Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 154

Wed, 10 Aug 2011

• 1. Origin and Chiyuvim of K'vater (Henry Topas)
• 2. Re: Cruetly to animals and shabbat (garry)
• 3. Re: GOD WHO KNOWS THE FUTURE (Harvey Benton)
• 4. what = a brit? (Harvey Benton)
• 5. tayku lists? categories available?? (Harvey Benton)
• 6. Re: shabbas//mishum eiva, etc??? (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: shabbas//mishum eiva, etc??? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: what = a brit? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: shabbas//mishum eiva, etc??? (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: what = a brit? (Zev Sero)
• 11. will the reasons shtim?? (Harvey Benton)
• 12. Do Women Need To Hear Eicha? (Chana Luntz)
• 13. Re: shabbas//mishum eiva, etc??? (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 14. Re: Do Women Need To Hear Eicha? (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: hillel/shammai, etc.....list please, (rules/exceptions (David Riceman)
• 16. shabbas//mishum eiva, etc??? (Chana Luntz)

Can anyone provide me with some sources for "Kvater" and advise whether it
is brought down anywhere whether this is purely a kibud or if any chiyuv is
attached.

Thank you and an easy rest of the fast.




Henry Topas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110809/53954ffe/attachment-0001.htm>

On 8/8/2011 8:47 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
>> So we don't rescue non-Jewish lives on Shabbos?

> Not if we can avoid it without causing eivah.  That's absolutely clear
> in Shulchan Aruch.

Eivah is precisely the issue.

[Email #2. Clearly there was a reply from RZS in between,
but for some reason this is the order it showed up in the
queue.
-micha]

On 8/8/2011 3:49 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Eivah is precisely the issue.

> Whose eivah?  The animals?  Are they going to start a pogrom against us?!
> Or are the goyim going to start killing Jews because we left an animal
> down a hole?!  In what country could that conceivably happen?

So eivah applies only to where the direct result is that we would be
killed? Issues like whether shechita would be forbidden and so forth
are not relevant?


[Email #3. -micha]

On 8/8/2011 4:20 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 8/08/2011 7:15 PM, garry wrote:
>> So eivah applies only to where the direct result is that we would be
>> killed?  Issues like whether shechita would be forbidden and so forth
>> are not relevant?

> Of course they're not relevant.  How can you be mechalel shabbos for 
> them?
> And do you imagine that until 1800 the goyim were such lovely friends of
> ours, and we didn't have to worry about them not liking us?  And yet the
> gemara and every single rishon and achron is clear that one may not heal
> them on shabbos, because they will accept our excuse that we only break
> shabbos to heal those who keep shabbos.

Then what's the test for eivah?


[Email #4. Another reply to an RZSpost that never went to queue. -micha]

On 8/8/2011 9:50 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Then what's the test for eivah?

> Who says there is a test?  You're reasoning from a very weak exception,
> as if it were a well-established halachic category.  But we *know* that
> at least until about 1800 eivah was *not* enough to allow breaking
> shabbos to heal goyim.  And we know things were not exactly friendly
> between us and the goyim during all that time.  But we relied on the
> fact that the goyim would accept our excuse that shabbos can only be
> broken for a shomer shabbos, and we didn't worry that they would be
> angry anyway.  That's a fact that you have to deal with.  The post-1800
> heter, and what changed, is obviously a lot less clear, but it's clearly
> an exception, not a rule, so you can't reason from it.

I'm not trying to reason from anything (yet), I'm simply trying to find
out what you see as the parameters of the post-1800 heter. Is it only
applicable to life-or-death situations?

Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 15:14:23 -0400
From: Richard Wolberg <cantorwolb...@cox.net>
> The analogy I like to give is that if you had an unedited video of someone's
> whole life, would that affect the choices that person made? Of course, not.
> The only difference here is that God already has the video of your life, but
> since God is not bound by time, He knows the choices you will make. From
> our point of understanding, we see the choices someone made after the fact.
> God sees it before. The 

i think a simpler solution might be in order....

i you happen to know that one of your children (or many of your children)
prefer chocolate ice cream over say vanilla and you presented the given
child (or children) a choice of flavors.......

you KNOW (based on past experience, etc) that he/she/they, will choose
the flavor that they prefer, and in this case it is chocolate......

it is not a matter of "seeing someting" it is simply a matter of knowing
something, which Hashem, as our creator, knows things about us......

what is a brit?
if it is 2-sided (eg we do our part, then Hashem will do his part)
then how can a "brit" be forced upon us??
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110809/d12a1ee3/attachment-0001.htm>

any characterization of lists of taykus by topic, halacha, 

amoraim, etc??
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110809/e2166c1c/attachment-0001.htm>

On 9/08/2011 5:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 04:42:49PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 9/08/2011 2:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> I do not know what specific use of "mishum eivah" RZS is referring to
>>> as bring modern.
>
>> The heter to break shabbos in order to save a nochri did not exist until
>> about 1800...
>
> See AZ 26a, R' Yosef says that a bas Yisrael may midwife for a nachris
> besekhar -- mishum eivah.

