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qynq0iYqyiE/W-FCVx_j-qI/AAAAAAAAA3I/QVXYkXfn4z8iGD8Z3CWVIqXk6xzmQR_AwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9270.jpg Signed by a number of very promininet Israeli Poskim It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and obligatory on both parents? KT MYG Sent via the BlackBerry Hub for Android From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:35:51 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:35:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday, November 6, 2018, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm not > mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek and > obligatory on both parents? > > I didn?t understand this point either as this is not an inyan of chinuch but pikuach nefesh which would apply to the mother also. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:07:42 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 20:07:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Toby Katz via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one alive > today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers with > access to old library archives. > > > All of us here are busy talking about things we have never seen, like the > far side of the moon. > This is not quite true: together with lots of other Hebrew journals, they are all available online at http://web.nli.org.il/sites/JPress/English/Pages/default.aspx I doubt if that site gets as many hits as the New York Times, so basically you are right, but at least anyone who cares can judge for themselves what these newspapers were like -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Nov 6 10:59:09 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 20:59:09 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <5b8a21c0-a020-2f8a-c85c-af2e6568db4e@zahav.net.il> If no one has seen them, how do you know what was in them? You did a research paper? Ben On 11/6/2018 5:18 AM, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: > Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one > alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic > researchers with access to old library archives.? They were weeklies > and even though they did carry some news, they were more like today's > intellectual journals of opinion, with long articles discussing the > issues of the day from a philosophical, hashkafic point of view From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 6 12:04:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:04:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reading Newspapers and Other secular Literature on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> References: <166e7078194-1ec4-f41@webjas-vad210.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <20181106200428.GC28629@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 10:18:40PM -0500, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : From: Micha Berger :> HaMagid was an shomer Shabbos *Haskalishe* newspaper.... :> Not JO. (Which also isn't reading the news on Shabbos, regardless of :> whose paper.) : You are using <> in a somewhat misleading way. When we : speak of the Haskalah or of maskilim we are generally speaking of a : secular intellectual and academic movement and of people who were not : religious and who were often virulently anti-religious. Wissenschaft des : Judentums type... This is revisionist. When Beruriah David's PhD paper talks about the Maharatz Chajes as a Masekil, she was indeed talking about Wissenschaft types, but certainly not unobservant, never mind "virulantly anti-religious". In any case, the modern parallel to what we're talkiong about is if one of today's "yeshivish" rashei yeshivah, who happens to also be a Zionist, read a newspaper -- not a Torah magazine like JO -- put out by a LWMO "Academic Orthodox" type institution. : You are also using <> in a somewhat misleading way.? These were : pre-Herzl days, when something was in the air, some stirring to return to : Eretz Yisrael, but not the secular or even Mizrachi Zionism we know today. I think you misunderstand the history. This is Chovevei Tzion, the people who brought you Achad haAm. These were Orthodox Jews who aligned with Secular Zionism. The people who founded Petach Tiqva in 1882. Bilu was also well on its way by the Netzi's hayday. But that has little to do with haMad. : The journals the Netziv read were a little on the modern side, : moderate-charedi, showing an interest in worldly matters, but they were : definitely Orthodox. Nope. This is also revisionist. At least "moderate chareidi" is. : Since these journals were published more than a century ago, no one : alive today has seen these papers except for a few academic researchers : with access to old library archives.... Or Google. http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=tab&tab=browse&pub=MGD&_ga=2.44647777.412515131.1541534577-590544565.1541534577#panel=browse 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 mcohen at touchlogic.com Wed Nov 7 07:15:12 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:15:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Length, the Aruch haShulchan's shitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0e8301d476ac$adf40550$09dc0ff0$@com> > Meaning a AhS tefach is 3.5". ( 1 tefach * 6 tefachim / ammah = 21" = 1 > ammah) > Compare to RMF (IM OC 1:136) who says that a tefach is 4.54" (9cm) and an > ammah is 21-1/4" (53.98cm). You meant to say: RMF (IM OC 1:136) tefach is 3.54" (9cm) and ammah 21-1/4" (53.98cm). [Yes, I typoed -- 3 and 4 are adjacent keys. Which is how the error didn't reach my times-6 result for the ammah. -micha] From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 7 07:16:46 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:16:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kol Koreh that there is a chiyuv to vaccinate against measles In-Reply-To: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> References: <4108k6hrbg66cmnkeec231uk.1541509810825@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1a5d3f60-a1f2-d250-1c3d-fc81959fdb40@sero.name> On 6/11/18 8:10 am, Moshe Y. Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It's interesting that R' Moshe Sternbuch's note only speaks about the > obligation of the father to vaccinate. Chinuch is on the father, if I'm > not mistaken. But shouldn't vaccination be sort of like m'nias hezek > and obligatory on both parents? My guess is that these decisions are usually left to the mother, and the anti-vaxx nonsense has spread mostly among women, so he's now telling the men that it's their duty to insist on vaccinating the children even if their wives are opposed. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 7 11:25:01 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:25:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn Message-ID: I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" be to daven first, then learn? 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 Tue Nov 13 10:06:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] daven/learn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181113180654.GA7634@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 07:25:01PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I'm told the "minhag haolam" is to get up early to learn and then daven : (even if that is not the first minyan available). Assuming the learning : starts after the earliest time for davening, shouldn't the "minhag" : be to daven first, then learn? Perhaps it's because of Berakhos 31a: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven neither from din, nor from devar halakhah, ela mitokh halakhah pesukah. And what is halakhah besukah like? Abayei said, like what Rabbi Zeira said. ... and then quoting a settled halakhah that Rabbi Zeira said once. ("benos Yisrael hichmiru al atzman...") Rava said, like that which Rav Hoshia said.. But I think you get the idea. So, maybe people assume 1,600+ year-old discussions in the gemara qualify. I don't think that's shitas Rashi, though. Rashi ('halakhah pesuqah") says the gemara is worried about topics that a person would continue thinking about during davening. (The Be'er Heitev holds like Rashi.) But in any case, looking a little more meta: The gemara's assumption is that one is supposed to learn before davening, and the gemara then discusses what it is one should be learning. Later on in the sugya: Tanu Rabbanan: We do not stand to daven from within sorrow, nor laziness, nor silliness, nor chatter, nor qalus rosh, nor devarim beteilim ela mitokh simchah shel mitzvah. Perhaps the learning is indeed seen as a prep for davening. (In addition to talmud Torah.) See OC 93. In the SA, that second TR is in se'if 2, and the first, in se'if 3. Se'if 4 amos, "Ha'oseiq betzorkhei tzibur ke'oseiq baTorah", because there is similar simchah shel mitzvah. 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 zvilampel at mail.gmail.com Tue Nov 13 17:07:16 2018 From: zvilampel at mail.gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:07:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:13 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:26:27AM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : Know that G-d brought out these creations, all of them, to physical reality > : during the six days of *Breishis* by Himself, in His Own Glory -- not by means > : of an agent, meaning Nature. Creation was contrary to the way things are > : after the conclusion of the six days of *Breishis*, wherein *Hashem > : Yisborach* conducts His world by means of the agent, i.e. *Nature* Just to be clear, that was a quote of the Maharal. > While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your usage. > the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent. Rambam teaches that during maaseh breishis, Hashem put the normal properties and behaviors into the natures of the things He created and formed. He also instilled in them the potential for certain aberrational behaviors, to be actualized upon certain conditions, such as the staff turning into a serpent. But such changes open can only last temporarily. But then there is the constant reaction of natural events to mankind's good and evil deeds, which is a neis nistar. This, Rambam explains, is nevertheless the greatest miracle of all: > "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with > loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a > continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of > metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". > (Rambam's Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end]) This view as well is shared by the Ramban. And this is his point in the passages in which he is mistakenly understood to be saying that "there is no 'it' to nature." As an example, in Toras Hashem Temimah, he cites the Rambam approvingly and says, "Most people think that the Alm-ighty does not constantly enact miracles, that the world proceeds in its way, and many of the chachamim think so, too, but the Rav (Rambam) curses them....All our affairs are entirely miracles, there is no nature and way that the world proceeds, for behold the promises of the Torah are all absolute miracles ...The fact of "And I shall give your rains in their time [if you keep the mitzvos]," Hashem will open for you his good treasure-house, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its time an d to bless...is the same as the plague of the firstborn, the dever and arov, and the drowning of the Egyptians in the sea...the only difference is that between the hidden and the open...." So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago shel olom, no "it" to nature. > From RZL's quote of the Rambam: :> When any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and :> cannot move any ?longer. How then can we imagine that any one of us has :> been enclosed in a bag in the ?midst of a body for several months and :> remained alive, able to move?? >Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? >See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam. The Ralbag demonstrates he was well acquainted with the Rambam's writings on the subject, and he himself states that none of his fellow rishonim before him "realized" that this was what Chazal were saying. The two issues raised in this post, the issue of time with the issue of miracles and ha-olom beMinhago noheig, actually tie together. Rambam in the above mentioned payrush on Avos famously maintains that it was on erev Shabbos that Hashem instilled potential aberrational behavior in the nature of the 10 things listed. However, the potentials for aberrational behaviors were instilled in the natures of all other creations ON THE DAY THE TORAH INDICATES. E.g. one example he gives is that the nature of water to split was instilled on day 2. So he is understanding the days as units of time, in which there were days 1-7 and a 6th day bein ha-shemoshos. If one were to attempt imposing the concept of "step of logic" on the use of the word "day" in this passage, the passage would not make sense. Moreh Nevuchim 2:30 does not differ. In MN 2:30, Rambam emphasizes that time itself is something Hashem created. It is a result of the turning of the sphere, which itself is something that was created. Thus, creation did not happen after a certain amount of time, because time could not exist before creation. This is the meaning of his saying that creation, the initial creation ex nihilo, happened "outside of time." (See Abarbanel ?(p. 8, left-hand column, middle), Crescas and Ephodi. Shemtov does attribute the "levels" peshat to Rambam.) But then he poses a question: If the sphere and heavenly bodies were first created the fourth day, how were the first three days measured? He is obviously assuming, in his question, that the creation days of the Torah are units of time. The question is how could there be a first, second and third day, if the thing that produces time, the revolving sphere, did not exist until day four. The question includes the assumption that each day of maaseh breishis witnessed a new creation ex nihilo of the rakia, the vegetation, the creatures, etc., so the heavenly bodies that determine units of time did not exist until the 4th day. He answers that day does not mean a unit of time, but a step of logic. No, wait, he doesn't. He answers that Chazal teach that despite the impression one may get from the pesukim, there was not a new creation ex nihilo each of the 6 days. There was one creation ex nihilo of everything, and then a "revealing"/separation/extraction of each component. What occurred on day 4 with the heavenly bodies responsible for time was not their creation. Their creation and behavior of determining time began at the instant of creation ex nihilo. He cites the Chazal comparing the process over the six creation days to that of various types of seeds. Even though they were all planted one day, each one sprouts later, on a different day. Repeat: later, on different days. The question of how there was time and days 1, 2, and 3 before day 4 is answered with the principle that the heavenly bodies responsible for time existed from the moment of creation. Nothing in the Rambam's words (either here or in his treatment in the first chelek of word meanings) about days meaning levels. "The particle "ess" in the phrase "ess ha-shamayim ve-ess ha-aretz ("the heavens and the earth") signifies "together with." Our Sages have explained the word in the same sense in many instances. Accordingly, they assume that God created, with the heavens, everything that the heavens contain, and with the earth, everything the earth includes. They further say that the simultaneous Creation of the heavens and the earth is implied in the words, "I call unto them, they stand up together" (Tehillim 48). Consequently, all things were created together, but revealed (nisgalu) / were separated from each other (nivdelu) one by one (rishon rishon). Our Sages illustrated this by the following simile: We sow various seeds at the same time; some spring forth after one day, some after two, and some after three days, although all have been sown at the same time. This outlook, which is undoubtedly the correct one, solves the problem of... how the first day, the second day and the third day were determined.... This is explicit in the words of our Sages in Bereshis Rabba. They said, regarding the light the Torah says was created on the first day. They said it as follows: These [lights of the luminaries mentioned in the Creation of the fourth day] are the very same lights that were created on the first day, but were not hung in their places until the fourth day. Behold, they explicitly stated this idea." All this would be an awful way to express the simple idea that by "day" the Torah means not a unit of time but a logical step. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 14 09:01:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:01:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Did you intentionally reply off-list? Or should I copy your email and this one onto Avodah? On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, : Looked that up in the dictionary. Don't want to get bogged down in your : usage. A lot resided in the word "hypostasis", and a reason why I couldn't find a more apt word among normal English ones. :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. But it's minhago shel olam. Not an "it". The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH. It is this direct causality that people mistake for his saying there is no teva. According to the Rambam, nature is the product of the Seikhel haPo'al, which is acted upon by mal'akhim, which, if you chase the chain of causality up to the start, is a product of hashgachah kelalis and Divine Da'as. But there is an "it" there. Teva is a metaphysical object, not a pattern. See Moreh 2:11-12 (ch. 10 may be a useful prelude.) (Nevu'ah is also mediated through the Seikhel haPo'al [2:35], but that's a different subject.) A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a person, and thus to that extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH delegates his fate. I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to nature". But you apparently took me to mean there is no nature. Rather than no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on. That's what I was talking about, and most of your reply doesn't actually address the chiluq I'm making. : So, Ramban in context does not mean that there is no such thing as nature. No, but he does mean there is no such "thing" as nature. It's not a hypostatis. : His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago : shel olom, no "it" to nature. : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model, : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, note : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. See also the Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. The Abarbanel specifically endorces the Ralbag's "yesod" in understanding the Rambam. https://www.sefaria.org/Abarbanel_on_Torah%2C_Genesis.1.1.10 This is how the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian like R' Yitzchaq Arama. RYBS too, Mainodies between Philosophy & Halakhah, pg 187. In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of time. His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before the sun. And it's not a problem we modern people would face, anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 14 21:37:51 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:37:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli Message-ID: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html Me-Yet R' Ellman would not ( at least when I asked him) say that any of these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food for thought 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 Nov 14 21:35:38 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:35:38 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions Message-ID: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? Do we see this same propensity in prior authorities who were not writing codes in this manner? Other reason why different authorities might deal with this issue differently? 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 Nov 15 10:52:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:52:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Eishes Yefas Toar and Pruzbul In-Reply-To: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> References: <6D2E2978-2A3A-4187-804E-DDE57B6E5FC9@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20181115185222.GA28484@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 10:31:20PM -0400, R Akiva Miller replied to my post: :> So why the difference in approach? Why wasn't ribis permitted :> keneged YhR, or lending past shemittah, or qinyan deOraisa be :> when the buyer takes posession of the merchandise, rather than :> the seller takes the money? Again, all for the sake of keneged :> YhR? : Indeed, as you wrote (in the first paragraph that I quoted,) Chazal : encountered many people who were on a lower plane. Some people were up to : the standards and expectations addressed by the Torah, but to accommodate : the more frail humans, Chazal had to help them out. And with that help, the : fight against the Yetzer Hara is on more level ground. But that's the converse of my question. I didn't ask why Chazal found the taqanos they did. Or in the case of ribbis, engineered a solution using a pre-existing loophole. I asked why the RBSO didn't. If Chazal knew that people couldn't keep up the moral standard, obviously the Author of the deOraisos did too. And therefore, why didn't He allow ribbis for the same "lo diberah Torah ela keneged YhR" reasons as eishes yefas to'ar. Once we have G-d making compramizes for EYT, why did He leave ribbis to Chazal? Why did Hashem make it that money is qoneh? He knew better than chazal that it would create situations where a seller is still holding something he no longer owns, and sometimes that will mean carelessness in how the item is guarded. Why did Chazal need to invoke hefqer BD hefqer and totally rewrite how sale works? (That said, I am almost satisfied with RDR's answer, below.) : But I've always understood the Yefas Toar to be an unwinnable situation. : The Bechira Point is off the scale. NO ONE will be able to avoid taking her : (unless he follows the prescribed procedure)... Today's militaries assume otherwise. Avoiding ribis is less of a problem when "money" is primarily a metal or contract to swap, only a half-step beyond barter. One is "only" losing opportunity cost. But once we got prime rates etc... so that there is a difference between present and future value of money can be done in some settings, avoiding ribbis became something not enough lenders could afford, and the poor suffered. Eishes yefas to'ar is similarly situational. Whether it is "unwinnable" at best depends on the kind of war one is fighting. Maybe when fighting barbarian tribes. But not as a general rule. : Alternatively: : D'rabanans cannot forbid things that are explicitly allowed by the Torah. But they can allow things explicitly denied by the Torah? If you can engineer heter isqa into something that covers most of the situations where ribbis is needed, they could have engineered and issur. But I also recently encountered while learning Arukh haShulchan something that may be a counter-example. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that there are no shevu'os when the dispute is over qarqa. So, while modeh bemiqtzas (e.g.) about money or metaltelin requires a shevu'ah deOraisa, if it is about real estate there is no shevu'ah deOraisa. However, Chazal still require the nitba to make a shevu'as heises in order to retain his chazaqah on the land. And on Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:16:00AM -0400, R David Riceman replied to the same post: : It is in general true that the Torah allows multiple regimes, so that it : is open to differing economic regulation (as you observe). On a technical : level, however, I don't see how we could permit yefas toar if the Torah : prohibited it, so that would reduce rather than increase our options. I am sure the same was said before heter isqa. Chazal were a bunch of rabbis capable of finding 49 ways to be metaher a sheretz. Our inability to figure out how they would have created a law like eishes yefas to'ar doesn't prove it impossible. For that matter, the gemara apparently concludes that pruzbul was only enacted because shemittah today is derabbanan. Although I think it's left open whether pruzbul would not work when shemittah is deOraisa. Or whether hefqer BD would meant it would work, but they question the hava amina that Hillel would circumvent a deOraisa like that. What kind of "you don't" the gemara is talking about would impact your answer. That said, I like RDR's "more important point". Repeated here, since it's been nearly a month -- an eternity as list-time goes: : But there's a more important point. What's weird about war is that : it's not a permanent state. One has to make the transition between : civilian/soldier/civilian, and very different rules apply in those : different contexts (look again at H. Deos 6:1). When Hazal say "hasatan : mekatreg b'shaas hamilhama" that's partly because the soldiers don't : have years of experience internalizing the rules of war. : But economic change (from Biblical small farmer to Hazal large estates to : rishonim merchants) was generational, and it is much easier for a person : to regulate his own YhR internally if his temptations are uniform over : his lifetime. : So it makes a lot of sense that k'nagged YhR is specifically mentioned : in the context of milhama. The reason why I said above I am only "almost satistfied" is that it borders on explaining too much. We aren't looking only for a chiluq between EYT and my sample dinim derabbanan. But also between deOraisa and derabbanan. You are left saying there is a whole set of dinim on a tightrope -- they are lifelong challenges and therefore controllable enough for HQBH not to want to compromize for human nature, and yet history evolved the situation to the point where they pose impossible challenges that chazal needed to accomodate. Well, not necessarily "impossible". At least: by Chazal's day these grew into challenges that are so rarely met, the usual outcome is more costly than the din -- such as the poor not being able to get a loan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 14:57:30 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:57:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] local culture and the Bavli In-Reply-To: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <444f48c4102b4bbeb4aabaf092f7e994@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119225730.GA28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:37:51AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : See here for some interesting thoughts on how local culture impacted the Bavli: : https://kotzkblog.blogspot.com/2018/10/197-babylonian-influences-on-babylonian_72.html : : Yet R' Ellman would not (at least when I asked him) say that any of : these insights should impact the halachic process today. definite food : for thought I like RARakeffetR's mashal (and recall, he is a RIETS RY with a PhD in Jewish History): You can ask a historican how the electric refrigerator was invented, and you will hear about the social forces involved, the wiring of the American home for power, etc... None of which tells you how the refrigerator actually works. (He might even give you the history of the application of thermodynamics and the Carnot cycle without ever explaining that particular bit of science.) Similarly: Knowing that a particular area of halakhah was mined in response to a given situation doesn't change the fact that the halachic principles had to be there and had to be applied. And the knowledge does little to teach you the principles themselves. 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 19 15:06:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 18:06:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Deference to Minority Opinions In-Reply-To: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <82503724fb504570bf9493188129d82c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181119230604.GB28983@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:35:38AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question: I've been thinking about the number of times the shulchan : aruch(or M"B) says that it's worth giving deference to a minority : opinion. I'm wondering if this is the result of the algorithmic approach : rather than going through the entire sugya to come to a conclusion? ... I think the SA tried to reach conclusions. For that matter, he tried to follow majority of his short list of major posqim. I think for him it was just a way of dealing with not being sufficiently convinced; and not having his triumverate answering the question for him. For the MB... Not sure I want to reopen that whole "the MB was written to help posqim, and its 'rulings' are lehalakhah velo lemaaseh" -- not always even followed by the CC himself. (Who was author of most of the book, and editor in chief of the rest.) : Other reason why different authorities might deal : with this issue differently? The AhS has enough confidence in toras imekha that he would use it to say that lemaaseh we pasqened like a minority, or like (what seems to me to be a) dachuq peshat. There are exceptions, where he holds that common practice is just too dachuq, but they're rare. So, for the AhS, being stumped means that not only is there no clear textual winner, there is no clear minhag (accepted practice) either. So holding out in fear of a mi'ut isn't likely. Holding like a mi'ut because the tzibbur already does, much more comomn. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 20 09:08:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181120170828.GA27185@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:07:16PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> While the Rambam treats nature as a hypostatis, ... :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. : Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that : minhag permanent. Actually, it's real, but I think you misunderstood what I meant. (As I said in the previous email.) Relevant is this excerpt from a recent shiur from Gush's Vitual Beis Medrash. Rav Bednarsh gives 2 chiluqim that are orthogonal to the one I mentioned (whether there is an "it" behind teva, or if nature is "merely" a pattern of Divine Action): 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. About fn #4... I spoke to RDBerger about his paper. I can ask a parallel question on RAB's article to introduce the same answer, so I will do so here. RAB writes (below): > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The > Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only > the principle of hashgacha pratit. > Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these > two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more > nuanced. > In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise > of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God > and not to doctors for healing.... ... > For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) > that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on > a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, > to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or > punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in > the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence > and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness... > In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that > his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh > Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and > tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully > on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the > Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order... Okay, so it's much more nuanced, but then what does he mean in the two places we started with? What I pointed out, that the Ramban is denying teva as an it -- that even teva is through the same direct Influence as neis -- adds the same nuance without ignoring those two more famous comments of the Ramban. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Yeshivat Har Etzion PHILOSOPHY > Topics in Hashkafa > Shiur #06: Divine Providence and the Natural Order 1 Rav Assaf Bednarsh Adapted by Leora Bednarsh Should one attempt to provide for one's needs in this world by working through the natural order, or should one do so by keeping mitzvot and trusting in God to provide? Are the events of this world caused by direct Divine Providence or by the natural scientific order? This question has tremendous practical significance and is the subject of much debate in the contemporary Jewish community. This topic is often portrayed as "hishtadlut (effort) vs. bitachon (trust)." ... The Position of the Rambam No Jewish philosopher can entirely deny the doctrine of hashgacha pratit. There are many examples in Tanakh that very clearly indicate that God miraculously takes care of the righteous in this world in accordance with His Divine plan.[1] However, almost all the cases in Tanakh deal with exceptionally righteous and spiritual individuals. That may be because most of Tanakh deals with these great individuals; these are the people we need to learn about in order to learn to be good Jews. The Rambam, however, maintains that this is not coincidence. It is not simply that these happen to be the main characters in Tanakh. According to the Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim III:18), hashgacha pratit is not something that God automatically utilizes in running the world. God relates to us when we relate to Him. When we open the channel, God's bounty flows through that channel. If we don't bother to create those lines of communication, then He does not communicate with us either. Those who have achieved philosophical sophistication, who have studied what the Rambam understands to be the Jewish mystical philosophical tradition and focus their thoughts on God, enjoy the benefits of Divine Providence. According to the Rambam, not all people enjoy equal Divine Providence. Those who are pious and good and religious enjoy more Divine Providence because of their understanding of God, which fuels their piety and goodness. Those who are prophets enjoy a higher level because of their deep understanding of God. Those who are on a very rarified level of philosophical spiritual achievement can be assured that God looks out for them in this world. The wicked and the religiously ignorant, however, have no such promise of Divine Providence. Even regular people who may be reasonably religious and try to think about God quite often still have not achieved that level of understanding at which they can assume that they are beneficiaries of constant direct Divine Providence. For the Rambam, then, most people do not enjoy the benefit of direct Divine Providence all the time. Accordingly, it makes perfect sense that we are expected to work through the natural order. The natural order is the default. When we change the rules by achieving philosophical knowledge of God, our lives begin to be run by the principles of Divine Providence. But much of the time the world is run by the natural order and God does not involve Himself. Thus, we should be expected to provide for ourselves and to achieve whatever goals we feel the need to achieve by means of the natural order. The natural order is the one thing that is guaranteed. God created the world and created the scientific order as the way in which the world will run until God decides to get involved because someone let Him in to his life.