Volume 28: Number 139
Tue, 19 Jul 2011
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:43:57 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] beis shammai chanukah??
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 02:44:01PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 19/07/2011 12:35 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
>> we hold for some reason that we
>> need to put them in the opposite
>> order than lighting
> Huh? Since when?
If RHB means the order we add to the menorah from one day to the next
(as opposed to the order we actually put the lights in each night)...
See the BY (OC 676), citing the Terumas haDeshen, showing that this is
a machloqes and different communities do differently.
The Mordechai and Mahariq say that candles are added to the menorah from
right to left and lighting procedes from left to right. The SA advocates
this shita (se'if 5), as does the Darkhei Moshe besheim the Maharil.
The Terumas haDeshen would have you light from right to left, or (shitah
2) from the light which is within a tefach of the entrence.
I presume therefore that RHB is referring to the well populated first
shitah.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:52:09 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] dina demalchuta
On 19/07/2011 4:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 03:28:52PM -0400, I wrote:
> : Let's see, in the post to which you're replying, I mention Rashi's
> : obligation to follow all secular laws that are legislated in fulfillment
> : of the 7 mitzvos...
>
> I was referring to Gittin 9b, d"h "kesheirin" and "chutz migitei nashim".
>
> The gemara (top of the amud) says that contract be'arka'os shel aku",
> even if signed by aku"m are kesheirim, chutz migitei nashim veshikhrurei
> avadaim.
>
> Rashi:
> kesheirin: deDDD, ve'af al pi shehanoshein vehameqabeil Yisraelim
> heim
> chutz migitei nashim: because they aren't benei kerisus, they aren't
> shaykhi in Toras gitin veqidushin,
> aval al hadinim nitztavu benei Noach...
> (and then Rashi discusses why get shichrur)
>
> Pretty clear -- the reason why their contracts are binding is because
> DDD includes "hadinim nitzavu benei Noach".
Not "includes"; is included. Dinim is the 7th mitzvah.
> The gemara happens to be
> an application to dinei mamunus, but Rashi's reason for why it works
> includes everything the 7BMN makes applicable to them in general.
And this is completely irrelevant. All Rashi says is that their
contracts are valid, because the 7MBN obligate them to keep their
contracts. How do you get from there to an obligation to obey their
laws, or to a prohibition on breaking them? You still haven't crossed
the gap between Shmuel's statement and this proposition.
> Not only R' Broyde (whose article I was summarizing in the post I linked
> to earlier this thread) reads it that way. RHS has a similar understanding
> of Rashi (Nidah 61a), that had Rabbi Tarfon actually determined the guilt
> of the Jews who asked them to hide him, he would have been obligated
> to turn them in.
Nonsense. Rashi doesn't mention the idea of turning them in; the only
options R Tarfon considered were hiding them or not hiding them. Rashi
merely explains why, if they were guilty, he would not want to save them,
and Tosfos explains that he was afraid that if he hid them and they
turned out to be guilty he'd be putting himself in danger.
--
Zev Sero If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
return to all the places that have been given to them.
- Yitzchak Rabin
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:15:20 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] dina demalchuta
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 04:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Pretty clear -- the reason why their contracts are binding is because
>> DDD includes "hadinim nitzavu benei Noach".
> Not "includes"; is included. Dinim is the 7th mitzvah.
DDD is the Jewish obligation to follow their dinim, or as Rashi puts it
explaining R' Tarfon, our obligation of uvi'arta hara'ah miqirbekha.
However, this is tangential. You appear to be agreeing that any law passed
under the 7th MBN is included under DDD.
>> The gemara happens to be
>> an application to dinei mamunus, but Rashi's reason for why it works
>> includes everything the 7BMN makes applicable to them in general.
> And this is completely irrelevant. All Rashi says is that their
> contracts are valid, because the 7MBN obligate them to keep their
> contracts...
No, because 7MBN obligates them in the topic of the contract. A get
is a contract, but they aren't included in the concept of qiddushin,
so that's irrelevent. And notice his rationale is that contract law is
just one small instance and anything 7MBN obligates them to address in
their courts would be included.
