Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 54

Fri, 29 Mar 2013

• 1. Who Brings the Chatos? Who may argue with BD? (Meir Rabi)
• 2. Re: Kitniyot (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Dates (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Minhagim for Baalei Teshuva (Akiva Blum)
• 5. Why learn Chassidut (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Re: Why learn Chassidut (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Kitniyot (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Kitniyot (Meir Shinnar)
• 9. Re: Kitniyot (Lisa Liel)
• 10. Re: Minhagim for Baalei Teshuva (David Riceman)
• 11. Re: Rice and Corn May be Eaten for the Entire Day of Erev Pesach (Arie Folger)
• 12. "everything was kosher" (Prof. Levine)
• 13. EVERYTHING WAS KOSHER (cantorwolb...@cox.net)

Regarding my posting that > : The KesefM explains that the notion of
AmoRaIm not arguig against TaNaIm is not more than a convention ...

R Zvi Lampel, urges that we not forget that the Rambam (following Rav Hai Gaon)
limits Beis Din Gadols ability to overturn the decisions of any earlier BD
to rulings other than Takkonos and Gezayros, which can be overturned only
by a BD that is greater BeChochMa U'BeMinyan, and that Seyagim can NEVER be
overturned.

I dont know why this might be an important observation to take note of in
our discussion.


Reb Micha also commented on my observation that:
: The KesefM explains that the notion of AmoRaIm not arguig against TaNaIm
is
: just a convention, a non binding convention. He is compelled to say this
: because of the Halacha that a Dayan and a BD must not bow to their
: predecessors who were without doubt greater than they, if this BD's
: analysis of the Halacha leads them to a different conclusion. That being
: the case the KMishneh explains that AmoRaIm can certainly disagree with
: TaNaIm and the RULE is not a RULE but a non-binding convention. Its not a
: Chiddush that Rav may argue, the Chiddush is that the others did NOT.

Reb Micha suggests that it IS a Chiddush as we can see from the Gemaras
need to justify Rav's breaking the convention --
"Rav tan hu upalig" is only necessary because otherwise it /would/be a
chiddush.

And I say that ANYTHING that is a change from what we are familiar with is
a Chiddush. I was and continue to refer however, to Chiddush as in change
from the Gemaras and the Halachas basic principles, which are that we MUST
stand by our own understanding and conclusions. So the REAL Chiddush is
that such a convention was initiated and implemented.


Reb Micha also disagrees with the principle that we MUST stand by our
understanding of Halacha and not just accept the rulings of those we
consider greater than us.
Reb Micha suggests that perhaps this Chiyuv does not apply at all times. He
proposes that there are those who are far more informed and far more in
line with the right modes of thinking to decide Pesak and we should
therefore suspend our own judgement.

Now to prove or illustrate his point, Ren Micha refers to Rishonim who seem
to be in agreement and support a thought or argument that I disagree with,
I must accept I am wrong even though I don't know how or why.

Now this a misrepresentation of what I am explaining. The Gemara and
Rishonim clearly are the benchmark against which we measure our thinking
and from which we draw our life values. Like the stories of the Besht,
those who believe ALL of them are just foolish, those who believe NONE are
pretty close to being an Apikores. Where is the truth? Somewhere undefined
between those two extremes. And so too with Halachic knowledge and the
power to Pasken. As one grows and becomes more aligned with the Gemara
think one becomes more adept at understanding the Halacha. But this
necessarily follows a system of thought that CAn and MUST be explained,
that finds agreement or finds reasoned arguments that challenge it.

Otherwise Lo BaShaMaYim Hi.




Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130329/9ae7b999/attachment-0001.htm>

On 28/03/2013 5:03 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> We aren't Christians. We insist on the reality that Hashem gave us the
>> >Torah at Sinai and that what we have now is that Torah. A legal system
>> >designed to change people is all well and good, though it's much more
>> >something you'd hear in a shul sermon than in any actual mar'ei mekomot,
>> >but there's no way the k'zayit was inflated in order to change people...
> I'm saying it's a legal process because it evolves as our culture does.
>
> You're saying that the historical size of an olive 2000 years ago helps
> "ha'adam nif'al lefi pe'ulaso" more than that continuity. Or than giving
> people the power to partner with G-d to find a means of redemption.