[2] And even then, God is only involved partially, to the extent that someone partially perfects themselves and meditates upon God. Of course, this does not mean that God has no part in our lives when we do not enjoy Providence. There is still hashgacha klalit, general Providence. God still arranges the world generally in such a way that our needs are provided for. We say blessings, thanking God, for example, for creating fruits of the tree, but not because He created this particular fruit for me to eat today, rather because He created a wonderful world that provides for much of our needs. It is our job to appreciate that. But when I stub my toe or win the lottery, is that God's direct intervention? According to the Rambam, most of the time it is not. Rather, it is the natural order. The Position of the Ramban It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. The Ramban makes it sound like there is no natural order, but rather only the principle of hashgacha pratit. Some understand the Ramban's view solely based on what he says in these two places. However, the general approach of the Ramban is much more nuanced. In his commentary on the tokhecha (Vayikra 26:11), the Torah's promise of rewards and punishments, the Ramban encourages us to turn to God and not to doctors for healing. He states that when the masses of the Jews are perfect, their lives will not be run by the natural order, but rather directly by God; He will be their doctor. According to Ramban, that is what the righteous did in the days of Tanakh, during the era of prophecy. Anyone with access to prophecy does not need a doctor, and in case of illness should turn instead to a prophet, who will tell him which of his actions needs to be improved; he will then repent and repair those actions so that God will heal his disease. "What business do doctors have in the house of someone who fulfills the will of God?" asks the Ramban. Although the Rabbis interpreted the verse "ve-rapo yerapeh" (Shemot 21:19) as evidence that the doctor has permission to heal, the Ramban restricts the significance of this inference. If someone asks for help, the doctor should heal the patient - but Chazal never said that the patient should seek medical care, only that the doctor should provide it. The patient should ideally put all his trust in God and not in the natural order. However, if the patient has already put his trust in the natural order, the doctor has no choice but to heal him, because that is the only option left. When someone puts his faith in the natural order, his live is unfortunately run by the natural order. But when someone puts his faith in God, his life is controlled by direct Divine Providence. Similarities Between the Ramban and the Rambam The Ramban here seems to take an anti-Maimonidean stance, focusing on Divine Providence. However, on closer analysis, he does not deny the existence of the natural order. He acknowledges the existence of teva. Of course, he believes that it is far preferable to live by faith in God and not by teva, but once our spiritual level fell and we became accustomed to using medicine and working within the scientific order, God "abandoned us to the happenstance of teva." If we read the Ramban very carefully, we notice that the examples he uses of those who should not seek medical help but rather turn directly to God are limited to a time when the masses of Jews are righteous, during the time of prophecy. The Ramban is referring to people on a very high spiritual level. They enjoyed the benefit of constant Divine Providence and therefore had no business working through the natural order. The implication is that the situation is quite different for regular people in regular times. Even righteous Jew nowadays, when, unfortunately, the masses of Jews are far from perfect and when prophecy has not been restored to us, are not on the same high spiritual level. Therefore, they cannot have a reasonable expectation of constant Divine Providence in their lives, and perhaps they should visit doctors. Although everything that happens in the world is subject to Divine Providence, God has decided to abandon us - regular people in the contemporary era - to the workings of the natural order. We no longer merit constant Divine Providence. This is, in fact, explicitly the opinion of the Ramban in several places. For example, the Ramban writes (commentary on Bereishit 18:19) that God exercises constant Divine Providence on Avraham because he is on a very high spiritual level.[3] But the rest of us are left to chance, to the natural order, until the time comes when God visits reward or punishment upon us. Ramban similarly explains (Bereishit 32:4) that in the encounter between Esav and Yaakov, God exercised Divine Providence and saved Yaakov because of his righteousness. But Yaakov himself was not sure that he was righteous enough to enjoy Divine Providence, which is why he prepared using natural means to make peace, or if need be, war, with Esav. He made various preparations using the natural order because in his humility, he was not certain that he was on the level to expect Divine Providence. If Yaakov Avinu questioned whether he deserved Divine Providence, the clear implication is that we can certainly not rely on it! In his commentary on Iyov (36:7), the Ramban writes explicitly that his understanding of Divine Providence is that of the Rambam in Moreh Nevukhim. He directly quotes the language of the Rambam cited above and tells us that God exercises His Providence on the righteous, but not fully on the average person, and certainly not on the wicked. Therefore, the Ramban tells us, the Torah expects us to live via the natural order. We are instructed to conscript an army and go out and fight in the event of war, not just to sit and pray and wait for God to fight for us. We cannot always expect to be on such a high spiritual level that we enjoy constant Divine Providence. Rather, we must work under the assumption that we may not always be experiencing Divine Providence, and we must therefore work under the natural order. The Ramban tells us that if God wants us to win a war, we will win without an army, and if, God forbid, He wants us to lose a war, no matter how strong our military is, we will lose. But sometimes, when we are neither completely righteous nor completely wicked, God does not want any particular result, because He is not exercising Divine Providence at that point. That is why it is so important that we work through the natural order. The Ramban in this commentary seems to be in line with mainstream religious Zionist ideology. We work through the natural order because not everything always is decreed by God.[4] Differences Between the Ramban and the Rambam As much as the Ramban claims to agree with the Rambam, there is still a significant difference between their philosophies. The Ramban in a number of places, including his commentary to Iyov, tells us that Divine Providence can be either positive or negative. If someone is truly righteous, then God watches and guards him all the time. If someone is evil, God will intervene in the world to punish him. Those in the middle, neither wicked nor righteous, are left to the natural order. The Rambam, on the other hand, holds that Divine Providence can only be positive, not negative. It is purely a function of one's connection to God. Therefore, the more connected one is to God, the more Divine Providence; the more disconnected one is, the less Divine Providence. Punishment only occurs in this world because when God removes His Providence, one is exposed to the many perils of the dangerous world that we inhabit. While the Ramban has a volitional model of Divine Providence, in which God decides to exercise Providence when a person deserves reward or punishment, the Rambam has a more mechanistic model, under which Divine Providence is an automatic result of spiritual achievement. What the Rambam and the Ramban have in common, however, is their belief that while Divine Providence is an ideal to strive for, it is not the default, automatic way in which the world works. God sometimes involves Himself through the principle of hashgacha pratit, but often does not. The natural order is the authentic way in which God created the world to run when He doesn't decide to get involved and change things. For the Ramban and the Rambam, then, the answer to the question of faith (bitachon) versus effort (hishtadlut) is clear. We are expected to take care of providing our needs in this world the best we can using the natural order. None of us are arrogant enough to assume that we are so holy and righteous that we have constant Divine Providence. Of course, we strive to be more holy, spiritual, and righteous. We strive to enjoy more Divine Providence. And, at least according to the Ramban, perhaps our ultimate goal is to reach the highest spiritual levels and abandon the natural order. Nonetheless, in regular life, the Rambam and the Ramban would have us work in the natural order because we can never be certain that anything that happens to us in our lives is the result of God's direct intervention. Our success or lack thereof may be purely a function of the natural order. Therefore, we must take care of ourselves. God is not always taking care of us, as we may not be sufficiently righteous. _______________________ [1] For example, the Exodus and figures such as the Patriarchs, Daniel, and Chananya, Mishael and Azarya. [2] Even in this case, Rambam nowhere states that one who enjoys Divine Providence should not work within the natural order. In the next two shiurim, we will present various explanations of why even one who enjoys Divine Providence might be required to work within the natural order. [3] The Ramban understands God's "knowledge" of Avraham as constant Divine Providence [4] Many attempts have been made to resolve the apparent contradiction between the Ramban's statement in his commentary to Shemot 13 and his sermon Torat Hashem Temima and his formulations in his commentaries to Bereishit 18 and 32 and Iyov 36. It seems likely that the Ramban intended to claim not that everything that happens is a miracle, but that miraculous Providence ultimately controls everything. Since even nature was created by God, Providential intervention can override the laws of nature, but the laws of nature do not restrict Divine Providence. When Providence chooses not to intervene, however, nature still follows its course. For further reading, see the original texts, as well as David Berger, "Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmanides," in Isadore Twersky (ed.), Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuosity (Harvard University Press, 1983), available at https://www.biblicalnaturalhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/MiraclesNahmanides.pdf. From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 06:41:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:41:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yaakov and Esav Message-ID: The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 32:8. 8 Ya?akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the people who were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. In Ya?akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya?akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya?akov?s attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Nov 21 08:24:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:24:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim? Message-ID: One of the interesting aspects of being American and living in the ?Medina shel Chessed? is dealing with secular holidays. Of these holidays, Thanksgiving is by far the most popular among Yidden, with many keeping some semblance of observance. On the other hand, it is well-known that many contemporary poskim were very wary of any form of actual Thanksgiving observance. This article sets out to explore the history and halachic issues of this very American holiday... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Thanksgiving: Harmless Holiday or Chukos HaGoyim?" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 22 04:30:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? Message-ID: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is it equivalent of free will? What does it mean to have free will without consequence? How then do we understand the medrash in Breishit that the trees were punished for not following HKB"H's direction? The dogs being rewarded for not barking? 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 zvilampel at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 09:30:07 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:01 PM Micha Berger wrote: > > RMB: > :> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature. > > ZL: Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no > less > : than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of > : times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that > : minhag permanent. > > ... > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. Where does Ramban say this? As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent at maaseh breishis. See, for example, on Shmos 6:6. ''The posuk says 'Vay-hiH khein'' because that is the teva that was instilled in them forever...and they will remain with the first teva that was instilled in them at the time of their formation (Vayamdual haTeva haRishon asher hussam bahem bEis yetsirasam). And on Vayikra 26:11, in the passage about refuah, he uses the phrase, VaHashem Heeneecham lemikrei haTivee-im, Hashem leaves them to the natural mikrreim. How is this insisting that, contra Rambam, ''those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH''? Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. RMB: [According to RambaM:] A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a > person, and thus to that > extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva > (Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH > delegates his fate. > ZL: You are making a distinction that you attribute to RambaM, between teva and minhago shel olam. Teva is something that a daas-lacking person is left to. Through it, Hashem delegates his fate. Minhag shel olam is something else. I don't follow. Where is such a distinction made? And I thought you maintained that contra RambaN, RambaM does /not/ hold that HQBH delegates the fate of lesser people. Only ''the RambaN talks about nature being a pattern in events... /directly/ caused by HQBH. Is there also a distinction between ''directly causing'' and ''delegating''? Do you mean RambaM holds Hashem HAD delegated their fate (by setting up the mechanisms at Creation)? RMB: > I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to > nature". ... no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on... there is no such > "thing" as nature. It's not a > hypostatis. ZL: Where do you see what you are trying to explain in Ramban? Regarding the shiur by Rav Bednarshom, and the point that 1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according to the Ramban it includes oneshim. 2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not. The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response. The last sentence should be about RambaN, right? And here's something to ponder: As I wrote previously, the Rambam writes that the greatest miracle of all, is nature's responding to man's behavior, favoring good behavior and punishing bad behavior. Granted, favoring good behavior is miraculous. But l-fi Rambam's shittah, what is miraculous about leaving the practitioner of bad behavior to the wiles of nature? Also, regarding: > It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to > the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and > his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing > Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only > rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward, > and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. Obviously, this is just the hava amina. The Ramban did not write that ''everything that happens'' is a miracle. His wording is that the whole [teaching of the] Torah [about reard and punishment] is a miracle. Meaning, as the maskana is, that the Torah's system of award and punishment is miraculous. Secondly, the Ramban does not say that everything is a miracle,without causation, except reward and punishment. The causation between behavior and reward and punishment is an explanation of, not in contrast to, his statement that the whole teaching of the Torah is that there are miracules. > > > :ZL: His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a > : central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the > forces > : of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He, > : just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no > minhago > : shel olom, no "it" to nature. > > : Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand > : either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is > : incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified > model, > : which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from. > > : Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares, > > : MN 2:17 (see http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm, > note > : 6, for a ?compilation of translations of this passage.)? > > : For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and > : Avraham ?Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being > in > : such-and-such a ?form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya > : kach mi-kach), and such ?was created after such.? > > :>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic. > > : The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given > : by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say > : that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. > But > : that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam... > > It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah. It is not his peshat in the Rambam. He does not mention Rambam, much less attribute to him, the ''levels'' peshat, neither in his Torah commentary nor in his Milchamos Hashem. If you can find such a passage, please locate it for me. On the contrary, here is how he addresses the question of how there could be days before the fourth day when the sun materialized. He gives two possibilities. And he gives the ''levels'' approach as an /alternative/ explanation to the answer that the sphere, by which time and days are produced, was in operation from the moment of creation.They are two /different/ ways of answering how there could be days one through three before the existence of the stars, although both answers are predicated on the Chazal-based view that everything in the universe and earth was instantly and simultaneously created in its complete form (besides vegetation and Adam and Chava). And if the virtually identical verbiage to that of the Rambam is an indication that Ralbag was intending to give peshat in the Rambam, note that he is explicitly using that verbiage in the answer granting that ''days'' are units of time, in /contrast/ to the notion of ''days'' meaning ''levels''. And also remember, as I have noted before, that Ralbag explicitly says (Torah commentary, on VaYchulu) V-im nim-tsi-u rechokim meod mei-hakavana asher matzanu kahn, kmo shetireh mimah shebier bazeh haRav HaMoreh besifro hanichbad Moreh HaNevuchim, ViHachcham R. Avraham Ibn Ezra.... that his new approach is /very far/ from that of the Rambam. And he repeats this in Sefer Milchemes Hashem, Presentation VI, ?Part II, Chapter 8, Conclusion. Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. This is how > the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian > like R' Yitzchaq Arama. > But you see, you have to resort to secondary sources to support the claims about what Rambam and Ralbag held, whereas we have the first-hand sources in front of us. The fact is that the Ralbag does not attribute the ''levels''approach to the Rambam, and in fact considers the ''levels'' approach as an alternative to what the Rambam wrote.. Abarbanel is known to repeat ideas of his contemporary, R. Y. Arama. He is also known to have a very eclectic style. You are of course correct that in his 9th shayla he attributes the ''levels'' approach to the Rambam. But look how he does it, and explain to me how it makes sense: > The 9th shayla concerns what is mentioned in the Moreh Nevuchim. Rambam > notes that time ?cannot exist without the movement of the celestial > spheres, the sun and moon. However, this raises ?the question as to how > there could be time before the fourth day on which the celestial spheres > and sun were ?created. The Rambam answered this question by asserting that > in fact the spheres and the sun were ?created on the first day. Thus time > existed for the first 3 days in the same manner as it existed on the > ?subsequent days. He explained that in fact everything ? both the Heavens > and the Earth ? were created ?on the first day. Stop here. Do you not see the Abarbanel explaining Rambam as holding that the days of Breishis were units of time, and not ''levels''? Let's continue: The Rambam cited Chazal that the word ?es? indicated that the creation on > the first day ?included everything associated with the Heavens as well as > everything associated with the Earth. He also ?cited the gemora (Chulin > 60a) that everything that was created was created in its final form. He > also cited ?another statement of Chazal that the Heavens and Earth were > created simultaneously. Thus the Rambam ?believed that the work of Creation > happened all on one day and was not divided amongst six days. He ?claimed > that in a single moment of creation everything came into existence. And of course, the Rambam continues (and Ralbag includes it) that whereas all was created ex nihilo from the first instant of creation, following that was a process of separating the components of the universe, forming things, as he says elsewhere in the Moreh, kach mikach. How then does the Abarbanel say in the next breath: > He explained that the reason ?for the Torah stating that there were six > days of Creation was to indicate the different levels of created ?beings > according to their natural hierarchy. Thus the Rambam does not understand > the word day to be a ?temporal day and he doesn?t read Bereishis to be > describing the chronological sequence of creation?. Kasha reisha al sefa! And note that in shayla 5 as well Abarbanel had written: That which the Torah mentioned of the creation of the stars on the fourth day, made HaRav haMoreh answer, as it seems from his words, in that chapter 30 of Part Three, that on the first day the sphere was created with the stars and light. But their actions had affect on the fourth day upon the vegetation.Such is apparent from the words of the Rav...Perhaps RambaN too meant this, since he mentions this approach in the name of yeish meforshim. And if one is to treat this as Abarbanel changing his mind, well then consider another about-face over 80 pages later (p. 85 in our editions) Behold you see that the opinion of the Rav was ...that all that is mentioned regarding the activity of the six days, ?from the creation of the heavens and the earth, and all of the phenomena, and the creation of Adam and ?his wife, up until ?vayechulu? have no allegory whatsoever, for everything was ?literal to him [the Rambam]. Therefore you will see that in this very chapter, no. 30 in the second section, ?in all which the Rav has explicated regarding the activity of the six days, he did not make an allegory or a ?hint at all. Rather, he did the exact opposite, for he made a concerted effort to support the doctrine of ?creation ex nihilo and accepted all of the verses literally?? Obviously, Abarbanel was not consistent as to whether the Rambam understood the creation days to be ''levels'' rather than units of time. So he should not be cited with such certainty that he held so. ?I would also caution against uncritically accepting A?s description of B?s opinion if A goes on to ?lambaste it, as the Abarbanel did with his original reading of the Moreh Nevuchim. ?(The question presents itself, then, how did the Abarbanel?s contemporary, the Akeidas Yitzcahk, ?and the commentary of the ShemTov?who is not regarded as a rishon?as opposed to the ?commentary by Crescas), and the Abarbanel himself in his second take, get from (a) the Rambam?s ?classical rendition of a six-day meta-natural development of potential created on day one, to (b) ?seeing the Rambam as promulgating that ?the six days are a metaphor for six levels in the hierarchy ?of natural objects: light/darkness, water, minerals, flora, fauna, man??? My theory is that the earlier commentators of the Moreh, such as Narboni, greatly influenced by ?the Aristotelian academia of the time, anxiously imposed their radical views on the Rambam. (We ?see that in the Rambam?s own time, he complained of people radicalizing his views?including those ?who as accused him of (or ?complimented? him for) denying techiass ha-meisim). They hijacked the ?Moreh so efficiently that it became popular to think the Rambam thought like Narboni. This ?became the starting point from which later commentaries saw the Moreh (similar to, l?havdil, Rashi?s ?commentary being one?s first impression of what the Chumash says, and one?s natural thinking that ?what Rashi says is necessarily what the Chumash undoubtedly means.)? > In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again, > following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin, > there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which > processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the > Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of > time. > Not my issue. > > His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before > the sun. > *In the words of Ralbag the **problem is with zeman before the sun. His answer is that the sphere, even without the sun, produces zeman. * The problem that bothered the early ones, with what were day one, day two and day three measured? Behold, the light-bearers were not in existence until day four! [The answer is that even though the light-bearers did not appear until day four], the heavenly sphere was in existence on day one, and each revolution of it formed approximately one day. Abarbanel puts it that the problem is zeman before the sphere, sun and stars. The answer is that they all existed and formed zeman from the first act of creation. ???"? (?????, ??? ?) (?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? (?, ?-?) ...??????, ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? (??? ? ??? ?), ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???, ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?????; ???? ???? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?):... ??????? ??????: ?? ??? ???? ?????, ?????: ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????, ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? (?????? ??, ??). ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????: ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??????????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? (?, ?) ?* ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ???.* ???? ?????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??????,??? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ????, ????? ???? ???? ??? *.??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? .* *??* ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???, ????? ?? ????? ?????? *???? ??????*, ?? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ??? ????? *???? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????*; ??? ????? *??? ????? ???????,* ?? [??"? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????, ?"?] *?**??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????, ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? *? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??. ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???????, ??? ????? ?????. *???? ????? ????? *??? ???? ?????, ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?????. ??? ?? ????????? ??????? ??? ??????: ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? (????? ??, ?), ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?????. ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? (??? ? ????? ???? ????), ?????: ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??. ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????, ?? ???? ?????? ??, ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???????, ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? > > But the bottom line,to which we both agree, is that traditional Judaism holds that Creation, regardless of our issue about zeman, was not a natural process. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 162531 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 23 02:58:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. : : : Where does Ramban say this? ... This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, it directly from G-d. : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag : permanent at maaseh breishis... Which is not in contradicction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain ways. To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel hapo'el, but still thimk you can reach what the rishonim are talking about? :-)BBii! -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 zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 15:37:28 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 18:37:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 05:58:17 -0500, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote: > : > The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those > events > : > are /directly/ caused by HQBH. > : > : > : Where does Ramban say this? ... > > This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > from G-d. Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or uses intermediaries. > > : As I wrote, he repeats a number of times > that > : each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag > : permanent at maaseh breishis... > > Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern > of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that > behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain > ways. I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures. Yes, Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but they would be in agreement that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM, and just as much not a ??thing?? ?to RambaM as to RambaN. The disagreement would be whether Hashem at Creation set up intermediary steps ?in creating the world?s components and their behaviors. According to both of them, at the end of the Creation period Hashem established what the normal behaviors (patterns) would thereon be, and up to then the nature of the world was not stabilized. Maharal, in saying that Hashem did not use any agent such as nature in creating the world was apparently opposing Rambam, but both agree that Hashem was not using nature as we know it. RambaM cites Chazal that ?Hashem at Creation also imbued in the things of the world the potential for aberrant behaviors ??(miracles) to be triggered when Hashem so decrees. I do not see RambaN disagreeing, but even if he does, I do not see framing it in terms of a dispute over whether nature is a ??thing.?? It would be a dispute over whether the miraculous natures were imbued at Creation or first initiated at their enactment, and in view of the Chazal cited by RambaM, RambaN would have some explaining ?to do. And of course, although the Rambam strongly objects to the idea that Hashem is constantly recreating the world, he also famously states that Hashem is constantly maintaining it, and that if He would remove His maintenance, the world would cease to exist. ? And if one insists on inferring from RambaM?s words an issue of Nature being considered a ????thing??, as opposed to a mere normal pattern of behavior, consider this quote:? http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=38545&st=&pgnum=14&hilite? The One Who created it [the world] made its general properties as a kiyum gadol. ??...This is what it means when it says, ??I know that all that G-d will make, IT will be ?forever.??...The yesodos ... all these are kayamim l-olom. It is impossible to add upon or take away from them, for it says, ??And G-d MADE [things] so that [people] will be in awe before Him, for ...these [things] stand forever. The above are the words of RambaN, in his Drasha on Kohelles. One could argue therefrom that he considers the general properties of the world as ??things?? that are permanent. Or not. > To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. To the Rambam, as well. > > : Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to > : create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. > Especially > : since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam. > > You want to avoid dealing with the concepts of hypostasis and of seikhel > hapo'el, but still think you can reach what the rishonim are talking > about? No. You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? Zvi Lampel -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban Drasha on Kohelles.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 500027 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 25 17:29:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:29:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the Destruction of Sodom? Message-ID: <20181126012932.GA7767@aishdas.org> See https://www.sciencenews.org/article/exploding-meteor-may-have-wiped-out-ancient-dead-sea-communities or . I am including just a teaser. I intentionally ended with the note that the researcher works at a Xian university, as that does speak toward objectivity. We'll see what peer review says of the evidence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Science News Archaeologists at a site in what's now Jordan have found evidence of a cosmic calamity An exploding meteor may have wiped out ancient Dead Sea communities By Bruce Bower 10:00am, November 20, 2018 Preliminary evidence indicates that a low-altitude meteor explosion around 3,700 years ago destroyed cities, villages and farmland north of the Dead Sea (shown in the background above) rendering the region uninhabitable for 600 to 700 years. DENVER -- A superheated blast from the skies obliterated cities and farming settlements north of the Dead Sea around 3,700 years ago, preliminary findings suggest. Radiocarbon dating and unearthed minerals that instantly crystallized at high temperatures indicate that a massive airburst caused by a meteor that exploded in the atmosphere instantaneously destroyed civilization in a 25-kilometer-wide circular plain called Middle Ghor, said archaeologist Phillip Silvia. The event also pushed a bubbling brine of Dead Sea salts over once-fertile farm land, Silvia and his colleagues suspect. People did not return to the region for 600 to 700 years, said Silvia, of Trinity Southwest University in Albuquerque. He reported these findings at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research on November 17... From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:49:35 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:49:35 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Weight of a Shekel Message-ID: <20181126204934.GA12575@aishdas.org> No, they didn't find a sheqel, they found something just as good -- a beqa from bayis rishon, as in machatzis hasheqel "beqa lagulgoles". Just multiply by 2 to get a sheqel haqodesh. (Ie a beqa is a plain old sheqel.) (There apparently weren't 1/2 sheqel coins during basyis rishon.) See or https://www.timesofisrael.com/straight-from-the-bible-tiny-first-temple-stone-weight-unearthed-in-jerusalem/ The Times of Israel Straight from the Bible: Tiny First Temple stone weight unearthed in Jerusalem By Amanda Borschel-Dan 21 November 2018, 12:57 pm Volunteer at City of David sifting project finds rare `beka' measure, used by pilgrims paying half-shekel tax before ascending to Temple Mount, in dirt from dig near Western Wall [Picture of weight, bearing the word beqa in kesav Ivri in mirror writing. The caption reads:] A First Temple period weight measure called a 'beka' was unearthed in a City of David excavation in the Davidson Archaeological Park and discovered in the wet sifting project in Jerusalem's Tsurim Valley. (Eliyahu Yanai, City of David) An extremely rare, minuscule biblical stone weight inscribed in ancient Hebrew script with the word "beka" was discovered in rubble taken from excavations at the foundations of the Western Wall. Only a handful of similar stone beka weights have been unearthed in Jerusalem, said archaeologist Eli Shukron... Unlike several hundred years later, during this era, there was no half-shekel coin. Pilgrims brought the equivalent weight, a beka, in silver to pay their tax, which would have been measured out on scales in the very spot under the Temple Mount where the tiny stone weight was unearthed. Shukron said in a press release, "When the half-shekel tax was brought to the Temple during the First Temple period, there were no coins, so they used silver ingots. In order to calculate the weight of these silver pieces they would put them on one side of the scales and on the other side they placed the Beka weight. The Beka was equivalent to the half-shekel, which every person from the age of 20 years and up was required to bring to the Temple." According to the release, the biblical shekel weighed 11.33 grams.... To give you an idea of where that stands halachically, the Rambam's (H' Sheqalim 1:2) 384 se'or. A barleycorn is 0.044 and 0.05 gm, so the Rambam's sheqel would be at least 16.9 gm. Rashi (Shemos 21:32) says that a sheqel is half of a the ounce used in Cologne. Which today we would call .5 troy oz, or 15.55gm. The CI holds it's .51 troy oz (15.86 gm). Once again, the evidence about shiurim from Har haBayis is below even