That's during the week, not on Shabbos!


> Abaye disagrees on the metzius of whether or
> not this is a likely cause of eivah, not on the halachic concept.

Yes, that is what we're talking about isn't it?


> But in any case, I don't think the idea is acharonic.

No, it's post-acharonic.


-- 
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

                    
                

On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 05:28:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> See AZ 26a, R' Yosef says that a bas Yisrael may midwife for a nachris
>> besekhar -- mishum eivah.

> That's during the week, not on Shabbos!

That's his first statement, then the gemara adds:
    Savar R' Yosef lemeimar aveladei aku"m beShabesa bisekhar shari
    mishum eiva.

...
>> But in any case, I don't think the idea is acharonic.

> No, it's post-acharonic.

I didn't even know there /was/ a post-acharonic, although I have argued
that history would someday draw a line at the Shoah.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 01:12:52PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: what is a brit?
: if it is 2-sided (eg we do our part, then Hashem will do his part)
: then how can a "brit" be forced upon us??

A beris is a covenant, not a contract. In a contract, each side gives
up something in exchange of getting something from the other party.
In a coveneant, the parties join together to accomplish some goal.

I guess it is possible for one party not to be asked whether or not
they want to commit to that goal.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 9/08/2011 5:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 05:28:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> See AZ 26a, R' Yosef says that a bas Yisrael may midwife for a nachris
>>> besekhar -- mishum eivah.
>
>> That's during the week, not on Shabbos!
>
> That's his first statement, then the gemara adds:
>      Savar R' Yosef lemeimar aveladei aku"m beShabesa bisekhar shari
>      mishum eiva.

Savar, but he didn't conclude that way, because there's no need.


>>> But in any case, I don't think the idea is acharonic.
>
>> No, it's post-acharonic.
>
> I didn't even know there /was/ a post-acharonic, although I have argued
> that history would someday draw a line at the Shoah.

The era of Acharonim is usually reckoned to have stopped at about 1800
or a bit earlier.  The Chasam Sofer is not an Acharon.


-- 
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

                    
                

On 9/08/2011 4:12 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> what is a brit?
> if it is 2-sided (eg we do our part, then Hashem will do his part)
> then how can a "brit" be forced upon us??

Why not?  Many of the most famous treaties of all times were imposed on
one side.  Germany didn't exactly volunteer to join the treaty of
Versailles, for instance.

-- 
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

                    
                

when the chacahmimin in the gemarra ask or say "may taima d'r'alazar" or 

mai "taima d'rab meir", did they actually know the reasons (in the heads
of the chachamim) that they are asking about?
eg, when techiyat hameitim comes, and we ask these tanaim, what there
real reasons were......
will they match?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110809/f7d6ddee/attachment-0001.htm>

RYL writes:

>  From http://revach.net/article.php?id=606
> 
> Rav Moshe Shternbuch: Do Women Need To Hear Eicha?
> 
> Reading Eicha is a major part of the aveilus of Tisha B'Av.  Rav
> Moshe Shternbuch says (2:250) that since women are Chayav in all the
> halachos of aveilus of Tisha B'Av, they are also required to hear
> Eicha. If they can not go to Shul they can say it sitting on the
> floor in the privacy of their own home.

This has been bothering me all the way through Tisha B'Av.

Firstly, as far as I was aware, recitation of Eicha is a minhag, not a
rabbinical enactment (unlike Megilla).  We don't make a bracha on its
recitation, for example.  In which case, surely whether or not women hear
Eicha is dependent on the local minhag, and my estimate of the local minhag
is that most married women with children do not hear it, although mileage
may vary.  I have never heard of a woman reciting it to fulfil "her
obligation" at home.

Secondly, even if we say that recitation is a rabbinical mitzvah, why should
a woman be chayav in it?  I thought the general consensus was with Tosphos
that even for rabbinic mitzvos, women are patur from mitzvos aseh shehazman
grama?  Megilla is a special exception amongst other special exceptions, but
why should Eicha be?  The fact that women may be obligated in the rabbinic
lo ta'asehs involved in Tisha B'Av, like with any other lo ta'asehs, doesn't
seem to me to automatically include the asehs. So I just don't understand
the above "since women are chayav in all the halachos of aveilus of Tisha
B'Av".   Why is this so, ie why and from where is it derived that this is
this yet another exception to the standard rule. In the case of Megilla, the
specific inclusion of women in the mitzvah is explicit in the gemora.  From
where do we see an explicit inclusion of women in the positive obligations
of tisha b'av, as opposed to the negative ones (like no eating, no drinking
etc etc)?

Regards

Chana
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 3410 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110810/d105b40e/attachment-0001.bin>

RMB:
I didn't even know there /was/ a post-acharonic, although I have argued
that history would someday draw a line at the Shoah.
------------------


afterward the era of the Roshei Yeshivos.