I think RLL is rejecting your idea that this is the purpose and criterion
of halacha.  That following halacha refines a person doesn't mean that's its
purpose.

(Incidentally, over yomtov I read an interview with R Yoel Kahn in which he
said (if I understood it correctly) that it's a mistake to think that the
purpose of learning chassidus is to make one a better person.  The purpose,
he said, is simply that it is the underlying truth of the universe. Knowing
some of this truth will inevitably make one look at the world more clearly,
and therefore make better decisions, and therefore be a better person and
serve Hashem better, and if it doesn't have this effect then one hasn't
understood it properly, but that is merely a side-effect, not its purpose.)


>> That's a false dichotomy.  Prior to the arrival of a fact, the halakha
>> can be x, due to chazaka or approximation or error.  Subsequent to the
>> arrival of that fact, maintaining the halakha to be x in the face of the
>> contradictory fact is contrary to sense, and is bad halakha.
>
> Halakhah has rules of legislation. Apparently it is not a given that
> "corrected to match intended reality" is one of them.

One authority who would seem to support RLL's position is, ironically,
the Tzlach, who created the shiurim that we now know as "Chazon Ish".
He rejected the result of millennia of evolution, and doubled the
received shiurim, because he believed he was recreating the real
objective shiurim that Chazal instituted.  He thought that over the
years the shiurim had drifted and shrunk, and that he was restoring
them to what they should be, reflecting the reality of the eggs that
Chazal had measured.  Had he known what we think we do about Chazal's
chickens' eggs, he would not have promulgated his shiurim, and might
instead have gone in the other direction.  So it seems RLL is championing
his view, but with (what appears to be, or at least what she thinks is)
better information.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 28/03/2013 5:07 PM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> Just looking at a container of Medjool Dates -ok pareve plus a small print hechsher.  It also says rauy lvdok metolaim.
>
> So what exactly is the hechsher certifying?

For one thing, that it was not sprayed with treife oil or fats.  If there
are dates which one *must* inspect for insects, then the hechsher would
also be telling you that this is not the case with these dates.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org [mailto:avodah-
> boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Micha Berger
> Sent: Thursday, 28 March, 2013 7:18 PM


> Minhag is supposed to be by location. It's only because the norm has
> become that few locations have a minhag hamaqom that our ancestors'
> location became determinant -- we have no local custom to switch to,
> so we stick with the one we came from.
> 
> I would therefore think that someone who has to adopt minhagim needs
> to pick a community to affiliate with, and follow theirs consistently.
> Since the idea of minhag is to belong to something.
> 
> I am not as sure as RAM that this is usually the BD who was megayeir
> him.
> But I do think that following one's rebbe when one is learning is
> natural,

I have mentioned in the past, and sourced, that Rav Moshe Shternbuch has a
number of tshuvos, where he says a BT from irreligious parents follows the
customs of his mekarev, and not of his ancestors.

Akiva
 

Is this a variation of the "What is the purpose of Talmud Torah" 
argument (learn to come to love of HaShem, to learn halacha, to simply 
understand)?

Ben

On 3/29/2013 5:06 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
>
> (Incidentally, over yomtov I read an interview with R Yoel Kahn in 
> which he
> said (if I understood it correctly) that it's a mistake to think that the
> purpose of learning chassidus is to make one a better person.  The 
> purpose,
> he said, is simply that it is the underlying truth of the universe. 
> Knowing
> some of this truth will inevitably make one look at the world more 
> clearly,
> and therefore make better decisions, and therefore be a better person and
> serve Hashem better, and if it doesn't have this effect then one hasn't
> understood it properly, but that is merely a side-effect, not its 
> purpose.)
>

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 01:24:13PM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
> Is this a variation of the "What is the purpose of Talmud Torah"  
> argument (learn to come to love of HaShem, to learn halacha, to simply  
> understand)?

All of which are phrased in self-transformative terms.

WADR to R Yoel Kahn, the goal of chassidus is generally understood (since
the Besh"t is repeatedly reported as saying so) to be to obtain deveiqus.
IOW, it's a Yahadus which sees the role of mitzvos in terms of a derekh
Hashem in the sense of a path TO Him.