> laws, or to a prohibition on breaking them? You still haven't crossed
> the gap between Shmuel's statement and this proposition.
Rashi explicitly does. You're wiggling a peshat into Rashi was that
neither ever given before nor fits the words. He says the only reason
why gittin are excepted is because they aren't within 7MBN. He doesn't
limit the rule to contracts, he excludes from a general principle those
mitzvos that can't be chal on benei Noach.
>> Not only R' Broyde (whose article I was summarizing in the post I linked
>> to earlier this thread) reads it that way. RHS has a similar understanding
>> of Rashi (Nidah 61a), that had Rabbi Tarfon actually determined the guilt
>> of the Jews who asked them to hide him, he would have been obligated
>> to turn them in.
> Rashi doesn't mention the idea of turning them in; the only
> options R Tarfon considered were hiding them or not hiding them. Rashi
> merely explains why, if they were guilty, he would not want to save them,
> and Tosfos explains that he was afraid that if he hid them and they
> turned out to be guilty he'd be putting himself in danger.
That's Tosafos, not Rashi. Rashi doesn't give a pragmatic reason, he
gives a halachic one. RHS points out that this indicates a machloqes
between them.
And it's RHS who says that Rashi would consider it an obligation,
not I. See <http://download.yutorah.org/1981/1053/735655.pdf> pg 120
(18th pg in the pdf) - 122. You take on R' Uzziel, RHS and R' Broyde
without any fear of being wrong. As I said above, it strikes me that
you're wiggling a peshat into Rashi that was neither ever given before
nor fits the words. Perhaps the reason why debating this feels like
you're banging your head against the wall is because indeed, you're
trying to support the unsupportable.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:25:26 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] TWO COMPELLING QUESTIONS
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 02:08:06PM -0400, Richard Wolberg wrote:
:> Wouldn't "vedibartem" refer to Moshe and Aharon, not the entire Benei
:> Yisrael? In which case, planning while walking to the rock wasn't too
:> onerous.
: The Pasuk clearly commands Moshe to gather the eidah together with
: him and Aharon. The fact that the eidah is mentioned first and then
: followed by v'dibartem is even a stronger reason to believe that they
: were all commanded to speak to the rock....
: If that were the case, it would have been more logical to say:
: "gather the eidah," etc."and you and Aharon speak to the rock."
But isn't Moshe explicitly told that they were to be an audience,
"vedibarta el hassela "le'eineihem*" (Bamidbar 20:8)?
: Also, you didn't address the question that they were told to speak to
: the rock but they weren't told WHAT TO SAY.
Although I did mention the Ibn Ezra's explanation that they were expected
to sing shirah. Moshe did pretty well writing "Az Yashir" and "Haazinu"
himself. I don't think it's presumable that Moshe found this frustrating.
And I also mentioned that I would be inclined to assign a source of
frustration and anger that is implied in Moshe's words over one that
isn't, giving two candidates. Given another source of frustration,
what is the motive for positing that the lack of detail about what to
say was a second? We don't need a second motive for his anger.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:51:58 EDT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] is this muttar?
>>That said, I would agree that if this kidnapping (1) actually occured,
>>and (2) was a BD-ordered "kofin oso ad sheyomar rotzeh ani", DDD wouldn't
>>trump halakhah.
==============================================================
Do our batei dinim have the power to order corporal punishment? If so, my
guess would be that it's from the power of the melech, not the traditional
beit din. If so, I'm not sure that DMD (at least according to those who
see it going beyond monetary issues) wouldn't trump.
KT
Joel Rich
>>>>>
In this particular case we're not talking about corporal punishment, which
a person would be sentenced to as /punishment/ after being convicted of a
crime or a sin.
We are talking about using force -- I don't think it matters what kind of
force, whether a beating, or just being held somewhere against his will --
to make someone do something that he doesn't want to do. The "something" he
doesn't want to do is free a captive -- his own former wife.
You could definitely make a case that freeing a captive (the ex-wife)
trumps dina demalchusa and doesn't need the authority of a king, or of anyone.
The only reason you'd need a bais din, or at least the approval of a very
well-respected rav, in my understanding, is that under certain
circumstances a get given under duress is not halachically valid, so you would need to
know that after you had forced the man to release his wife, she really was
free.