KT,
MYG

On 9/08/2011 7:24 PM, Chana Luntz wrote:
> Secondly, even if we say that recitation is a rabbinical mitzvah, why should
> a woman be chayav in it?  I thought the general consensus was with Tosphos
> that even for rabbinic mitzvos, women are patur from mitzvos aseh shehazman
> grama?  Megilla is a special exception amongst other special exceptions, but
> why should Eicha be?  The fact that women may be obligated in the rabbinic
> lo ta'asehs involved in Tisha B'Av, like with any other lo ta'asehs, doesn't
> seem to me to automatically include the asehs. So I just don't understand
> the above "since women are chayav in all the halachos of aveilus of Tisha
> B'Av".   Why is this so, ie why and from where is it derived that this is
> this yet another exception to the standard rule. In the case of Megilla, the
> specific inclusion of women in the mitzvah is explicit in the gemora.  From
> where do we see an explicit inclusion of women in the positive obligations
> of tisha b'av, as opposed to the negative ones (like no eating, no drinking
> etc etc)?

Af hein hayu be'otah pur`anut.  If there were a "chiyuv" on men then it
should logically apply to women too.  But I agree with you that there is
no chiyuv on men either.

-- 
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

                    
                

RHB:

<<does someone have a list for me please on the rules for following 
talmudic tannaim and amoraim shitas?, eg rav, shmuel, abayee/ravva, etc??>>

Try Halichos Olam and its commentaries Klalei HaGemara and Yavin Shmua.  
Alternatively try Tshovos Havos Yair # 94.

David Riceman

> could someone please explain to me the process of how and why and when
> the chachamim are allowed to enact, or go around, clear midoraisa
> guidelines???

Your question is much wider than the title of the posting would suggest -
and in fact what you need is a book to answer this, not anything that can be
done justice to in a posting.  In such a book, here are some of the chapter
headings you would need:

a) a discussion of the differences between d'orisa asehs (positive
commandments) and lo ta'asehs (negative commandments).  The former is much
easier to "enact or go around" than the latter on the basis that telling
somebody to shev v'al ta'aseh (sit and not do something) is very different
to telling them to act to violate a prohibition.  An example of an enactment
vis a vis d'orisa aseh is the rabbinical prohibition on blowing shofer on
shabbas

b) once you are in the realm of aseh's the gemora in Brachos 19b- 20a seems
to suggest that the principle of kovod habrios allows you to shev v'al
ta'aseh even for a aseh d'orisa.

c) even where you are talking about lo ta'asehs, "going around" is often not
considered a problem.  Of course the most famous case of going around is
prozbul, ie a going around of the requirement to cancel personal loans in
shmitta, but similarly sale of chametz (which is clearly preventing the
violation of a negative prohibition) is another.

d) When we are talking about monetary matters, there are other reasons to be
lenient.  As well as the aforementioned Brochos 19b suggesting that there
are exceptions for kovod habriyos vis a vis monetary matters, there is a
general principle of hefker beis din hefker, that beis din has the power to
take away somebody's property that they own on a d'orisa level and give it
to somebody else.  A classic case of this is making found objects the
property of minors, where they would not be on a d'orisa level.

e) another principle which is invoked periodically is eis la'asos - the idea
that there may be times when chazal are specifically empowered to violate
d'orisas. While mostly this is seen as only applying for limited situations
and time periods, eg Eliyahu sacrificing on har carmel, outside the beis
hamikdash, which is a one off, there is of course the writing down of Torah
She Ba'al Peh, which would seem to be, or have the effect of, extending
throughout time.

f) there are also specific areas where the chachamim have been given powers.
One of these is, for example, kiddushin, on the understanding that kiddushin
takes place according to the daas of the rabbanan and therefore (at least in
limited circumstances) they have the power to annul the kiddushin.  There
are other areas where at least certain rishonic and achronic understanding
are that the chachamim were given powers to legislate that effectively make
d'orisas, such as in relation to shiurim.

> eg, mishum eiva saving an aino""yehudi, etc, {or is that not a
> midoraisa???};?

Your heading refers specifically to shabbas here, but this question appears
to be even more general than shabbas.  Outside of shabbas, I'm not sure that
such saving would violate any d'orisas, moridin v'ain ma'alin (if it applies
at all to people today) does not seem to be a d'orisa, the only d'orisa
would seem to be in relation to the seven nations.

Once you get into d'rabbanans, then there are a whole host more principles
that clearly permit or override or where the chachamim were not gozer in the
case of, or were gozer in the other direction contradicting, d'rabbanans.
Mishum Aiver is one of them, but there are lots of others, everything from
hefsed merubah, b'mkom tzar etc etc.  Again all of these overreaching
principles have rules and applications where they are used, which is why you
need a book.

If you are talking about shabbas specifically, then I would agree with RZS
here that the real underlying principle is pikuach nefesh.  We push aside
even d'orisas where there is even a remote safek of pikuach nefesh, and it
is the characterisation of the result of the aiveh leading to pikuach nefesh
risks that allows for d'orisa shabbas violations where there is no
alternative.

Regards
Chana



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 154
***************************************

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..."