the Rambam's shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 26 12:26:21 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:26:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly :> from G-d. : Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or : uses intermediaries. Except that he calls it a neis. It can't both be Divine Intervention AND left to metaphysical mechanics. I mentioned that RDBerger et all never go around back to the first Rambans they discuss to explain what they do mean after all. He does deny teva in the famous comment at the end of parashahs Bo (13:16) (where he refers you back to comments on Beresishis 17:1 and Shemos 6:2). For that matter, he even denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. We have to close the circle somehow. Teva = nisim nistarim. Nistar through allowing patterns, minhago shel olam. ... :> Which is not in contradiction to what I wrote. A minhag is a pattern :> of behavior. Not a "thing". Teva isn't someTHING Hashem made that :> behaves in certain ways and causes physical objects behave in certain :> ways. : : I really do not comprehend this distinction--if Hashem decreed that : it should be the normal pattern of behavior of an apple tree to grow : apples, how is this any different from saying ?Hashem created the : behavior of an apple tree as a ??thing?? that makes it grow apples?) According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". (I think this description of the Ramban is the belief most of us leave yeshiva day school with.) : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. Physics does not inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His Action to be hidden by routine. : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim in the usual sense. ... :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. : : To the Rambam, as well. To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. To the Ramban, a person who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from Him as needed. Tir'u baTov! -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 llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 27 06:18:44 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:18:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why Didn't The Brothers Tell Yaakov "Yosef is alive"? Message-ID: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 37:35 35 All his sons and daughters arose to console him, but he refused to accept consolation. He said: I shall go to my grave, mourning for my son. Thus his father wept for him. (?His daughters? probably refers to his daughters-inlaw.) All of them ?arose? to console him. They did not ?go? or ?come?; they ?arose? to console him. ?To arise? in order to perform an act implies that the act is born of resolution, an act one must bring oneself to perform. Until this point, they themselves were immersed in grief. No one feels so much grief as do those who must console a mourner. To see one?s aged father inconsolable, viewing every cheerful thought as a sin, would move even a heartless scoundrel to agonized remorse. He would be too distraught to offer consolation, because he would be in need of consolation himself. But why didn?t any of them attempt to sprinkle soothing balm upon the wound? Why didn?t they reveal to him: ?Yosef is alive!?? The answer: because that would have been the greatest cruelty of all. In the minds of parents, a child who was torn by wild beasts is never lost, but a child who is wicked is worse than lost. Therefore, he who would not aggravate the father?s grief a thousandfold would have to remain silent until the day when Yosef would return and the joy of the reunion would mitigate in the father?s mind even the crime that had been committed by his other sons. Had they told Ya?akov at that time the truth about what had been done to Yosef, Ya?akov would have felt as though he had lost not only one son, but ten sons at one time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 06:39:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:39:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gradations of Lifnim miShuras haDin Message-ID: <20181128143951.GA12638@aishdas.org> Surprisingly, not a subject I've thought about before. Apparently, there are different kind of lifnim mishuras hadin callings. See Arukh haShulchan CM 222:8. The SA (se'if 2) talks about the case where someone buys something from one of 5 people, doesn't recall which, and each of them are tov'im for payment. The money is held in escroe by BD until the claimants come to agreement or Eliyahu arrives and sorts it out. And if he is a chassid, he should pay each of them, kedei latzeis yedei Shamayim. The AhS adds: And a chassid adif miyarei Shamayim (YS) because a YS does not want to be mevater his own property in a business matter, and a Chassid is mevater. (Shabbos 120b). Presumably a YS is the person concerned latzeis yedei Shamayim (or else I can't understand the AhS). And this goes on to the case of the yoreish of one of the potential sellers, claiming he would be patur even LYS (Sha"kh, Ramban, Ritva.) Whereas the Qetzos says that while he is patur even LYS, chassid, ra'ui lo la'asos kein mimidas chassidus. So, there seems to be two kinds of lifnim mishuras hadin involved here, and there is a nafqa mina lemaaseh: the YS who is concerned LYS, and the chassid who is pursuing his midas chassidus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 28 11:48:46 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:48:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Baalus and Chameitz (was: help with 2 sugyot) Message-ID: <20181128194846.GA21056@aishdas.org> On 1 May 2013 (v23n74 ) I replied to a question by RAM with (in part): > But I think the key here is the word "property". I suggested in the past > that there is no such thing in halakhah. (With a probable exception of bal > yeira'eh bal yeimatzei.) There is baalus, but that's a different concept. > Returning to bal yeira'eh as an example... A son does not inherit chameitz > from his father who dies while owning it on Pesach. The issuer hanaah > means a lack of baalus. Even though it's the father's in the sense of > being chameitz she'avar alav haPesach (for the part of Pesach the father > was alive to own it). > As is implied in what RAM writes, baalus is more like custodianship than > what we think of when we hear "property". Which is born out in the word > "baalus" as well. Baalus revolves around control and responsibility, > not an abstract principle of how the world is divided up among people. > My previous thoughts on baalus and qinyan, as shaped by prior conversations > here, are at . Well, Arukh haShulchan Yomi adds another data point -- CM 245:10. Someone gives another a gift and the recipient uses a language of bitul (bitul, mevatel, mevuteles hi, tivateil, etc..) to reject the gift after it reached him, if it's metaltelin, the item is hefqer. The AhS notes the connection to bitul chomeitz that renders it hefqeir. However, he says this is no raayah because chameitz on Pesach isn't in his reshus, it's only made "ke'ilu hi birshuso" by bal yeira'eh. And that's why gilui daata is enough to get the chameitz out of his reshus. But (citing the Ran, beginning of Pesachim), something that is mamash his is different. The AhS concludes that bitul only makes the gift hefqer because it's a gift, but if it were actually his nekhasim, it wouldn't be sufficient. (Now that I wrote all that, I seem to recall someone did along the years mention that bitul chameitz only works because we're talking about quasi-baalus, and not real baalus. But I invested too much to what to skip sending this email now. And besides, I added another maqor.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 28 21:29:12 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 05:29:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. Message-ID: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to both monetary and spiritual liabilities. I was wondering, according to those who said you can waive the spiritual liability, whether that would also work retroactively (e.g. would somebody escape lashes for less than a penny's worth of damage -if the aggrieved party waived the spiritual damages after the fact of the hit) 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 Nov 30 10:19:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links Message-ID: <20181130181913.GA25124@aishdas.org> Einstein and G-d: http://nautil.us/blog/how-einstein-reconciled-religion-to-science Eistein said things about G-d that appear to contradict -- he both speaks of the Designer of existence and belittles the G-d of religion. Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's -- not emunah in a Borei but our standards, but far from atheism in their self-perception. --- Stephen Colbert explains his faith to Dr Neil de Grasse Tyson https://www.facebook.com/michael.bernstein.86/videos/10100134331341237/ He says that his faith doesn't come from a place of evidence, it comes from gratitude. Until they can explain why we exist rather than not exist, we need some basket to put that gratitude in. A little too Gcd of the Gaps. He could have made the same point using a more Non-overlapping Magesteria approach. IOW, he shouldn't be talking about belief until Dr Tyson and others in his profession can explain why we exist. Rather, he should point out they can't -- "why we exist?" isn't even a scientific question. Science doesn't cover all of human experience. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 18:36:04 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 21:36:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:26 PM Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:37:28PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> RMB : This was already answered. The mistake people make in the more famous > :> Rambans that created the popular notion that he says everything is a > :> miracle is really the Ramban saying everything, even nature, is directly > :> from G-d. > > : ZL: Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the > : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas > : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at > : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or > : uses intermediaries. > > RMB: Except that he calls it a neis.... ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' from Hashem than RambaM did. denies teva in the sense of minhago shel olam: > From the great and famous nissim a person comes to agree in [the reality of] nissim hanistarim with is the yesood haTorah. For a person has no cheileq beToras Mosheh Rabeinu until he believes that all our things and everything that happens to us are all nisim, they have no teva and minhago shel olam, whether in a group or alone. ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, > all our things and everything that happens to us is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago shel olom. It can't both be Divine Intervention > AND left to metaphysical mechanics. > Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine intervention manipulates but does not undo. The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force .'' > And then, as he says just a bit later, after saying that everything fits > sekhar va'onesh, "hakol begezeiras Elyon." > > Everything. Even the things the Rambam himself says later are left to teva. > We have to close the circle somehow. > ... According to the Rambam, teva is the work of sikhliim nivdalim -- mal'akhim and the active intellect. Hashem made a machine, and the machine runs on its own -- except for those who can connects to the Reality beyond the machine through knowing the Borei. (Moreh 3:18) According to the Ramban, teva is begezeiras Elyon. Directly from G-d. Neis. That's how it is in response to what we earned or what we need. This neis is usually nistar, hidden in predictable patterns (minhago shel olam) -- and those patterns we call "teva". ZL: You are basing a lot on the Ramban using the expression ''hakol begeiras Elyon.'' But that expression, as well as ''neis,'' is no indication of disagreeing with the idea of Hashem intervening and conducting a neis nistar working through intermediaries to manipulate but not undo minhago shel olom. Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim has a chapter on this. And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own through the control of the angels over the spheres. ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force . And behold the control was /from the time of their coming into being until forever more, *a gezeyras Elyon* [another girsa is Elyonim] that He placed in them/.'' The correct translation of ''gezeyras elyon[im] may even be ''a gezeyra about the upper world(s)/beings/forces,'' with elyon not being a reference to Hashem, just as it obviously is not in the first sentence of this passage. The gezeyas Elyon is what He placed into the forces that produce nature, the minhago shel olom. In the passage where Ramban declares that all that occurs to us is neis and not minhago shel olom or teva, he is contrasting our belief that Hashem, through neis nistar, manipulates minhago shel olom according to our deeds, with that of those who hold that nature runs mechanically with no connection to human behavior. Realizing this answers all that you proceeded to write: > > ...ZL: > : Again, both RambaN and RambaM maintain that at Creation Hashem > : imbued the components ?of the world with their normal natures... > > RMB: You say that, but I don't see it in the Ramban. ZL: I cited his repeated explanation of vayehi chein, and now his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12. RMB: [Ramban holds, contra RambaM, that] Physics does not > inhere in physical objects, it inheres in Hashem's Will for His > Action to be hidden by routine. > > ZL: : Rambam additionally talks about the indirect mechanism being that > : Hashem first created things/forces that produced these natures, and > : ?RambaN does not. But I do not see RambaN making a point of > : disputing the RambaM on this. ?He simply does not discuss it. > > RMB: But what could the Ramban mean by everything being neis and gezeiras > Elyon if we were to assert that he does believe that intermediate sikhliim > are the gears and springs of a watch that usually runs on its own? > ZL: This is again your unwarranted inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras Elyon. > > ZL: : But even if RambaN also disagreed with RambaM, I do not see why you > : should frame the disagreement in terms of whether nature is a > : ??thing?? or not. RambaM uses no such language. ?Nature is as much > : of a ??thing?? to RambaN as it is to RambaM... > > RMB: Except that one calls it a product of the Seikhel haPoal, and the other > says it's all neis and gezeiras Elyon, even the things that aren't nissim > in the usual sense. > > ZL: This is again your inference from the expressions neis and gezeiras > Elyon, which I showed is incorrect. Rambam speaks in terms of Seichel > HaPoel setting up the world's machinery of spheres that influence matters > on earth. Ramban speaks in terms of Hashem creating influencing spheres > controlled by angels. Ramban considers Nature no less an ''it'' than > Rambam. Rambam considers Nature no more an ''it'' than Ramban. > > ... > RMB: :> To the Ramban, the question of teva vs neis is whether the situation > :> calls for HQBH breaking His minhagim. > : > ZL: : To the Rambam, as well. > > RMB: To the Rambam, it is whether the people invovolved have the yedi'ah > necessary to circumvent the action of the Seikhel haPoal. > And RambaN (Devarim 18:13) speaks of Hashem redirecting the normal course of the spheres to act in favor of those who draw close to Him through their avodah. (In fact, Rambam in Maamar Terchiass HaMeisim [near the end], too, puts it terms of avodah: "The Torah amply states that the improvement of affairs that goes with loyal service to Hashem, and their worsening that goes with rebellion, is a continuous miracle...not due to a natural cause or the behavior of metsius...And this is a miracle greater than any other miracle....". According to both, Hashem intervenes to manipulate the machinery of minhago shel olom based upon man's closeness to him. > ZL: : You want to say Ramban was mistaken in saying, without > : qualification, he agreed with the Rambam? > > RMB: The context of the Ramban's statement is qualification enough. He is > saying that on the topic of whether hashgachah peratis is universal, > he agrees with the Rambam that it isn't. No more, no less. > > Just as he didn't mean he agrees with the Rambam's that sekhar is > hashgachah, but onesh is being abandoned to teva. ZL: I'll concede that point, although I'm still left with the question that the Rambam refers to minhago shel olom oneshim, too, as the greatest of nissim nistarim. How is abandonment to nature a neis? And he also refers to, for example, the Egyptians being punished for volunteering to fulfill the role of persecutors foretold of in the bris bein habesarim. The plagues were not a mere abandonment to nature... Tsaruch iyun.... > To the Ramban, a person > who deserves Hashem's aid in correcting himself will get oneshim from > Him as needed. > ZL: That's an interesting twist on how to look at oneshim as a chessed. > > Zvi Lampel [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/03/18, 8:45:33 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ramban on astrology Devarim 18, 9-13.