Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 055

Thursday, July 21 2005

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:55:57 +1000
From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
Fw: Balaam

Can someone tell me why Billom is written as Balaam in non-Jewish and
even Artscroll translations?

And for that matter Iyov-Job?


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:43:26 GMT
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>

From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
<<Can someone tell me why Billom is written as Balaam in non-Jewish and
even Artscroll translations?>>

Yareisi biftzosi, with R' Seth on the cc list... (we've already discussed
ata nosein yad laposh'im <g>)

Think the proper pronunciation for ayin (i.e. not like anshei Cheifa.

<<And for that matter Iyov-Job?>>

Spell it Yov, pronounce the Y (as a vowel), then swap if for a J as
in Spanish. Finally, put a dagesh in the beis as do edot hamizrach.


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:53:11 +0200
From: "D&E-H Bannett" <dbnet@zahav.net.il>
Darkhei Emori? Or worse?

With thanks to HKBH for arranging that there be a shuttle bus between
YU and Stern, I was just zokheh to attend the wedding in America of a
grandson who learns at YU..

The mesader kiddushin was the RY of his yeshiva high school. After my
grandson made a siyyum on masekhet Kiddushin and the ketuba paperwork
was completed, he was instructed by the RY to untie his necktie and his
shoelaces before going to the chuppa.

A year ago, I was at the wedding of another grandson, same YU type,
same mesader kiddushin, same ritual untying, same shuttle bus.

This "minhag", unfamiliar to me, appears to be, at the least, a
superstition that is darkhei Emori. Perhaps worse. To me, the belief
that untying knots can have an influence on the success of a marriage,
result in less knotty problems and enhance the smoothness of married life,
to put it delicately, borders on avodah zara.

On returning home, I questioned two talmidei chakhamim who had learned
in European yeshivot in their youth, one Litvish, one Chasidish.
Neither had ever heard of this minhag. The Litvish RY remarked that it
is not certain that this superstition (emunah t'feila) is darkhei Emori
because it is doubtful whether the Emori had adopted it (safek gadol im
haEmorim nahagu kakh).

Can a list member add any knowledge that will relieve me of the fear that
two of my grandsons have strayed from the path. I'd prefer some logical
basis for justification not that others have strayed to superstition
land in a similar manner.

Assorted side remarks:

Does the kalla also have to remove knots or does this magical act work
only for males?

Why did the RY mesader kiddushin not argue that, as bows can be tied
and untied on Shabbat because they are not kesher shel kayama, similarly
they cannot cause damage to marriage?

Perhaps, for marriage to be a kesher shel kayama it must be the only
kesher under the chuppa and, l'chumra, even bows should be removed?

Where do they get these crazy customs?



Go to top.

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:18:18 -0400
From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
Order of Creation

I had written, "In Moreh Nevuchim, the sphere turned completely every 24
hours even before the sun was created, and according to the Malbim there
were 24-hour cycles of light and darkness before the sun was created."

R' Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> on Fri, 15 Jul 2005 responded:
"The problem that I have is that the 24 hour day we have today is because
of the rotation of the earth and has absolutely nothing to do with the
properties of the sun. We have darkness only because we are on the other
side of the earth from the sun.

"As such I don't understand the Malbim at all."

The Malbim is a fascinating payrush which I am confident you would enjoy
studying. His very point is that originally, before the fourth day, the
system by which earth experienced day and night was different from the
way it is now. Originally, he proposes, the entire earth was bathed by
the Light, which permeated all areas of space, for 12 hours, and then
faded into 12 hours of darkness. On the 4th day, Hashem localised the
source of light in the Sun, causing different parts of the earth to
experience day or night, depending upon which part of it faced the sun.

"besides both shitot cited above seem to assume that the earth existed
before the sun which does not correspond to modern theories."

More accurately, they maintain that the earth and the sun as well as
the rest of the heavens were created simultaneously, although the role
of the sun as provider of daylight on earth was not established until
the 4th day.

Certainly, both shitot, as well as those of all the classical
commentators, do not correspond to modern theories, which attempt
to explain the appearance of the universe without recourse to our
mesorah. The classical commenteries, while being loyal to the underlining
teachings of the mesorah regarding Creation ex nehilo and the sequence
and timing of events, incorporated the science propogated in their days
to provide embellishments. Thus, some speak in terms of spheres (areas
of gravitational/magnetic forces?), the sun, moon (as they say today
as well) and stars revolving around the earth, rather than the earth
rotating on its axis and revolving, along with the planets, around the
sun (a matter of relativity), and (in Malbim's time--19th century) ether
(whose existence is ridiculed today). Who knows what will be propogated
and what will be ridiculed tomorrow!