To repeat, dina demalchusa would not apply in the case of freeing a
captive, and corporal "punishment" also is not an issue here.
A separate issue would be, who has the responsibility or even the right to
put /himself/ at risk -- risk of incarceration, police record, monetary
loss, etc -- in order to save an agunah? That's a different, possibly even
more complicated question.
--Toby Katz
================
_____________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110719/1b2ff72c/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:33:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] dina demalchuta
On 19/07/2011 5:15 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 04:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> Pretty clear -- the reason why their contracts are binding is because
>>> DDD includes "hadinim nitzavu benei Noach".
>
>> Not "includes"; is included. Dinim is the 7th mitzvah.
>
> DDD is the Jewish obligation to follow their dinim
No, it is *not*. Where do you see any reference to an obligation?
> or as Rashi puts it
> explaining R' Tarfon, our obligation of uvi'arta hara'ah miqirbekha.
Rashi does *not* put it that way; you are simply making that up out of
thin air.
> However, this is tangential. You appear to be agreeing that any law passed
> under the 7th MBN is included under DDD.
No, I'm not saying that. I don't even know what you mean by "included
under".
>>> The gemara happens to be
>>> an application to dinei mamunus, but Rashi's reason for why it works
>>> includes everything the 7BMN makes applicable to them in general.
>
>> And this is completely irrelevant. All Rashi says is that their
>> contracts are valid, because the 7MBN obligate them to keep their
>> contracts...
>
> No, because 7MBN obligates them in the topic of the contract.
What does that mean? What is "the topic of the contract", and where do
you see that in Rashi?
> A get is a contract
No, it isn't. What's it a contract *for*?
> but they aren't included in the concept of qiddushin,
> so that's irrelevent. And notice his rationale is that contract law is
> just one small instance and anything 7MBN obligates them to address in
> their courts would be included.
Again, where in Rashi do you see that? And "included in" *what*?
Contracts are not "included" in dinim, they *are* dinim, and Rashi points
out that Shmuel says their dinim are valid. Rashi then explains that
the difference between contracts and gittin is that they're benei chiyuva
in one and not the other.
>> laws, or to a prohibition on breaking them? You still haven't crossed
>> the gap between Shmuel's statement and this proposition.
>
> Rashi explicitly does.
Explicitly?! He doesn't even cross it implicitly. You have not yet
quoted a Rashi *anywhere* that says or implies any such thing. Not one
single Rashi you have quoted says it, or implies it, or even indirectly
alludes to it. Go on, show me a Rashi that says we (or they, for that
matter) must obey their laws, or are prohibited from breaking them.
> You're wiggling a peshat into Rashi was that neither ever given before
> nor fits the words.
That's exactly what you are repeatedly doing.
> He says the only reason why gittin are excepted
Excepted from what? You mean the reason why their gittin are not valid.
> is because they aren't within 7MBN. He doesn't
> limit the rule to contracts, he excludes from a general principle those
> mitzvos that can't be chal on benei Noach.
Huh? What general principle? There is no general principle, there's
just a distinction between two different kinds of documents. Those
documents in which they are benei chiyuva are valid, those in which they
are not are invalid. What principle do you see here? And more
importantly, where do you see any hint of an obligation or a prohibition?
>
>>> Not only R' Broyde (whose article I was summarizing in the post I linked
>>> to earlier this thread) reads it that way. RHS has a similar understanding
>>> of Rashi (Nidah 61a), that had Rabbi Tarfon actually determined the guilt
>>> of the Jews who asked them to hide him, he would have been obligated
>>> to turn them in.
>
>> Rashi doesn't mention the idea of turning them in; the only
>> options R Tarfon considered were hiding them or not hiding them. Rashi
>> merely explains why, if they were guilty, he would not want to save them,
>> and Tosfos explains that he was afraid that if he hid them and they
>> turned out to be guilty he'd be putting himself in danger.
>
> That's Tosafos, not Rashi. Rashi doesn't give a pragmatic reason, he
> gives a halachic one. RHS points out that this indicates a machloqes
> between them.