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2384560 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 4 09:31:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:31:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: <20181026181346.GB18376@aishdas.org> <20181114170119.GA30150@aishdas.org> <20181123105817.GA10258@aishdas.org> <20181126202621.GA9405@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181204173107.GC16262@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 09:36:04PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote: :> Ramban is not talking about everything. He is talking about the :> : miracle of Hashem making Nature respond to human behavior (whereas :> : otherwise he has the world follow the path of nature established at :> : Creation). He does not mention whether Hashem does this directly or :> : uses intermediaries. :> RMB: : Except that he calls it a neis.... : So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar.... Different "it". The Ramban calls everything a neis. The fact that that doesn't imply what you would think if you only looked at those 2 comments doesn't change the fact that to the Ramban, teva is a neis. So: The Rambam acknowledges sekhar va'onesh via neis nistar, for those who earn such HP. (Hashgachah = both sekhar va'onesh.) And yet normal teva is the action of the Seikhel haPo'al, a metaphysical automaton "preprogrammed" by the Borei. The Ramban holds that all of teva is neis nistar, whether it's hashgachah (leshitaso: hashgachah = sekhar), onesh, or minhago shel olam. Again, but in significantly different words: To the Rambam, teva follows minhago shel olam because the Seikha haPo'al has a single mission and lack bechirah. According to the Ramban, teva is a word that means the subset of Divine Action that follows minhago shel olam rather than being selected by HP. I believe you agree that rishonim understand the Rambam's position on teva and the Seikhal haPo'al the way I explained it. I am not clear how you can insist they got it wrong. : ZL: I'll repeat myself. The subject of his clause, : > all our things and everything that happens to us : is solely in reference to the events that affect human beings: the : manipulated blissful or non-blissful weather, the successful or : non-successful responses of nature to our behavior. Not the day-to-day : behaviors of flora and fauna. I.e, specifically all OUR matters, and : everything that happens TO US. THEY are not left to a unmanipulated minhago : shel olom. Right, but that's not HP. According to both Rambam and the Ramban, not everything that happens to every person is HP. And yet they are all neis. You are also incorrectly deducing from the Rambam's talking about that whih happens to us that he means to exclude things that don't impact human life, such as the growth of a tree in the middle of the Amazon where it possibly effects no one. However, he is saying the Torah is founded on knowing how to view what happens to me personally. Not abstract knowledge about how the world works. That tree in the Amazon isn't on topic. ... : ZL: So does Rambam. I already cited my sources. They both call sechar : v-onesh through manipulating but not undoing minhago shel olom, a neis : nistar. Rambam calls it the greatest neis nistar of all. So RambaN calling : it a neis does not indicate he held it was any more or less ''directly'' : from Hashem than RambaM did. Even before we get to our point, not really. According to the Rambam, sekhar is a neis nistar. Onesh is almost always abandonment to teva. (Similarly, to the Rambam on Cheileq, gehenom is kareis is a lack of olam haba, and not suffering in olam haba.) Suffering as onesh is usually just what happens to a human being trying to fight what we would call today the law of increasing entropy. (It's easier to break things than make them.) On rare occasions, there is a Makas Bekhoros, but those are nissim geluyim. After all, leshitas haRambam, sin causes a lack of knowledge of the Borei, and thus a disconnection from Him, and thus a lack of hashpa'ah. HP itself is causal, leshitaso. Just as nevu'ah is causal, and it take a neis for Hashem to hide information from a navi who has enough yedi'ah to be connected up to be able to "look" for it. So, they disagree about whether onesh is HP / neis, even before we get started with our dispute. (Something also mentioned in the shiur from Gush I pointed you to.) :> It can't both be Divine Intervention :> AND left to metaphysical mechanics. : Again repeating myself, both Rambam and Ramban say that at creation, Hashem : created the mechanics of minhago shel olom, but in the realm of sechar : v-onesh He intervenes to manipulate it, producing a neis nistar. In : contrast to neis niglah, it is metaphysical mechanics that divine : intervention manipulates but does not undo. And to repeat myself, you're nmistaken. The Rambam has a delegate Hashem gave nature to, and when there is a break from minhago shel olam, Hashem (via mal'akhim, beings higher than the Seikhel haPoal) is intervening. The Ramban does not have such a delegate. When there is a break from minhago shel olam, it's because someone earned Hashem making another kind of decision; another priority rose to the top in (kevayakhol) how He Chooses what to Do. Your reasserting otherwise still doesn't explain why you feel the Abarbanel and Narbonni got him wrong about this idea that a separate seikhel was created to do teva, that just runs minhago shel olam. And in fact, further down you stop denying this and instead argue from the Ramban in Devarim that the Ramban also has such sikhliim. I am not clear where exactly you stand. : The source I presented to show that Ramban too holds that outside the realm : of reward and punishment the world runs as a machine: Ramban says that each : ''veyhei chein'' in maaaseh breishis means Hashem established the minhago : shel olom/teva of the phenomenon described. Runs like a machine, ie following a minhag. Whereas the Rambam gives it an actual metaphysical machine. : To introduce a new source, in his commentary on Devarim 18:9-12, discussing : astrology, Ramban says that from the creation oft he world, Hashem created : the spheres that cause minhago shel olom, and the angels that control the : spheres. You are literally quoting a Ramban that says that even though there are kokhavim, mazalos, mal'akhim and sarim which has a nefesh, one cannot worship them or use astrology to tell the future (kesoa'avos hagoyim haheim) because they're only responding to His Will. A navi, who is looking at His Will, can know the future. : ''When the Creator created everything out of nothing, He made the Elyonim : controllers of the tachtonim below them...He vested in the stars and : constellations power over the earth and all that is upon it...And over the : stars and constellations he placed angels and minsters, as their life-force : .'' Manhig = controller? : And Ramban, in the above-reference commentary on Devarim 18:9-12 uses that : very expression in describing the machine that Hashem made run on its own : through the control of the angels over the spheres. Not on its own. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 04:19:47 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (Zvi Lampel) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 07:19:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Science and Torah - two new links In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:19:13 -0500 > From: Micha Berger > > Einstein and G-d: > > ...Looks like his real position was closer to Spinoza's He said so explicitly ''I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... '' New Times, April 25, 1929, in answer to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 12/04/18, 7:16:09 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Tue Dec 4 08:24:16 2018 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 18:24:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Tuesday evening) begin Prayer for Rain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Tuesday evening), December 4, 2018, corresponding to the evening of 27 Kislev, 5779, the third night of Chanukka. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: https://www.lookstein.org/professional-dev/veten-tal-u-matar/ (Thanks to Russell Levy for suggesting the article.) In unrelated news, here's what keeps me busy: http://u.math.biu.ac.il/~brodska/ Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky Post-doctoral Fellow Department of Mathematics Ariel University Ariel 4070000, ISRAEL ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Tue Dec 4 11:25:15 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bereishit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One clear difference between the Rambam and the Ramban is the value of miracles as evidence; see H. Yesodei HaTorah 8:1 vs. Toras HaShem Temimah Ed. Chavel pp. 146, 150, 152, etc. I think the explanation is hinted at in the Ramban in Shoftim you cited. The Rambam holds that miracles are ad hoc, but the Ramban holds that miracles also follow laws and those laws echo creation. David Riceman Sent from my iPad From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 6 05:32:53 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 13:32:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] seuda shlishit Message-ID: <1c08882303fd4627b3659b0785fb9331@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> It is certainly preferable to either eat bread or stop eating before shekia (or close to it - beyond our present scope). If you partake in a full meal but refrain from bread for a certain reason, leniency has strong grounds. If you are picking at food according to your mood, and even more so if you previously fulfilled seuda shlishit, it is difficult to allow eating as night approaches. (Me- Is this generally followed?) 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 Thu Dec 6 14:45:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:45:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Havdalah or Menorah on Motzai Shabbos Which comes first? Message-ID: Do we first light the Menorah or make Havdalah on Motzai Shabbos - Chanuka? Not a recent question, this situation of competing halachic principles has been the basis of the centuries-old debate regarding which mitzvah has priority and should therefore be performed first. In other words, on Motzai Shabbos Chanuka this annual halachic dispute, simmering since the time of the Rishonim, really heats up... Please see https://goo.gl/oV2gpg YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 7 11:21:41 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 19:21:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: Q. I will be traveling to New York from my home in New Jersey for a Chanukah party at my parents? house and won?t be returning home until late at night. I have the following options: I can light at home at 4:00 PM (which is before sunset); I can appoint an agent (shliach) to light in my house for me at the proper time; I can light at my parents? house; or I can light upon returning home late at night when there are no longer any passersby. What should I do? A. The Mechaber rules that if one will not be able to light the Chanukah candles at the prescribed time, he may light them any time after Plag HaMincha (Shulchan Aruch OC 672:1). Plag HaMincha in the winter is approximately an hour before sunset. However, if one must leave immediately thereafter, it may not be advisable to leave candles unattended. The possibility of using an agent is questionable, since Mishnah Berurah (675:9) rules that when an agent lights for him, the person must stand next to the agent and hear him recite the brachos; obviously, this is not feasible in this case. The third possibility, lighting at one?s parents? home, is not acceptable. One must light where he lives (i.e. the place where he eats and sleeps on a regular basis). Since he does not live in his parent?s home but is merely eating a meal there, he may not light there. One should follow the fourth option and light upon returning home. As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. Therefore, one may light even if it is late and there will be no passersby to see the menorah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 8 17:32:58 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 20:32:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49e62b3e-cb2d-9d77-dbff-c94f400def1e@sero.name> > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah is lit > primarily for one?s family, and not to publicize the miracle to the public. What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising it, if not to the passersby? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 18:33:18 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:33:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah Message-ID: . Someone quoted the OU's Halacha Yomis: > As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. R' Zev Sero asked: > What about people who live alone? To whom are they publicising > it, if not to the passersby? I don't think the OU meant to suggest that one isn't yotzay if his family doesn't see the neros. When danger caused us to move the menorah indoors, *everyone* lit indoors. No exceptions were made for those who live alone. It seems clear to me that one is yotzay even if he is the only one to see them lit. Come to think of it, one is yotzay Pirsumei Nisa if no one hears him read the Megilla, or if no one sees him drinking Arba Kosos. Why should Ner Chanuka be different? It is true that the Mishne Berura 672:11 says that if everyone at home is already asleep, then he must either wake someone or light without the bracha. But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants to act like that, we don't stop him." Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 12 21:41:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:41:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music and literature: As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the better strategy? 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 Dec 12 21:44:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? 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 Dec 15 19:22:45 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 22:22:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: <4EBAA25A-8790-4673-AAFF-7E2AC74B5C9A@cox.net> With an extremely unusual exception, all professionals will tell you that the first time your husband assaults you must be the last time. Furthermore the law is clear and unequivocal: Any incidence of a domestic crime must be dealt with by arresting the guilty party, be it husband or wife. I can tell you that any call we get involving a domestic always results in an arrest. Dina D'Malchusa Dina This is the law and we are mandated to follow it. I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve your spouse. Mechila or no mechila, the consequences are serious and the law must be followed. Quoted from a rabbinic source: "A woman called. Some of her ribs were broken. She wanted to know if she was supposed to be mochel / forgive her husband. I told her definitely not. She persisted - isn't it a special mitzvah, close to Yom Kippur, a segulah that Hashem should forgive us for all our wrongdoing? It told her that it would be no mitzvah at all." I'm guessing there's more to the story and that the rabbinic advisor felt that her not being mochel would have an impact on her husband's actions. If not I would have guessed she would have been told to leave him? FWIW IIRC the only exception to the forgiveness rule is motzi shem ra (spreading negatively about the individual). Your thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 16 11:13:33 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot Message-ID: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of chutz l'aretz. Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? Ben From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 16 12:56:05 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 15:56:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? First thought, just to help the ball rolling. Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? So, there are people actually eating challah in the Rambam's world. Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both being deOraisa. (In particular, it can be taken retroactively; you can eat before hafrashah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Dec 17 08:28:25 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:28:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Asara b'Teves Message-ID: The message of this commemoration is that after the destruction, we must trace its sources and mark its stages; we must look backwards to events that are not earth-shattering and perceive how the seeds of the destruction on the Ninth of Av were planted on the Tenth of Teves. The more we study history, the more we learn that we should not concentrate only on the final act itself, but also on all the stages that led up to it. This also applies to the Holocaust which is probably the worst tragedy in Jewish history. Along these lines we also recite Kaddish on the 10th of Tevet for all those whose date of death is unknown, who perished in the Holocaust. Apparently, the tenth of Teves is "the Day of God" about which many prophets spoke ? the tenth day of the tenth month. (The 10th of Teves is the only fast day that can fall on a Friday). The number ten in kabala is related to the sefira of malkhut, and therefore, the very essence of the day is appropriate to the theme of God's kingship. Chazal teach that at midnight a north wind would blow, rousing King David from his sleep to serve his Creator. It is in the middle of the night, specifically in the depths of the darkest part of the night, that the sovereignty of Israel awakens, and the kingship of God is revealed in the world.May the Kingship of the Almighty finally rule all mankind thus fulfilling the vision of the prophets: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall men learn war anymore; for all men, both great and small shall know the Lord.? Amen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 17 09:09:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:09:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 16/12/18 3:56 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:13:33PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that > : "we've seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? > > First thought, just to help the ball rolling. > > Teimanim give challah to kohanim who are qetanim. I assume Sefardim also, though I don't know this for certain. But the SA certainly says to do so, and only the Rema says the minhag is not to. > They are allowed to eat challah, and as qetanim, the "only" problem > with eating it whle tamei is chinukh. And should chinukh trump > actually doing the mitzvah challah kehalakhah? AFAIK it's got nothing to do with chinuch; the reason it's given to ketanim rather than gedolim is because they have never experienced tum'ah that comes from their own bodies. It can also be given to an adult cohen who has been to the mikveh. The Rema says this is not our minhag because since it's not eaten in EY there is no need for it to be eaten in chu"l. Other acharonim suggest that it's because we have no cohanim meyuchasim, so we're not even certain this child is a cohen in the first place, or because we're worried that the child won't be careful with it and it'll get into people's food, or just that if it's not burned immediately it will somehow find its way to someone who shouldn't eat it. > Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both > being deOraisa. Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan. (Nowadays even chalah of EY is midrabanan, but it has an ikkar min hatorah, whereas in chu"l it's entirely midrabanan.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:25:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:25:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <20181216205605.GA16386@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181217172541.GA5532@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:09:38PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Challah of chu"l has leniencies challah in EY does not, despite both : >being deOraisa. : Chalah of chu"l is midrabanan... Sorry, chalah of crops made from chu"l that were brought into EY are indeed deOraisa, and yes those aforementioned qulos still apply. (Similarly, challah from Israeli grain that was needed in chu"l is only chayav miderabbanan.) 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 micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 17 09:14:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:14:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chanukah Party and Lighting the Menorah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181217171454.GA25337@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:33:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But the Igros Moshe OC 4:105:7 says that one *can* say the : brachos in such a case, and he points out that this is also the : opinion of the Chemed Moshe, cited by the author of the MB in Shaar : Hatziyun 672:17, and that the Shaar Hatziyun concludes, "if one wants : to act like that, we don't stop him." Going back to the SA (OC 677:3) the mechaber says that *yeish omerim* that if you light at home alone after others have lit there without you, you make the berakhos. Interestingly, the se'if opens "yeish omerim", it's the only opinion quoted. The Rama quote the Mordechai that this is because he is obligated to see the neiros, vekhein nohagim. Ateres Zeqeinim ad loc quotes the Maharash: veyeish cholqin. So, if you want to be machmir to light, (he calls it "rotzeh lahchamir") light without a berakhah. The Maharil says that once you light on your own, you showed you didn't want to be yotzei with the earlier lighting, so you weren't. And that's why it's not a berakhah levatalah. The picture I'm trying to show here is that the discussion about the berakhah appears to be because this is after someone else lit for the home. Not because you're alone. And, if I understand the Mordechai correctly, he appears to be saying that whether or not the purpose of the mitzvah is pirsumei nisah, the actual mitzvah includes just seeing the lights. Perhaps because even internalizing the neis I myself already know about intellectually qualifies as "pirsum". But that's not how R' Moshe discusses it. He simply says that pirsum isn't me'aqeiv. 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 09:05:16 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:05:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] lighting the menora Message-ID: As noted in a previous Halacha Yomis, nowadays, the menorah > is lit primarily for one's family, and not to publicize the > miracle to the public. My impression is that most modern poskim certainly in EY disagree and that many/most light outdoors for the public -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 18 09:24:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:24:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Comedy -- is it good for the Jews? In-Reply-To: References: <49f57ed6-82ab-b6eb-2210-00930742efaa@sero.name> <20181211154507.GB6212@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20181218172413.GB29597@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:02am EST, R Moshe Y. Gluck replied to me on Areivim in a conversation about a stand up comic at a venue that lost their hekhsher over it: : One can argue that comedy, in it of itself, is assur, independent of : subject matter because of Assur L'maalos Piv Schok B'Olam Hazeh (Berachos : 31a). This gemara makes an interesting contrast to the rather famous gemara (Taanis 22a) about Rabbi Beroqa Choza'ah and Elihahu haNavi in the marke of Bei Lefet. Elihahu points out two beduchei as among those there who would merit olam haba, eiuther because they chear up the depressed or bring peace to those arguing. Given the first "i nami" in Taanis, where's the chiluq to be drawn? Another problem I have understandign the gemara in Taanis. The market in question was full of Jews. (Another person Eliyahu pointed out was noted for not dressing like one, but turned out to be employed by the prison system and he protected the women in his jail.) And "kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq". So why are just these people being pointed out as being "bar alma de'asi"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:28:37 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:28:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports. In-Reply-To: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <60f77f1a533143499f0ab06cf2fd418b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182837.GA18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:29:12AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I know there is a debate as to whether the ability to waive liability : (i.e. Reuvain tells Shimon it's OK for Shimon to hit Reuvain) refers to : both monetary and spiritual liabilities... Does it work at all? You can be mochel nezeq when it's mamon, but corporeal? Wouldn't Shim'on be a rasha for lifting his hand to Re'uvein either way? Related: Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? 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 micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:34:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:34:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] culture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181219183447.GB18267@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:41:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : My response to a Cross Currents post on the new popular chareidi music : and literature: :> As far as the general low culture issue, can we at least agree that even :> the "frum" low culture does in fact represent some acculturation from :> the general society around us? Some would argue that conscious awareness :> of this acculturation allows us to better manage it. : My question to the chevrah-Has history shown that nonawareness is the : better strategy? It has to be slower, when you think you haven't yet assimilated culture and you're trying to hold the line, than when you consciously choose to have a strategy with regard to acculturation, and expect the line to move. One will only have unconscious motion, the other will have conscious change as well. So for the masses, it means less assimilation. Then we have to ask if cultural assumilation is a bad thing. Does Hashem not want us to sing our tefillos to the kosher elements of the sound of our era? Is there a Jewish aesthetic to begin with? Way deep wading in this issue. However, for the yechidim who realize it's going on and that everyone is fooling themselves.... I see a big OTD risk as cynicism is bound to creap in, as well as (including?) a loss of respect for any authority figures who are fooled or caught blindfolding others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 19 10:20:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:20:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Reward? In-Reply-To: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <32b4c87ce28b4b43bff4240fff9ed662@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181219182054.GA6255@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:30:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : The beginning of the Aruch Hashulchan states (I think he may be quoting : the Smak) Malachim (angels?) have no yetzer hara (evil inclination?), : animals have a yetzer hara but no daat (knowledge?). Thus malachim get : no schar (reward?) and animals no onesh (punishment?) This is the end of OC 1:1. (AhS Yomi for 4th. Yes, cycle 2 is starting in just 4+ months! The first Tur for the AhS to write on was CM, which is why you find the haqdamah there. So "beginning" was ambiguous. Or I'm just a nitpicker.) : Is this knowledge of HKB"H? What does it mean to have a yetzer hara - Is : it equivalent of free will? .... I took the se'if to mean that angels have no YhR and therefore lack free will. Animals have no *capacity for* knowledge, and therefore couldn't possibly have a YhT, and thus also no bechirah. Only people, caught in tention between YhR and (properly applied?) da'as have bechirah, and that's why only we get both reward and punishment. : The dogs being : rewarded for not barking? There is an interesting implication from the AhS that animals do get sekhar, and angels do get oneshim. Perhaps it makes sense even without presuming they have bechirah if we take a causal approach to sekhar va'onesh. The animal that does the right thing, even through no credit of its own, is still thereby a superior being than before. Especially if it is more likely to repeat behavior done once (or more likely to refrain if refrained once). And similarly in the reverse, for angels that fail. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur micha at aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Dec 19 22:03:14 2018 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 01:03:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila Message-ID: >I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >your spouse. Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? From isaac at balb.in Wed Dec 19 22:57:07 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:57:07 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Re Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2CC046A4-B9E6-4853-A683-179A213256CC@balb.in> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu---theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively more authentic version of the next Baal HaMesora. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Thu Dec 20 08:12:18 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:12:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You are asking a loaded question so I will have to answer it on a few layers. First of all, I?m not sure what YOU mean by a verbal assault. The legal definition of assault varies from state to state but generally: Simple assault is an attempt to do a serious bodily harm to another person, or actually committing an act to put another in fear of serious bodily injury. Simple assault is usually classified as a misdemeanor. So if by verbal assault, a husband or wife (without touching each other), puts the other in fear of being hurt, then it meets the criteria of a crime (misdemeanor) and in most states mandates an arrest. With that scenario, yes, I would say the same for a spouse who verbally assaults the other. What most lay people confuse assault with is a BATTERY which is any unlawful offensive physical contact with another person, with or without his or her consent. ... Unlike the crime of assault, battery requires that actual contact is made, while assault charges can be brought with only the threat of violence. Though it may seem extreme to say that you don?t deserve your spouse if you commit a simple assault or battery, our own sages have said that if your wife burns your food, you have every right to divorce her. I think it boils down to the specifics and whole picture of each case. I believe your question may have meant what if a spouse speaks disparagingly to his/her spouse. In other words, what if a husband demeans his wife and calls her stupid or ugly, etc. My feeling is that you are dealing with the tip of the iceberg and most likely you have a bad marriage and a dysfunctional relationship. > On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: > > >> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who >> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve >> your spouse. > > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 20 12:31:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:31:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mechila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20181220203131.GB27441@aishdas.org> On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:03 AM, Alexander Seinfeld wrote: :> I have no sympathy for a husband who assaults his wife or a wife who :> assaults her husband. If you assault your spouse, you do not deserve :> your spouse. : > Would you say the same for a spouse who assaults his/her spouse verbally? Hezeq and onaas devarim are different issurim. But they both are forms of harm recognized by halakhah. (Maybe I mean all three are recognized: hezeq haguf and hezeq mamon are different things, with different dinim.) And if the ona'as devarim gets to the point of halvanas panim, it's compared to retzichah. BM 58b lumps OD and pinning a nickname on someone together with eishes ish as sins that cause gehennom to be permanent ("sheyordim ve'ein olim") and ein lo cheileq le'olam haba (59a). And of course, "noach lo le'adam shayapil es atzmo lekivshan ha'eish, be'al yalbin penei chaveiro." (Mar Zutra, BM 59a) Which is taking seriously, not exageration, in discussions of yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. So to ammend my first paragraph, verbal abuse is far MORE vilified by the din than hezeq. I would consider answering: lo kol shekein! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 20 21:43:37 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:43:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer Message-ID: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From a write-up on borer and peelers: "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] Me-1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex county, us, world...............) 2.Is a sieve a sophisticated fork??? 3.No doubt that minhag yisrael includes many who do it-it's just not clear to me how that developed (i.e a priori first principles seem to lead to prohibition) - perhaps a good example of mimetic tradition? 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 eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:22:47 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:22:47 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] culture Message-ID: <> Indeed I am always bothered by those who claim that they are not influenced at all but outside culture. Even if not directly we are all influenced by outside forces. There is no such thing today as Jewish music since anything the leviim sang has been lost. Living in Israel sefardi music is much different than ashkenazi music simply because Arabic music is different than Hungarian music. Anyone who learns Rambam is influenced at some level by Greek philosophy. Read rishonim on the reasons for dina demalchuta and compare it to the old defenses of the rights of kings - just happen to be identical. Many rishonim were familar with secular philosophy and even the Ramah knew philosophy. In spite of appearances Chatam Sofer had a broad background and spoke German. All of this without referring to RAL who has a spirited defense of much (certainly not all) of modern literature and parts of modern culture. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 01:30:25 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:30:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] contact sports Message-ID: << Can a parent permit a child to wound them? If yes, why are there such problems for a doctor to treat their parent (assuming others can provide similar care)? What about voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery not for shidduchim or another devar mitzvah? >> Certainly mechila works on some level. There are stories of RAL in his younger years playing basketball with the students. Once a student complained that it wasn;t fair because they could not block their rebbe. RAL answered that in playing ball not to treat him as a rebbe. Certainly we are talking about minor contact and not severe wounding Kibud Av ve- Em is a step beyond ordinary treatment of others especially causing a loss of blood. From what I have seen the standard psak is that a doctor should preferably not treat a parent for anything requiring incisions or blood. However, for anything serious that the child is better than others than certainly, he is the doctor of choice. I recall that RMF allows cosmetic surgery only foord "god reasons". This incliudes feeling embarrased by one's appearance and also improvements especially for women for shidduch persons. I assume he would not be happy with various facial "improvements" for senior citizens -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Thu Dec 20 17:33:08 2018 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 12:33:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:13:33 +0200 From: Ben Waxman > The last halacha in the Rambam's Hilchot Truma states the anyone eating > trumah says an additional bracha (v'tzivanu l'achol truma). He adds that > "qibalnu v'ra'inu" people say this bracha even if they eat challa of > chutz l'aretz. > Qibalnu I understand but what does the Rambam mean when says that "we've > seen people say this bracha on challa of chutz l'aretz"? When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- performing Masoretic acts and decisions. He went on to explain that though others were greater Talmidim of Moshe than Yehoshua, Yehoshua was the one who was chosen to be the next link in the Mesora because he was not just a good student of Torah, but because he did Shimush under Moshe, and never left his side. In other words, his was not just Kibalnu MeRoboseinu, but also Ra'inu and that is a qualitatively better version of the next Baal HaMesora. From mcohen at touchlogic.com Fri Dec 21 06:48:04 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (mcohen at touchlogic.com) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:48:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma Message-ID: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means increase. Therefore not 'blessed is the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever' (artscroll) but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his kingdom be increased forever. His source is olas tamid (which I don't have), and iyun tefilah (which I looked up and I cant find this mentioned) Is this the kavanah that you are all having when you say krias shma? mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:10:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:10:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <20181221151048.GA23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 09:48:04AM -0500, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: : R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch means : increase. ... : but the correct translation is - May the revelation of the glory of his : kingdom be increased forever. I am vague enough on the translation of the English word "blessed" that translating "barukh" for "blessed" is trading one unknown for a bigger one. As for my own kavanah (when I stop to have one): May the public perception (or: reputation) of the significance (or: importance) of His rule-by-public-acclimation be increased eternally without stop. Explanation: Sheim is name, which would be how others perceive something. Hashem's sheim is thus how He seems to people, which could be reputation and/or perception. Kavod shares spelling with kaveid, heaviness. (We'll discuss livers some other time.) And thus we give honor to significant "weighty" matters. Like massive things, we don't trivially push them around. And so I think of kavod as honor more in terms of significant and important than glory. Ein melekh belo am -- unlike a mosheil, what makes a melekh a melekh is the acceptance of the governed. The Gra has a whole piece on Melekh vs Mosheil and "umosheil bagoyim", until the day when "vehayah Hashem leMelekh". "Malkhusekha malkhus kol olamim umemshaletekha bekhol dor vador." Notice in that last pasuq, malkhus is framed in terms of "kol olamim", and here it's "le'olam va'ed". Le'olam -- for as long as there's an olam. Va'ad -- note the shoresh of "ad", until the missing end. There is another kind of Eternity. Hashem Himself is lemaalah min hazman. Not eternal in the sense of existing for an infinite amount of time, but in the sense that the concept of time doesn't apply. However, His Sheim is a product of us relating to Him, and thus within time -- as long as there is an "am" for Hashem to be Melekh of. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Dec 21 07:35:02 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:35:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] boruch shaim kavod malchuso lolam vaaed in shma In-Reply-To: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> References: <029001d4993c$2ea093b0$8be1bb10$@touchlogic.com> Message-ID: <892aea1f-7804-ca75-2a17-2b632b2d08f7@sero.name> On 21/12/18 9:48 am, mcohen--- via Avodah wrote: > One has to have kavanaas haperush when one says boruch shaim kavod > malchuso lolam vaaed > > How do you translate it. What does the word shaim mean. > > R jaeger in guidelines says - shaim here means revelation, and boruch > means increase. I don't think this is perush hamilim. It's an additional facet that can add to the value of kavana, but is not required. Another facet is that "baruch" can mean to extend, as in "hamavrich es hagefen", so a bracha represents bring the shefa from the higher worlds to this one. An important thought, but one who doesn't have it in mind, or is even entirely unaware of it, has still said shma properly. Also, sheim is not *just* how others see one; ones name is connected directly to ones essence, as we see from the fact that when someone has fainted we use their name to call them back. But it is mostly used for others, just as malchus is how one relates to others, i.e. dibbur, shechina, reflecting what is going on inside one to the outside world, and yet it remains one of the essential attributes of a personality, and thus it is also one of the sefiros which those attributes reflect. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 07:34:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:34:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] peelers-borer In-Reply-To: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <53342a614658426ab2a08b6325b53e30@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20181221153420.GB23918@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 05:43:37AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From a write-up on borer and peelers: : : > "peelers for peels that are generally eaten with the fruit," (are : > "viewed as a sophisticated knife")[me- and thus not borer] : : 1.which requires definition of how we determine "generally" (wo, essex : county, us, world...............) I could understand why the peel normally being eaten might mitigate boreir, as there is no pesoles. But how does it change the status of the peeler? In any case, the AhS (OC 391:22, but the discussion starts at se'if 19 ) only talks about peeling lots of (harbeih) garlic or onions, where he accepts the fact that it is boreier, despite being confused about how it even caqn be borer. There is a clear gemara (Beitza 13b) that says that Ravs and Rav Chiyya's wives would peel barley for them on Shabbos. And the AhS wants to know why garlic or onion would be any different. He therefore concludes that the issur isn't peeling, but the separating of the peels once they're mixed into in the heap. He explains the BY's source Y-mi accordingly. I should point out that when I was a child, no one I knew identified peeling as a form of boreir. Seems it may have been beshitah, and not ignorance. The AhS also talks (se'if 9) about non-mixtures, items that are nir'im la'ayin, like clothes, keilim and books. I do not know what he means by keilim, picking out forks from a jumble in the drawer? I bring this up because this issue was also something I didn't hear of until YU. Seems to me boreir grew a lot when the MB became "poseiq acharon" for all y'all. (Minus Sepharadim, of course, who limit boreir to literal okhel, IIUC.) :-)BBii! -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 micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 21 10:14:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:14:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Trumot In-Reply-To: <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> References: <2ad9d2f7-b16c-00f4-3c99-6de82bfd6093@zahav.net.il> <31F6FDAE-3650-4012-924C-F447CC5F76E5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20181221181420.GA18815@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:33:08PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : When R' Aron Soloveichik z"l was asked about the difference between the : Mesora of today and yesteryear he explained that in his generation, : whilst they certainly knew about the Mesora -- they had the level of : Kiblu MeRaboseinu -- theirs was accented and qualified by the mimetic : tradition which happens via seeing the Baal HaMesora -- Ra'inu -- : performing Masoretic acts and decisions... I am not sure we are correctly using the word "mimetic" when discussing the unconscious copying norms and aborbing the culture of such a small "community" as that of posqim. However, if I understand what you mean correctly, I wrote something similar on Torah Musincs, where I tried to nail down what RYBS and RHS mean by the term "Mesorah". Teasers, as they state my point without proving basis: The word "masorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. ... For regular pesak too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from texts. Kara veshanah velo shimeish talmid chacham, harei zeh am ha'aretz.... If he read scripture and studied law, but did not serve a talmid chacham, such a person is an am haaretz (an ignorant peasant). - Sotah 22a ... Similarly, a poseik needs to pick up that feel, and not only the formal rules. He needs the unstructured knowledge of halakhah. Consider this rather poetic description of how the Rav experienced his shiur, entering the dialog of Torah through the ages as he joins his students in the classroom. Notice how he winds up by discussing this experience as "masorah": ... ... In an article in Jewish Action, Rav Schachter provides his definition of the word. He opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. ... The Rav identifies masorah as the ineffable skill to think like a poseik. Masorah is a skill obtained from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in a culture of mimeticism. ... Without masorah, the poseik has no way of determining which solutions to new problems are in concert with the spirit of previous rulings. Halakhah is not frozen; it does not have inertia, but it does have momentum. Apprenticeship, training under a master, transmits the feel for where the halakhah has historically been taken. Following reasoning found in a minority ruling is appropriate only when one is motivated by the Torah's own principles. The person who speaks halakhah as a first language knows when an innovative change is within "poetic license", and when the result simply violates the Torah's "grammar." As R. Yochanan quotes in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah - the apprenticeship of Torah is greater than its study". :-)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 llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 21 11:29:00 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 19:29:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Is_it_forbidden_to_teach_Torah_to_one_w?= =?windows-1252?q?ho_has_not_said_birchas_ha=92Torah=3F?= Message-ID: I wonder how this applies to restaurants. How are they allowed to serve people who do not make brachas before eating? YL >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Is it forbidden to teach Torah to one who has not said birchas ha?Torah? A. In regards to birchos ha?nehenin (brachos recited on food), there is a concept that one is not permitted to give someone food if the recipient will not recite a bracha. Offering food to one who will not recite a bracha is a violation of ?lifnei iver lo sitain michshol? (enabling one to stumble) (See Shulchan Aruch OC 169:2). However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l (Minchas Shlomo 1:91) writes that this does not apply to teaching Torah to one who did not recite birchas ha?Torah. Birchas ha?Torah is a birchas ha?mitzvah. Though birchos ha?mitzvos are obligatory, we do not find that Chazal forbade the performance of a mitzvah if a bracha is not recited. He notes that not studying Torah (bitul Torah) is a more serious offense than omitting the bracha. If possible, one should instruct those who have come to learn Torah how to recite the bracha, but if this is not practical, one should teach them Torah in any event. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 17:26:16 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:26:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Angels and Requests Message-ID: . In the Friday night poem "Shalom Aleichem", we ask the mal'achim to give us a bracha. We've often mentioned here that some people avoid this poem because it is either similar to avoda zara, or perhaps might actually BE avoda zara. I call your attention to the morning's parsha, Bereshis 48:16, the pasuk "Hamal'ach hagoel osi." Yaakov Avinu refers to a particular mal'ach and asks that this mal'ach should give a bracha to Yosef's sons. At first glance, this seems to be very similar to Shalom Aleichem. How is this justifiable, in the view of those who consider Shalom Aleichem to be problematic? I came up with two possible answers, and I invite the chevra to critique them, and/or suggest other answers. 1) Perhaps the halachos of avoda zara were less restrictive in those pre-Sinai days, and making requests to a mal'ach was okay for Yaakov but not for us. I suppose this is possible, but the centrality of Monotheism to the avos, it would surprise me. 2) I note that in the immediately preceding pasuk, Yaakov addressed Hashem. If so, then maybe Yaakov was not asking the mal'ach directly for a bracha the way we do in Shalom Aleichem. Rather, he was speaking directly to Hashem, asking Hashem that the mal'ach should give the bracha. This would solve the problem of "Who was Yaakov praying to?", but not the problem of "Where do brachos come from?" If the mal'ach is capable of giving a bracha, that too smacks of avoda zara, doesn't it? All comments are welcome. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 03:08:38 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 06:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Bircas Kohanim when when the Shaliach Tzibbur is a kohen Message-ID: . On Areivim, R' Sheldon Liberman asked: > I heard over Shabbos that in chutz l'aretz, during the chazzan's > repetition at shacharis, if the chazzan is a kohen, then during > bircas kohanim, there is an opinion that the tzibbur should > answer "Amein" rather than "Kein y'hi ratzon". > > Has anyone heard this? The critical words here are "there is an opinion". It seems reasonable that somewhere in a vast library of seforim, there might be a sefer that suggests such a thing. Whether anyone actually does this is another matter entirely. I don't remember ever hearing anyone actually do this. I'd even argue against it. It makes about as much sense as if one would answer "amen" during the third stanza of "Shalom Aleichem". In both cases we are asking for a bracha, but in neither case have we actually heard any bracha on which to answer "amen". (When we answer "kein yehi ratzon", it means "please give us that bracha" and not "I believe in that bracha which You gave".) Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 26 08:49:10 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:49:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shul Message-ID: Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points out. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Dec 27 11:49:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:49:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Amoraic statements Message-ID: Anyone know of any writings on how to think about Amoraic statements that are not sourced but very basic (i.e., why weren't they recorded earlier)? Two quick examples: 1.) Shmuel - dina dmalchuta dina (the law of the land controls), 2.) Rav-Tisha achlu dagan vechad achal yerek-mitztarphin.(9 who ate grain and 1 who ate greens combine[for a zimmun of 10]} 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 Dec 27 11:50:25 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 19:50:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sukkah Yeshana Message-ID: <0ba366bf435347f8ac060c596a575ca0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The Mishna in Sukkah (9a) discusses Sukkah Yeshana which one would have thought meant an old sukkah (schach) yet the discussion in the gemara indicates that it is an issue of lishma (intent). Why didn't the Mishna use the language of lishma? The gemara then posits a pasuk as the source of Beit Shammai's position, then asks doesn't he need that pasuk for something else, and replies ein hachi name (yes) and so quotes another pasuk instead. What was the point of Ravina/Rav Ashi including the rejected pasuk as part of the record? 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 seinfeld at jsli.org Sun Dec 30 09:44:16 2018 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:44:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, etc. Message-ID: > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because davening on > Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there are speeches, Me > Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people get restless. > Of couse there are other reasons why people talk as the article points > out. That's not why they talk. They talk because they saw their parents or other adults talk. They learned that talking is perfectly acceptable. The fact that the Shul has not followed the Mishna Berura and appointed people to end the talking merely reinforces the talkers' understanding that talking is OK. It's like asking why people cheat on their taxes. They don't cheat because they're greedy. We're all greedy. But the tax-cheaters don't have a red line. I admit sometimes the davvening is too long for me, and I get restless. But I never talk. And bli neder I won't davven in a shul where there are talkers, even if it's the only shul in town. Ruins it for me. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 18:45:48 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 21:45:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine posted: > Please see the article at https://goo.gl/fsMEir > IMO one of the reasons why people talk in shul is because > davening on Shabbos morning often takes a long time. If there > are speeches, Me Shebeirachs, announcements, etc, then people > get restless. If there were people who can keep quiet during the weekday minyanim, and only talk on Shabbos, then I would consider it to be a reasonable explanation. But in my experience, the same people talk regardless. If someone talks during a weekday maariv, then shaving twenty minutes off of the Shabbos morning won't prevent his restlessness. The authors of the linked article suggested: > Not talking until the conclusion of Chazaras HaShatz, including > the time between when we finish our silent Amidah and we are > waiting for the chazzan, is doable, it is realistic, it is a > fair expectation of those attending and it is the minimum to be > respectful of our friends and neighbors. Sadly, IMO that's not doable, and not realistic. I'd like to think that I'd be satisfied if they'd be quiet merely from when we finish our silent Amidah until the chazan begins. THAT is a minimum for being respectful of our friends and neighbors. They don't even have to be silent for a noticeable improvement. Halevai they would hold it down to a whisper. (And it doesn't count as a whisper if they can be heard 20 feet away.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 03:22:36 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 06:22:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Whether You Come to Talk to God, to Your Friends or to Both, Shul is a Place For You: A Measured Call Regarding Talking in Shu Message-ID: I should have concluded my previous post with this: Despite my pessimistic tone, I praise those who are working towards a solution. I have seen many corrective attempts fail, but that doesn't mean there's no way to fix it. Talking in shul is a serious problem, and I apologize if my frustration made it sound otherwise. Akiva Miller