Zvi Lampel

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:22:54 GMT
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Re: Pirke Avos 4:3

"Sholom Simon" <sholom@aishdas.org> wrote:
> "He would also say: Do not scorn any man..."

> So, nu? How far does that go? I hear plenty of scorn thrown about on
> Avodah and Areivim.

It doesn't mean don't criticize, or criticize harshly. It means to
dismiss; don't dismiss someone as being useless, ne'er do well, never
amount to anything, because everyone has his day (not only dogs <g>)


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:56:24 -0500
From: "Gershon Seif" <gershonseif@yahoo.com>

Rich, Joel wrote:
>From: R' Yaakov Feldman <YFel912928@aol.com> [summarizing Alei Shur -mi]
>"It's impossible to uproot character traits. Someone who's cold-hearted
>(for example) can't become warmhearted anymore than someone who's violent
>can uproot that trait (though we can all apply bad traits to good ends)."

>R' Chaim Soloveitchik disagrees. As quoted by R'YBS he was by nature a
>cold person and turned himself into a warmhearted Rav Chesed.

Reb Yisroel said it is harder to change a middah than to learn the entire
Shas - vaist ois that it is hard, but for someone like Reb Chaim, who
me'stama learned gantz Shas :-) , it is possible.

On this topic...

At the end of Maseches Shabbos (156a)is the famous Gemara about ain
mazel b'yisroel. Where Rashi expounds that through tefilla and maasim
tovim it's possible to uproot one's mazel (read one's nature)

OTOH we have the famous pasuk in Mishlei (22:6), Chanoch L'naar al pi
darko, gam ki yazkin lo yosur mimeno. The Gr"a explains there that every
person has a nature he was born with (IIRC he sites the gemara in shabbos)
so you have to be mechanech people to find their expression of Avodas
Hashem that suits their nature. If not, when they will leave your home,
they go find another way to express their nature, and it won't be a
pretty sight... Sound's like you can't change someone's nature.

There's no contradiction here.

Obviously chazal in shabbos were serious when they said that's it's
possible to do it. But it requires a Herculean effort to do so. In
Mishlei, when it comes to chinuch, you should assume kids aren't ready
for Herculean efforts. Plus in Shabbos it's talking about affecting
yourself. In Mishlei it's talking about changing someone else.

And with adults too, I recall being told before I started dating way back
when that nobody should assume they can ever change another person's
hashkafos(hmm... maybe we should bring this up on Areivim...). (That
doesn't mean it never happens. Hashkafos, aren't middos, just expressions
of opinions greatly influenced by people's middos.)

[Email #2. -mi]

I just posted a piece that included this statement: Hashkafos, aren't
middos, just expressions of opinions greatly influenced by people's middos.

Before everyone jumps on me for that,let me clarify.

I'm well aware of the famous piece from RYS in Ohr Yisrael, where he writes
that Hillel and Shamai had their belief systems based on their psak of what
the belief systems should be. And if Shamai had paskened like Hillel, he
would have been capable of behaving just as sweetly and gently as Hillel. So
I agree, in a perfect world, if you're a Shamai, you can have pure hashkafos
based on pure reason, and your middos won't get in the way.

I was talking about a not so perfect world. The world of smaller folks like
our generation.

But OTOH, RYS' statement needs some extra thought. The Rambam in the
hakdama l'peirush hamishna, when he talks about paskening lfi rov, states
that we need to do this because it's human nature that when people derive
halachos based on their own reasoning, they will dig their heels in and
defend their position. Nobody is going to budge so we have to vote. The
Rambam is including the dor of Yehoshua bin Nun in that statement, right? So
what happened to the klal of RYS, that they were above that??? I would love
to hear a teirutz!

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:01:02 +0200
From: Simon Montagu <simon.montagu@gmail.com>
Re: Darkhei Emori? Or worse?