Tosfos is *explaining* the Rashi, not arguing. And Rashi does *not*
mention a single word about turning them in. Rashi doesn't say what
sort of reason he's giving.
> And it's RHS who says that Rashi would consider it an obligation,
> not I. See <http://download.yutorah.org/1981/1053/735655.pdf> pg 120
> (18th pg in the pdf) - 122.
I just looked there, and RHS does *not* say that there's a machlokes,
or that Rashi would obligate R Tarfon to turn them in. Not only are you
putting words in Rashi's mouth, you're putting them in RHS's as well.
> Perhaps the reason why debating this feels like
> you're banging your head against the wall is because indeed, you're
> trying to support the unsupportable.
Not at all. I know my position is logical; I keep demanding that you
explain the logical basis your position and you keep evading and
asserting. Once again, Shmuel makes a very simple statement: that
the kingdom's dinim are valid. If we have any doubt what that means,
we can look at the four examples in Shas where he is quoted, and
extrapolate from them. But somehow you and several others have derived
from these simple words an obligation to obey the law, and a prohibition
on breaking the law. And I keep challenging you to show *how* you have
derived it. It came to its starkest earlier today, when RLL simply
asserted out of the blue that that is what the words mean! Pretty much
my entire point is that the words *don't* mean that, and you need some
sort of logical process to get there from the words.
--
Zev Sero If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
return to all the places that have been given to them.
- Yitzchak Rabin
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:16:17 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Women and Tefillin
R' Micha Berger wrote:
> In any case, I assumed we were talking about wearing her tzitzis
> out, or wearing a tallis. Undergarments are explicitly excluded
> from keli gever.
Much of the recent discussion here has mentioned that Beged Isha and Keli
Gever go beyond actual clothing, but are still relevant specifically to
things done for appearance. For example, RMB wrote:
> Simlas ishah can be violated by dying one's hair, plucking, etc.. It
> is not an issur cheftzah. Wearing tzitzis, when such is only done by
> men, could well be a violation of keli gever.
So far, all of the examples given have to do with appearance. Plucking
hairs is not clothing, but is it an appearance-related thing which only
women do. A weapon is not clothing, but if a woman wears it, she looks more
manly. Underwear, and shaving certain body parts, should not be seen by the
public, but they do change one's appearance, albeit invisibly.
An exception to all this is use of a mirror. It does not apply to us in our
society, but once there were societies where men simply did not look in a
mirror without a practical purpose. Mechaber and Rama (YD 156:2) both agree
that in such a society, looking in a mirror by a man would constitute Lo
Yilbash Gever.
At first thought, I was going to concede that this is still an
appearance-related act. After all, personal grooming is much easier with a
mirror, and I can easily imagine a man telling his friend (in another
century), "Wow, you look nice today. Did you use a mirror?"
But then I reviewed the exceptions listed by the Rama. He specifically
allows using a mirror to clean a stain from one's face, or to remove a
feather from one's head. This leads me to suspect that (in those societies
where men don't use a mirror) the issur is purely against the mere looking
in the mirror itself, even if he is not doing this to improve his
appearance.
If so, then perhaps we have evidence here that Kli Gever and Beged Isha are
independent of clothing and appearance, but are defined in terms of "That's
something that your gender simply doesn't do."
Or maybe I've misunderstood the halachos of the mirror.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e26027c1e0bdc0a0ast06vuc
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:28:09 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] dina demalchuta
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 06:33:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> Not "includes"; is included. Dinim is the 7th mitzvah.
>> DDD is the Jewish obligation to follow their dinim
> No, it is *not*. Where do you see any reference to an obligation?
DDD is not an obligation? You want to say it's an issur against violating
their dinim? No problem. But also, a distinction without a difference --
you can't tell from Shemu'el's words whether it's an asei or a lav.
Personally, given RHS's tying this all to uvi'arta hara miqirbekha, I
would go with asei.
>> or as Rashi puts it
>> explaining R' Tarfon, our obligation of uvi'arta hara'ah miqirbekha.
> Rashi does *not* put it that way; you are simply making that up out of
> thin air.