No less self-transformative than Mussar, "just" with a different
description of what we're trying to be. And consequently different
pragmatic emphasis.

For that matter the 4th cheileq of Nefesh haChaim (and thus the yeshiva
world) also assumes Torah is self-transformative, that talmud Torah is
like a miqvah that is metaheir regardless of any conscious effort to
do so.

The other 3 chalaqim appear to have a different message. In fact, the
first cheileq's thesis appears to me to be that repairing the world can
only happen as a consequence of repairing the self. And the emphasis
in these chalaqim is more on yir'as Shamayim and ehrlachkeit than the
talmud-Torah emphasis of the 4th cheileq. But again, there too it's all
about self-transformation.

The Rambam is even self-transformative. But his transformation is to
know and be aligned with G-d's Truth. I presume this is more Lisa's
perspective. However, since the Rambam himself assigns authority to
halachic process even when at odds with realia, I don't see him as a
source either. (Although his fascination with knowledge and truth is
deflected in his daas yachid about what a machloqes is. See R Moshe
Halbertal's survey at
<http://rambam.merkaz.com/Class%204%20-%20Halbertal.pdf> or my treatment
based on it of the Rambam's unique concept of halachic process at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2013/03/halakhah-truth-law.shtml> (in
very small part):

    1- Retrieval: All of Torah was given at Sinai, and therefore
    machloqesin (debates) are due to forgotten information.

    He finds this opinion to be typical of many ge'onim...

    2- Accumulative: Torah is built analytically from what was
    given. Therefore, machloqesin come from different minds reaching
    different conclusions. This is the Rambam's position among others. It
    comes from sources like Rabbi Aqiva's "finding mounds and mounds of
    laws in the crowns atop the letters"....

    3-- Constitutive: The poseiq (halachic decisor) doesn't discover
    what's correct halakhah. Rather, part of the definition of "correct"
    is the poseiq's say-so; Hashem gave them the power to decide and
    define law. This is the position of the Ramban, the Ritva and the Ran.

... and, based on my own analysis, Rashi and the Baalei Tosafos. Rambam
is the sole Accumulativist.

:-)||ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 3rd day
mi...@aishdas.org        in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Chesed: What is perfectly
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            balanced Chesed?

Yesterday at 05:03pm EDT, I wrote:
: Not in that post, but should be... The Rambam, Hil Shemitah veYovel
: 10:5-6. He reports that the geonim had a mesorah that between the two
: batei miqdash and since churban bayis sheini, they only counted shemitah
: without counting yovel. And the Rambam said it is incorrect -- that one
: can't count the yovel year toward the shemitah cycle, so that counting
: one without the other gets you to the theoretically wrong year. Still,
: the Rambam says "shehaqabalah vehama'aseh amudim gedolim behora'ah,
: uvahen ra'ui lehitalos."

As RAF wrote me off list, this is poorly worded -- ambiguous at best,
probably altogether meaningless. So, I'll try again:

What I meant to say is that yovel can't be counted toward the 7 year
cycle. Therefore, shemitah should be 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, and 8 years apart.
(As the Rambam says in the next halakhah, 1:7).

Therefore, if they counted shemitah while ignoring yovel (no 8 yr gaps),
our ancestors got what the Rambam considered the theoretically wrong year

It is clear from the closing words of 1:6 (quoted in Hebrew above) that
the Rambam is telling us to follow qabalah rather than switch to the
correct year by his own sevara. And that's really all I wanted to get to.

This is also relevent to my ongoing discussion with RMR about the extent
non-musmachim should be pasqening for themselves. There is a point at which
seikhel is insufficient to reach the proper din.

:-)||ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 3rd day
mi...@aishdas.org        in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Chesed: What is perfectly
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            balanced Chesed?

Sent from my iPad


RMB
>>> I disagree. See my most recent blog post
>>> <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2013/03/tzav.shtml>.
>>> The topic is the implications of the difference between a legislative
>>> process and a fact-finding one, including the need to think in terms
>>> of what gives a ruling authority, not what makes the most sense from
>>> a historical or scientific perspective.
Wadr, while the Sanhedrin, & probably tannaim & amoraim, are viewed
as having real legislative powers, the legislative authority of I rishonim
& achronim is in general viewed as quite limited to communal takkanot -
& is normally NOT applied to the general halachic process.