On 7/20/05, D&E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il> wrote:
> On returning home, I questioned two talmidei chakhamim who had learned
> in European yeshivot in their youth, one Litvish, one Chasidish.
> Neither had ever heard of this minhag. The Litvish RY remarked that it
> is not certain that this superstition (emunah t'feila) is darkhei Emori
> because it is doubtful whether the Emori had adopted it (safek gadol im
> haEmorim nahagu kakh).

This seems to me like a dehiya bekash. Surely "darkhei haEmori" doesn't
necessarily literally refer to the historical Emorim, anymore than
"Hame Teverya" as a halachic concept literally refers to specific hot
springs in Tiberias.

Having written that based on my memory of reading it a long time ago in
"HaMo'adim beHalacha, I reread the passage and it turns out to be not so
pashut, and none of the sources are things I have access to, but there
is at any rate one shita that says that about Hamei Teverya

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:45:46 -0400
From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
mishna mentioning gemara

R' Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> posted Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:04:37 -0400
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 10:38:05AM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
> "Abayei hava mesadeir... mishmei degamara..." Gemara is used here to
> mean the opposite -- the received teaching itself, without personal
> analysis!

You're right. As in "Hilchisa G'miri," "Gmr" means to learn, either
through receiving a teaching or through analysing. However, note than
"tanna" is used exclusively to "repeat" verbatim, to the extent than an
Amoraic "tanna" was deprecated for merely knowing things by rote without
the necessary analysis.

Zvi Lampel 

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:17:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Pareve cultured meat????

R' Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:
> Is anyone aware of any discussion of the kashrut of this sort of "meat"?
> Would kol haYotsei min haTame tamei apply here? Would this meat truly
> be fleishig?

It would at least have to be treated as fleishig for mar'is ayin reasons.

I don't think it's yotzei min hatamei if the only tamei in it is microscopic.
But I think the question revolves around that recurring theme.


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:26:52 -0700
From: Daniel Israel <israel@email.arizona.edu>
Re: [hirhurim] [Hirhurim - Musings] Studying From Old Tests

Gil Student wrote:
> A year or two ago, on a private e-mail list, I stated that I did
> not think there is anything wrong with collecting old tests that
> a teacher has given and studying from them, even if the teacher is
> known to regive old tests. Others, however, considered it unethical.

I would just note that in my experience many Professors, at least,
are aware of this practice and often sanction it. In my department the
graduate qualifying exams for the last several years are on file in the
department office and can be checked out. In such a case I would think
that it wouldn't even be a midos chasidus not to make use of such aids.

Daniel M. Israel
Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:16:04 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: [YGB] Daf Halachah - Shabbos 73b

On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 02:20:17PM +0200, saul mashbaum wrote:
: IMHO, RMB's hypothesis "lemaaseh the gezeirah was made WRT Shabbos and
: not YK or other Yom Tov" seems most reasonable. If, however, we accept
: the premise that the issur achila of YK removes the inclination to pluck
: the fruit, then this should apply bein b'chol bein b'Shabbat.

Why is there a gezeira on some things, and not on something else that
seems to us far more likely to lead to cheit? I therefore surmize that
gezeiros were in reaction to actual violations, rather than chazal's risk
analysis. This reduces my question to asking qashas (qushyos) on a maaseh.

But it would work a lot better if someone actually says this. Anyone
heard of such an idea?


Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:16:57 -0400
From: Shaya Potter <spotter@yucs.org>
Re: Pareve cultured meat????

On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 17:17 -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
> R' Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:
>> Is anyone aware of any discussion of the kashrut of this sort of "meat"?
>> Would kol haYotsei min haTame tamei apply here? Would this meat truly
>> be fleishig?

> It would at least have to be treated as fleishig for mar'is ayin reasons.

so why not do the same thing all the yeshivot did w/ the Soy Dogs,
put up a big sign that says "these hotdogs are made out of soy".

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:25:09 -0400
From: Saul Guberman <saulguberman@gmail.com>
Re: Pareve cultured meat????

On 7/20/05, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> It would at least have to be treated as fleishig for mar'is ayin reasons.

> I don't think it's yotzei min hatamei if the only tamei in it is microscopic.
> But I think the question revolves around that recurring theme.

I was thinking along the same line but kosher "sausage" & "bacon"
is dairy. They look, taste & are used as sausage & bacon. They do
have the word veggie as a prefix. There will have to be some sort of
labeling for this product.