I am not making anything up -- in fact, I gave you a URL and page number
within the article for you to see where RHS says it. Now, you might,
impiously, say that RHS made it up. But given that he is one of the
planet's noted posqim, I'll take his word about what the chiyuv/issur
is over yours.
At least read the thing and argue against his points.
Using forceful language like "you are simply making that up" or last
post's "nonsense" doesn't make you more right. And actually, to many
readers, it sound like you're invoking the lawyer's proverbial last
argument. ("When you don't have the facts, hammer the law; when you don't
have the law, hammer the facts; if you don't have the facts or the law,
hammer the table.")
>> However, this is tangential. You appear to be agreeing that any law passed
>> under the 7th MBN is included under DDD.
> No, I'm not saying that. I don't even know what you mean by "included
> under".
Our chiyuv/issur of DDD includes our compliance with any law passed under
the 7th MBN. That's an implication of either of our reads of the Rashi
in Gittin.
>>>> The gemara happens to be
>>>> an application to dinei mamunus, but Rashi's reason for why it works
>>>> includes everything the 7BMN makes applicable to them in general.
>>> And this is completely irrelevant. All Rashi says is that their
>>> contracts are valid, because the 7MBN obligate them to keep their
>>> contracts...
>> No, because 7MBN obligates them in the topic of the contract.
> What does that mean? What is "the topic of the contract", and where do
> you see that in Rashi?
I already posted the Rashi:
...ho'il velo shaykhi betoras gitin veqidushin
aval al hadinim nitztavu benei Noach...
So, a shetar that makes terms of dinei mamunus is binding, not because DDD
is binding, but because mamunus is one of the dinim nitztavu BN.
>> A get is a contract
> No, it isn't. What's it a contract *for*?
I should have stuck to "shetar" rather than contract.
The gemara's whole point is to explain that what true for most shetaros
isn't true for a get or a shetar shichrur. Which other gemaros call a
"get shichrur", because the two words "shetar" and "get" are synonyms. See
also the mishnah on BB 160a, which uses "get" to mean "shetar". Look at
the whole discussion on Gittin 10b-11a, comparing get with other shetaros.
>> but they aren't included in the concept of qiddushin,
>> so that's irrelevent. And notice his rationale is that contract law is
>> just one small instance and anything 7MBN obligates them to address in
>> their courts would be included.
> Again, where in Rashi do you see that? And "included in" *what*?
In our chiyuv or issur of DDD, obviously. Isn't that the topic we and the
Rashi discussing?
> Contracts are not "included" in dinim, they *are* dinim, and Rashi points
> out that Shmuel says their dinim are valid. Rashi then explains that
> the difference between contracts and gittin is that they're benei chiyuva
> in one and not the other.
Dinim that benei Noach were commanded in includes AZ, shefichas damim,
mamunus, eiver min hachai, and having a safe society. Not just contracts.
>>> laws, or to a prohibition on breaking them? You still haven't crossed
>>> the gap between Shmuel's statement and this proposition.
>> Rashi explicitly does.
> Explicitly?! He doesn't even cross it implicitly. You have not yet
> quoted a Rashi *anywhere* that says or implies any such thing...
Only every acharon I quoted thinks so, I showed you the word I believe say so,
and all you do is quibble about wording that don't actually provide another
interpretation. Like not knowing what I was saying a set of laws would be
included in in a discussion of the legal scope of DDD. Or further down,
"excepted from what".
Give a word-by-word explanation of what YOU think Rashi is saying. Stop
pounding the table and say what you think and where you get it from.
>> You're wiggling a peshat into Rashi was that neither ever given before
>> nor fits the words.
> That's exactly what you are repeatedly doing.
Except I haven't given my own peshat, and you haven't show how it
doesn't fit.
>> is because they aren't within 7MBN. He doesn't
>> limit the rule to contracts, he excludes from a general principle those
>> mitzvos that can't be chal on benei Noach.
> Huh? What general principle? There is no general principle, there's
> just a distinction between two different kinds of documents....
No, he distinguishes between gitin and qiddushin on one hand and the
mitzvos benei Noach are obligated in, which are subject to DDD. Since
the 7th mitzvah is to have a just society, that's pretty general.
...