The question of trying to understand what the Gemara & poskim meant -
especially in terms of realia - has a long history - & I doubt you will
find anyone prior to, say, 1800, who will so readily disassociate Halacha
from objective truth or discounted attempts at discovering past practices -
whether search for artifacts or manuscripts. Indeed, I suspect most would
have viewed that as tantamount to kfira.  The focus was not on the
emotional & redemptive meanings as granting truth - important as they
were - but that those emotional & redemptive aspects derived from
actually doing the true ratzon Hashem.	(Rmb's position, wadr, seems closer
to Renewal theology than to traditional thought...)

The real issue with changing minhag comes from several related concerns,
1) epistemological - concern about the reliability of the data & our ability to adequately 
2) humility - recognition of our limitations & therefore reluctance to declare the recent past wrong
3) the challenge for change is coming at a time where Halacha is perceived
under attack - and much (not all) of the data challenging traditional norms
comes from circles opposed to halacha, leading

All of those may be overcome in theory - albeit it is more difficult in practice..

The closest to rmb's position comes from the chazon ish's position that the
fate of certain manuscripts, texts,& practices reflect divine 
hashgacha - which is thematically related to
the idea of continuous revelation..

The idea of the community being able to determine its own norms to achieve
meaning & redemption is appealing, but has a history.  I doubt RMB is
truly willing to endorse it..

Meir Shinnar

On 3/29/2013 9:14 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Yesterday at 05:03pm EDT, I wrote:
> : Not in that post, but should be... The Rambam, Hil Shemitah veYovel
> : 10:5-6. He reports that the geonim had a mesorah that between the two
> : batei miqdash and since churban bayis sheini, they only counted shemitah
> : without counting yovel. And the Rambam said it is incorrect -- that one
> : can't count the yovel year toward the shemitah cycle, so that counting
> : one without the other gets you to the theoretically wrong year. Still,
> : the Rambam says "shehaqabalah vehama'aseh amudim gedolim behora'ah,
> : uvahen ra'ui lehitalos."
>
> As RAF wrote me off list, this is poorly worded -- ambiguous at best,
> probably altogether meaningless. So, I'll try again:
>
> What I meant to say is that yovel can't be counted toward the 7 year
> cycle. Therefore, shemitah should be 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, and 8 years apart.
> (As the Rambam says in the next halakhah, 1:7).
>    

It's a machloket.  Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir, I believe.

Lisa

RAM:

<<I would like to suggest that minhagim really ought to be by family, 
but if that means that you'll be a small minority, then -- as R"n Chana 
Luntz so eloquently explained in another thread -- the situation is not 
easily tolerable. According to this idea, it would be quite reasonable 
for minhagim to ideally follow the family, yet follow the location in 
practice for millenia, until recent centuries, when large-scale 
immigration allowed communities to reconstitute themselves in new 
locations, so that the family minhag could continue. But I concede that 
I have absolutely no evidence for this, other than the pasuk in Mishlei. 
Perhaps someone can offer other ideas pro or con?>>

How about by clan/subtribe?

David Riceman

RMRabi wrote about the conflict between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua'
regarding setting the date for Yom Kippur:
> The answer - it was not a Pesak. There was no suggestion that Yom
> Kippur MUST be kept according to the BD calculation - as per our other
> discussion about Who Brings the Chatos. Such a demand CANNOT be
> issues by BD. Therefore it was merely a request to prevent a major split
> amongst the community but was not a demand that one's opinion be
> quashed by the ruling of the BD.

Arguably, R' Meir, this is one of teh worst examples you could have
brought, since the conclusion of the sugya is exactly what you deny,
namely, that even if BD erred or even intentionally declared rosh chodesh
on the wrong day, their date is binding.

Upon investigation, this whole matter is a disagreement between Tannaim, as
can more clearly be seen in the Tosefta IIRC. The Benei Beteira took the
position RMR likes, namely that this was a practical matter. But it's Rabbi
Aqiva who carried the day by stating that reality be damned, what matters
(here?) is what BD decided.