Are Yves Veggie Cuisine Kosher?
Yves Veggie Cuisine products are certified as Kosher Dairy which means
that our products either contain dairy or are made from ingredients that
are pareve but are made on the same equipment that is used for dairy
production. Our Kosher Dairy certification is provided by the Union of
Orthodox Congregations of America (Orthodox Union) and our equipment
cleaning procedures are fully compliant with their requirements to ensure
no cross contamination.

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:19:52 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: amoraim disagreeing with tanaim

On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 05:44:50PM -0400, Eli Turkel wrote:
:>: The Gra held that those terms ("Hachi k'amar" and "chasorei mechsora")
:>: weren't saying that the Tanna actually said something else or that there
:>: is an intrinsic lacking in the text but rather that the Amora was in
:>: fact disagreeing with the Tanna and rewriting the Tanna's statement to
:>: conform with the current understanding of the new opinion.

:> Maqor? Extraordinary claims need greater proof.

: I dont find it very extraordinary. There are many places in shas where
: the gemara asks a question on an amora from a tanaitic source. The gemara
: then answers by reitenterpring the taanitic source in a way that is very
: far from pshat.

As it wouldn't fit with my mental image of the Gra's mehalekh, I would
find it surprising that this is something he said.

And with the huge number of things repeated besheim haGra that he never
said, I would need a primary or at least secondary source before assuming
I misunderstood.

: One of my favorites is by reinterpreting a mishnah as discussing someone
: making something hekdesh right before the bet hamikdash is destroyed
: when there is no hint of this in the Mishnah.

Given that the tannaim were being quoted orally, it's quite reasonable to
question the reliability or completeness of a mishnah. I think it's more
likely that they often found argument more compelling than the repeated
quote than that they were claiming that R' XYZ said something they know
he didn't.

: Also it is interesting that occasionally the gemara adds "hacni nami
: mistavra". This seems to mean that the answer is not just pulled out
: to answer a question but is indeed the pshat of the Mishnah.

Then why is it used WRT assessing the din, rather than assessing the
pesaq of the given tana? IOW, usually it's "mistavra" without invoking
the tana in question.


Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
micha@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nachman of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507      	     Likutei Tefilos 94:964

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:33:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
[Aspaqlaria] See but not Seen

    The best day of my life -- my rebirthday, so to speak -- was when
    I found I had no head... I had for several months been absorbed in
    the question: what am I? The fact that I happened to be walking in
    the Himalayas at the time probably had little to do with it; though
    in that country unusual states of mind are said to come more
    easily... What actually happened was something absurdly simple and
    unspectacular: I stopped thinking... Past and future dropped away. I
    forgot who and what I was, my name, manhood, animalhood, all that
    could be called mine. It was as if I had been born that instant,
    brand new, mindless, innocent of all memories. There existed only
    the Now, that present moment and what was clearly given in it.
    ... It took me no time at all to notice that this nothing, this
    hole where a head should have been, was no ordinary vacancy... it
    was very much occupied. It was a vast emptiness vastly filled,
    a nothing that found room for everything -- room for grass, trees,
    shadowy distant hills, and far above them snow peaks like a row of
    angular clouds riding the blue sky. I had lost a head and gained
    a world.
		-D. E. Harding, "On Having No Head",
		 The Mind's I (Ed. D. Hofstadter, D. Dennett) pp. 24-30

We don't see our own heads. As D.E. Harding so humorously writes, we
never experience our heads. Instead, we experience these wondrous holes in
which all of our experiences, entire universes, somehow miraculously fit.

Later in the essay he notes something about movie production: When we
see a memory or dream sequence that includes the person as we would see
him, say, the child they once were, it lacks realism. A good producer
would film the scene from the person's perspective, placing the camera
where his eyes would be. We should never see the person's head (although
perhaps a reflection of it).

An Empiricist places the most confidence in things in his physical
experience that he could repeat and show others at will. Des Cartes
questions that position. We can never rule out a trick of the senses
or a "Deceiving Daemon". In fact, there is only one thing he believed
we can be absolutely certain of -- Cogito ergo sum, I think, therefore
I am. What he meant by this is that I know I exist because I'm the one
doing the thinking, wondering what I could know for certain, and whether I
could be certain I exist. The existence of the question itself is proof
of its answer.

Returning to Harding's idea, we are actually more sure of that wondrous
vacancy than of the things we see. Whatever the truth of the things I see,
the fact that I'm there seeing them is more sure to us.