>> And it's RHS who says that Rashi would consider it an obligation,
>> not I. See <http://download.yutorah.org/1981/1053/735655.pdf> pg 120
>> (18th pg in the pdf) - 122.
> I just looked there, and RHS does *not* say that there's a machlokes,
From page 121, "The reason why Tosafot and the Sheiltot did not interpret
Rabbi Tarfon's comment the same way Rashi did, ..."
> Not at all. I know my position is logical; I keep demanding that you
> explain the logical basis your position and you keep evading and
> asserting...
I am trying to explain my position. YOu haven't cited a source, interpret
a Rashi, and your only quote of one of my secondary sources was to show
you missed the line I was referring to.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:27:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] dina demalchuta
On 19/07/2011 9:28 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 06:33:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>>> Not "includes"; is included. Dinim is the 7th mitzvah.
>
>>> DDD is the Jewish obligation to follow their dinim
>
>> No, it is *not*. Where do you see any reference to an obligation?
>
> DDD is not an obligation? You want to say it's an issur against violating
> their dinim?
No, it's neither one. Not unless you show me a source that derives
such an obligation or prohibition from it. This is what I've been
saying all along. (And this is quite besides the whole chakira over
when DDD applies. I'm talking about Shevur Malka's regime, to which
Shmuel was explicitly referring.)
> No problem. But also, a distinction without a difference --
> you can't tell from Shemu'el's words whether it's an asei or a lav.
You can tell that it's neither one.
>>> or as Rashi puts it
>>> explaining R' Tarfon, our obligation of uvi'arta hara'ah miqirbekha.
>
>> Rashi does *not* put it that way; you are simply making that up out of
>> thin air.
>
> I am not making anything up -- in fact, I gave you a URL and page number
> within the article for you to see where RHS says it.
You claimed that *Rashi* put it that way. He didn't. In fact DDD is
irrelevant to that whole sugya. The only question is whether one is
permitted to save a rasha, especially at risk to oneself. The gemara
doesn't even identify who was pursuing these alleged murderers; I don't
know where you got the idea that it was the government, because that's
just not there. It could just as easily have been the victim's friends
and relatives, or the mafia, or anybody.
>>> However, this is tangential. You appear to be agreeing that any law passed
>>> under the 7th MBN is included under DDD.
>
>> No, I'm not saying that. I don't even know what you mean by "included
>> under".
>
> Our chiyuv/issur of DDD includes our compliance with any law passed
> under the 7th MBN.
*What* chiyuv/issur? I maintain that there is no such thing.
> That's an implication of either of our reads of the Rashi in Gittin.
It certainly is not! I don't see how *anybody* can read such a thing
into that Rashi. *All* Rashi says is that if Reuven comes into Beit Din
with a document from a non-Jewish court, signed by non-Jewish witnesses,
attesting that Shimon owes him 100 dinar, Shimon cannot challenge its
validity on that basis. Since Bnei Noach are commanded to have courts,
those courts' documents have facial validity. That's all he says, and
how you derive what you said I don't understand.
>> What does that mean? What is "the topic of the contract", and where do
>> you see that in Rashi?
>
> I already posted the Rashi:
> ...ho'il velo shaykhi betoras gitin veqidushin
> aval al hadinim nitztavu benei Noach...
>
> So, a shetar that makes terms of dinei mamunus is binding, not because DDD
> is binding, but because mamunus is one of the dinim nitztavu BN.
What?!!! That is the exact opposite of what Rashi said just a line
earlier. The shtar is valid (*not* "binding"; that's not the question
the gemara is discussing) because DDD. That *is* explicit in Rashi,
you can't ignore it. Then Rashi explains why gittin are different;
one is a shtar and the other is a shtar, so if you accept one why not
the other? And he explains that they are commanded on dinim, so their
dinim are valid; they're not commanded on marriage and divorce, so their
divorce decrees are mere pieces of paper.
>>> but they aren't included in the concept of qiddushin,
>>> so that's irrelevent. And notice his rationale is that contract law is
>>> just one small instance and anything 7MBN obligates them to address in
>>> their courts would be included.
>
>> Again, where in Rashi do you see that? And "included in" *what*?
>
> In our chiyuv or issur of DDD, obviously. Isn't that the topic we and the
> Rashi discussing?