Of course, depending of how expansive or restrictive one wants to interpret
that sugya, it may be generally interesting and applicable to RMR's theory
of psaq, as well as to the thread between RMB and R'nLL regarding whether
Halakha deals with reality directly or through the legal process. Or, by
interpreting the sugya in a minimalistic way, it may just be an exception.

Gutmo'ed and gutshabbos,


-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Schnellkurs im j?dischen Grundwissen: I. Der Schabbat (Audio)
* Warum beschneiden Juden ihre Knaben ? Multimedia-Vortrag
* Beschneidung, die aktuelle Rechtslage ? Multimedia Schiur
* Was mir in Holocaust Museen fehlt
* Beschneidungslerntag ? Schlu?worte (Multimedia)
* Paneldiskussion zur Beschneidung ? Audio-Datei
* Welche B?nde gibt es zwischen Mensch und G?tt? (Multimedia)
* R?ckblick Gedenkfeier F?rstenfeldbruck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130329/a2429902/attachment-0001.htm>

At 05:41 AM 3/29/2013, R. Micha wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 02:27:06PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
>> Did they really *think* that everything was kosher and investigate or
>> simply use things without looking into the kashrus of what they were
>> using?  Did they rely upon Rav Alle,  "Alle essen dos" and not go any
>> further?  My understanding is that food technology today is much more
>> complicated than it was in the past,  but this does not mean that there
>> were no problems in the past.

> Didn't we discuss this in Fall 2011 in the thread you started titled
> "Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia"?

> There is a reason why more countries (albeit far fewer observant Jews)
> rely on kashrus approval lists rather than full hekhsheirim. It's not
> ignorance.

In the past, and by this I mean 60 or 70 years ago, to the best of my
knowledge there were no lists generated by rabbinical organizations as
there are today. Thus, what I am talking about is not at all equivalent
to relying on kashrus approval lists. There were none to the best of
my knowledge in the "bad olds days." People used products based on I do
not know what basis.

BTW, I now remember that the pudding I was talking about that the
Rebbetzin told me was OK was My T Fine chocolate pudding. She insisted
the other flavors were not kosher. How she came to this conclusion I
do not know. And as I said, the same person gave supervision on all
of the flavors and he was not relied upon by most Orthodox people then.


At 05:41 AM 3/29/2013, Zev Sero wrote:
>On 28/03/2013 2:27 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>> Years ago a rebbitzen told me that only the chocolate flavor of a certain
>> brand of pudding was kosher,  despite the fact that the other flavors
>> manufactured by this company also had a K on it.  This seemed strange to
>> me,  so I wrote to the company.  They sent me information about the rabbi
>> who was behind the K.  This rabbi's supervisions were not considered
>> reliable by most observant Jews.  I wrote to him and asked him detailed
>> questions about the kashrus of the puddings he supervised.  His reply was,
>> "All of the flavors may be considered acceptable."  He supplied no specifics
>> regarding his basis for this statement and did not answer one of my
>> questions.
>> Based on this, I decided that the rebbitzen really did not have any basis
>> for saying the only the chocolate flavor was OK.

> The facts as you have presented them are insufficient to support that
> conclusion.  You presumed that the rebbetzin, or her informant (or his
> informant, etc.), could not have had information that you didn't.

After I did my investigation I contacted this rebbetzin and told her 
what I had found out.  She was taken aback and said she stop using 
the chocolate flavor pudding and that no one should use and of the 
puddings manufactured by this company,  since the person giving the 
hechsher was not reliable.

She clearly did not have the information that I had after I investigated.

YL

The facts as you have presented them are insufficient to support that
conclusion.  You presumed that the rebbetzin, or her informant (or his
informant, etc.), could not have had information that you didn't.

Prof Levine documented his conclusion with enough information whereby 
any reasonable person could have inferred the same opinion. His research
was done as any academician would have proceeded.
A guten mo'ed.
ri

"Behold I do not give lectures or a little charity. When I give, I give myself."  Walt Whitman

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130329/5afcb031/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 54
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)