In the general introduction to Alei Shur vol I (pg. 12), Rav Shelomo
Wolbe zt"l writes:
    We read in Berakhos 10a: "These five [passages of Tehillim that begin]
    "Borkhi Nafshi" (My Soul shall Bless), corresponding to what did
    David compose them? He didn't say them but corresponding to HQBH
    and corresponding to the soul.
    "(1) Just as HQBH fills the whole world, so too the soul fills the
    whole body. (2) Just as HQBH sees but Is not seen, so too the soul
    sees but is not seen. (3) Just as HQBH nourishes the whole world,
    so to the soul nourishes the body. (4) Just as HQBH is tahor,
    so too the soul is tahor. (5) Just as HQBH 'dwells' in the rooms of
    rooms (chadrei chadarim, an idiom: in a very hidden 'location'),
    so too the soul dwells in the rooms of rooms.
    "Let the one that has these five things, and let it give praise to
    He Who has these three things!"

    We find that we can learn from this that the soul in particular can
    praise HQBH, because only it as "an aspect in common" (tzad hashaveh)
    with him, as it were. Only from the aspect of the soul can man serve
    his Creator, and in particular the "duties of the heart/mind"
    (chovos halvavos) which are associated with the soul -- they are
    the essence of such service!

    Also this we learn from their statement, that among the attributes
    of the soul is to be something that "sees but is not seen". In this,
    Chazal explain to us what ruchniyus ("spirituality") is in its
    entirety: it nourishes the whole world and the body and fills it;
    the root of every created thing in the world, and every limb in the
    body is in ruchniyus, and from this root life reaches them. This
    spirituality fills the whole existence until "there is nothing
    free from it". This ruchniyus is itself tahor, it is internal,
    "dwelling in the rooms of rooms".... Chazal reveal the central point,
    upon which we must base our avodah (service of Hashem) if we want
    to work in ruchniyus, and that is "Just as HQBH sees but Is not seen,
    so too the soul sees but is not seen."

In an endnote (pg. 339), Rav Wolbe adds this comment from a student:
    It would seem that from the words of Chazal it is not compelling that
    the central point of the five is in particular this one [i.e. that
    the soul "sees but is not seen"] of the five that features that
    Chazal enumerate there. However, one of the students of the yeshiva
    n"y found a source for it from what it says in Devarim Raba 20:26,
    "Let the soul come, which sees and isn't seen, and let it call to HQBH
    Who sees but Is not seen." There is doesn't mention all five criteria,
    just this one -- for it is in truth the central point in avodah.

This idea is the core of Harding's observation; our soul "sees but is not
seen". The notion of "sees but is not seen" is what makes the spiritual more
fundamental, the source, and the nourishing force of the physical. And, as we
saw above, the observer is actually more certain and more real than the

Posted by micha to Aspaqlaria at 7/20/2005 08:25:00 AM

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:16:33 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Rav Ashi and Lo Sassur

On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 11:41:43PM -0400, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: One should keep in mond that there are two ways in which an interpretation
: can be deemed correct: ...
: 2. It is by defintion correct because it is proposed by the only
: authoritative body that can offer an interpretation. Thus, the
: Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says that it means because
: it is the only body that is authorized to interpret it.

See R' Moshe Halbertal's essay "Contraversy in Halacha", or at least my
summary at <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/03/eilu-vaeilu-part-i.shtml>.
 From that blog entry:
> RM Halbertal proposes that there are three basic positions on plurality
> in halakhah:

> 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'onuim and the Seifer
> haQabbalah...

> 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....

> Personally, I would be inclined to say that these need not contradict,
> and perhaps both types of debates occur. Except that according to the
> Rambam, there are no machloqesin in underived law; in his opinion this
> is one of the critical features of a halakhah leMosheh miSinai....

> 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....

> Here, I don't see why one must assert they are different. After all, even
> the Ramban and his students don't give the poseiq carte blanche. He may
> have the power to define law, but there are limits to which definitions
> are valid. It would seem from the Ritva ... that the process of finding
> choices fit the "accumulative" model; G-d could have given us all 98
> arguments not directly, but implicitly for us to derive....

RML is assuming that halakhah is "constitutive". There's no reason to
assume that every shitah is.


Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 03:46:50 GMT
From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
re: Admin: Blogs

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< I thought that the comment section of a blog is
not a balanced forum. Comments on Aspaqlaria are just that -- on my post
on Aspaqlaria. They will not generate a more fundamental discussion of
whatever topic it is I was exploring. It's critique, not conversation. >>>

Then why bother with Aspaqlaria at all? Why not post *only* to Avodah?

The reason I feel so stongly about this is that I honestly do not know how
to react when I see a blog on Avodah which I want to comment on. Should
I post my comment to Avodah, or maybe I should read the blog first,
to see if my comments were already made by others, or maybe my comments
have even already been responded to!

If people want to expand their audience, I had thought that the proper
way (anyone remember the word "netiquette?") to do it is to post in one
place first, wait a while for comments, and then post elsewhere later.

Or, if the above does not adequately explain my views, try these
excerpts from Avodah's "Membership Agreement and Guidelines", from
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/agree.shtml --

<<< Do not post full articles to the list. Again, do not post full
articles to the list. Please, do not post full articles to the
list. ... Please do not link to other discussion groups. If you feel
the discussion there may be of interest then summarize it. Otherwise,
keep it offlist. >>>

Those who feel that this excerpt does not apply to the blog situation
are invited to explain the difference to me. And I thank you in advance
for it.

Akiva Miller

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:54:45 EDT
From: T613K@aol.com
Re: sinat "chinam"

In  Avodah V15 #54 dated 7/20/2005  R' Saul Newman writes:
> what makes sinah 'chinam'? what constitutes the halachic right to be
> soneh another jew? what are the parameters for different doxy/praxy
> that allows sinah? ...

Sinah is earned by people or groups who consciously and deliberately
rebel against G-d and against the Torah. That would apply to groups
and organizations outside the Orthodox spectrum.

However, very often there are quite legitimate disagreements between
different groups /within/ the Orthodox spectrum, and members of a group
that has come in for criticism are quick to hurl charges of "sinas chinam"
against the critics. Yet quite often it isn't "chinam" at all and what
is more important, it isn't "sinah"!

 -Toby  Katz

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:22:58 +0300
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe.feldman@gmail.com>
Chodosh for those who make aliyah

Rav Shlomo Levi, rosh kollel of Yeshivat Har Etzion, said that even
though the minhag in chutz la'aretz is to be meikil regarding chodosh,
those who make aliyah must be machmir even when they visit chutz la'aretz.
His reasoning: Minhag Eretz Yisrael is to be machmir regarding imported
chodosh (and therefore, the rabbanut will not permit OU products which
are chodosh). Someone who makes aliyah accepts upon himself all of the
chumros of the land to which he moved, and those chumros are binding
upon him even when he visits chutz la'aretz.

Has anyone heard this halacha from anyone else?

(1) Grain which is imported and baked in EY is chayav in chodosh according
to all opinions, see Tzitz Eliezer 20:40 quoting R. Shmuel Salant. Is it
possible that therefore Minhag Eretz Yisrael is to be machmir WRT all
chodosh, even products which are imported fully baked (especially because
originally, very few products were imported fully baked)? If so is it
possible that the minhag benei EY to be machmir WRT chodosh applies only
when they are physically in EY and not when they are travelling abroad?

(2) Alternatively, is it possible that Minhag Eretz Yisrael is to
be machmir WRT imported chodosh because there are views cited in MB
489 s.k. 45 that chodosh is assur only in Eretz Yisrael and countries
close to EY (such as Egypt) because of a gzeirah atu EY. If so, is it
possible that in EY the minhag was to be machmir WRT to imported baked
goods because there is a similar gzeirah atu grain grown in EY, but if
one travels to America, there is no similar gzeirah?

(3) Alternatively, the Chayei Adam 131:12 notes that there is room
to meikil about chodosh in chutz la'aretz because of the difficulty of
getting non-chodosh grain; similarly, the SA Harav 489:29-30 notes that
the mekilim rely on the fact that it's sha'as hadchak. These sevaros
apply only in chutz la'aretz; in EY it's much easier to know which grain
is chodosh. Therefore, perhaps the minhag of benei EY to be machmir
about chodosh from chutz la'aretz applies only when they are located in
EY, not when they are located in chutz la'aretz.

I'd like to discuss this a bit on Avodah before I go back to Rav Levi,
so I'd appreciate your comments.

Kol tuv,

Go to top.


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]
< Previous Next >