*NO*. The gemara and Rashi are discussing the validity of shtaros.
Nothing else.
>> Contracts are not "included" in dinim, they *are* dinim, and Rashi points
>> out that Shmuel says their dinim are valid. Rashi then explains that
>> the difference between contracts and gittin is that they're benei chiyuva
>> in one and not the other.
>
> Dinim that benei Noach were commanded in includes AZ, shefichas damim,
> mamunus, eiver min hachai, and having a safe society. Not just contracts.
No, no, no, no, no. Those are *not* dinim. Where did you get such an
idea?! How is "don't murder" a din? What has it got to do with dinim?
If they are dinim, then what is the 7th mitzvah?
> Give a word-by-word explanation of what YOU think Rashi is saying.
I just have. All I'm doing is translating the words, and not going
beyond them. DDD is a huge chidush, an enormous chiddush. Shmuel
gives no source, and no explanation. The reason is so obscure that the
rishonim have to make wild guesses as to what it might be, which is why
their answers are all over the map. And the fundamental rule about any
chiddush is that you cannot extend it beyond what it says. Shmuel
doesn't say anything about obligations or prohibitions, and though the
gemara cites him several times, in different cases, none of them imply
an obligation or prohibition. So anyone who asserts that such a thing
exists must prove it.
>> Huh? What general principle? There is no general principle, there's
>> just a distinction between two different kinds of documents....
>
> No, he distinguishes between gitin and qiddushin on one hand and the
> mitzvos benei Noach are obligated in, which are subject to DDD.
You have that exactly backwards. The 7MBN are not "subject" to DDD.
> Since the 7th mitzvah is to have a just society
No, it isn't. It's to have dinim. Courts, resolving disputes with
their decisions. Laying down rules deciding who owns what. And it is
those dinim which Shmuel says are valid and admissible in Beis Din.
>>> And it's RHS who says that Rashi would consider it an obligation,
>>> not I. See<http://download.yutorah.org/1981/1053/735655.pdf> pg 120
>>> (18th pg in the pdf) - 122.
>
>> I just looked there, and RHS does *not* say that there's a machlokes,
>
>> From page 121, "The reason why Tosafot and the Sheiltot did not interpret
>> Rabbi Tarfon's comment the same way Rashi did, ..."
And look further, where he says there's no machlokes. And there's *no*
mention of any notion that R Tarfon should ever have turned the alleged
murderers in.
--
Zev Sero If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
return to all the places that have been given to them.
- Yitzchak Rabin
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:37:16 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] dina demalchuta
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:27:52PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> DDD is not an obligation? You want to say it's an issur against violating
>> their dinim?
>
> No, it's neither one. Not unless you show me a source that derives
> such an obligation or prohibition from it...
Then what are you saying DDD is, if Shemu'el was neither telling us
what to do, nor what not to do?
...
>>>> or as Rashi puts it
>>>> explaining R' Tarfon, our obligation of uvi'arta hara'ah miqirbekha.
>>
>>> Rashi does *not* put it that way; you are simply making that up out of
>>> thin air.
>>
>> I am not making anything up -- in fact, I gave you a URL and page number
>> within the article for you to see where RHS says it.
>
> You claimed that *Rashi* put it that way. He didn't...
I repeated other's claims -- R' Broyde and RHS, because they happened
to convince me. Thus saying I made things up meant you didn't catch
that I didn't say anything I considered new.
> The only question is whether one is
> permitted to save a rasha, especially at risk to oneself...
The only question I'm interested in is how you read the Rashi so as
to reach a different conclusion than the one I gave. So take a step
back, stop trying to distract people by picking nits, stop trying
to refute my points, and present your thesis.
Until then, I have nothing to contribute. Right now, I have what I believe
is peshat in Rashi as given by people whose opinion of what DDD requires
is more authoritative than yours. Avodah, though, is not a place to just
play authority games, so explain your position.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@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)
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:32:06 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] is this muttar?
On 19/07/2011 5:51 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
>We are talking about using force [...] to make someone do something
> that he doesn't want to do. The "something" he doesn't want to do is
> free a captive -- his own former wife.
> You could definitely make a case that freeing a captive (the ex-wife)
> trumps dina demalchusa and doesn't need the authority of a king, or
> of anyone. The only reason you'd need a bais din, or at least the
> approval of a very well-respected rav, in my understanding, is that
> under certain circumstances a get given under duress is not halachically
> valid, so you would need to know that after you had forced the man to
> release his wife, she really was free.
On the contrary, a get given under duress is *always* invalid. What a
person may be forced to do is obey a legitimate order of a Beis Din, no
matter what it is. In this case, the order is to give a get. When the
BD themselves are applying the force this distinction isn't so important,
because one implies the other. But when the force is being applied by
goyim, then the distinction becomes crucial: the goyim must be careful
only to order him to obey the BD, and never to order him to give the get.
If they order him to give the get, then it is pasul.
--
Zev Sero If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
return to all the places that have been given to them.
- Yitzchak Rabin
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: "Poppers, Michael" <MPopp...@kayescholer.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:39:59 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rinsing Your Mouth & Brushing Teeth On A Taanis
In Avodah V28n137, RDrYL noted:
> From http://revach.net/article.php?id=4252
> Piskei Tshuvos: Rinsing Your Mouth & Brushing Teeth On A Taanis
> With regard to rinsing your mouth on a Taanis Tzibur, the Michaber
(567:3) says you should not do so. The Mishna Brura says that if
this causes you Tzaar, you may rinse your mouth but you should be
sure to keep your head bent over so you don't swallow. On Tisha
B'Av, the Mishna Brura says you may only do so if your are in great
Tzaar. On Yom Kippur you must totally refrain from this.
> Similarly, says the Piskei Tshuvos based on the Minchas Yitzchok
(4:109), L'Chatchila you should not brush your teeth on a Taanis
Tzibur, even without water, unless you are in Tzaar. If you are in
Tzaar, you may do so even with water. And again he cautions if you
do so, make sure to bend your head down when rinsing so that you
don't swallow any water.
> ----------
> There is no mention above of the Tzaar caused to others by the bad
breath of someone who has not rinsed his or her mouth with mouthwash
or brushed his/her teeth. I can only wonder why this is not a
consideration in the above discussion. YL <
Two thoughts:
-- If you're causing someone else tza'ar, the remedy of removing yourself
(or the person experiencing tza'ar removing himself) from the scene is
available. Removing your mouth (or teeth) from your face is not a
generally-available remedy/option.
-- Water is a mashqeh. Mouthwash may not be -- if so, perhaps one could
use mouthwash on a ta'anis in circumstances where using water would be
considered problematic.
All the best from
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 23:07:02 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] is this muttar?
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:32:06PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On the contrary, a get given under duress is *always* invalid. What a
> person may be forced to do is obey a legitimate order of a Beis Din, no
> matter what it is....
I would like to be mechadeish a new explanation, based on the Rambam's
explanation of kofin oso ad sheyomar "rotzeh ani".
A get must be based on ratzon habaal. If the get is only given because
of kefiyah, it's a get anusah. However, in the case of an obligatory get,
the baal has a ratzon to give a get because of his innate desire to comply
to halakhah. It's "just" that there is a competing, greater ratzon for
something else. The buried ratzon is sufficient to make the get valid,
but since he won't act on it, kofin oso until he does.
A true get anusah is only given because of the compulsion; it's
invalid not mitzad oneis, but because there is no way of presuming the
get's prerequisite ratzon exists.
The Rambam appears to say this at the end of Geirushin 2:20 (the section
which is 2:18 in the Teimani edition):
Lefikakh, mi she'eino rotzeh ligareish
mei'achar shehu rotzeh lihyos miYisrael... veyitzro hu shetokfo.
Vekheivan shehukah as shetashash yitzro ve'omer "rotzeh ani"
kevar geirash lirtzono.
Sound to me like the get is valid because "geirash lirtzono" is satisfied
even then it's the buried ratzon of his wanting to be a good Jew. "Rotzeh
ani" is only to display what it buried for the dayan to be able to act
upon it. (Rather than something like devarim shebaleiv.)
What does the chevrah think; plausible?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 139
***************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."