Avodah Mailing List
Volume 23: Number 105
Thu, 10 May 2007
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Dr. Josh Backon" <backon@vms.huji.ac.il>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 23:33:50 +0300
Subject: Re: [Avodah] justifying hating the wicked
>On Thu, May 10, 2007 3:22 pm, Dr. Josh Backon wrote:
>: *Tinok shenishba* is discussed in the gemara in Shevuot 5a
>: and Shabbat 68a,b; Rambam Hilchot Shegagot 7:2 and Hilchot
>: Mamrim 3:3.
>:
>
>As I said, this would be more daunting if we didn't hash it out
>already in vol 2 and again in vol 5-6.
>
>RDJB cites Mamrim 3:3. Mamrim explicitly includes those raised in
>non-mesoretic beliefs. Probably the intent is to discuss Qaraim, which
>is a pretty good precedent for looking for how the rishonim would have
>dealt with today's issues. Even if they have contact to real Yahadus
>they are influenced by their upbringing and are anusim and tinoqos
>shenishbe'u. Therefore, the Rambam says it is ra'ui to bring them to
>teshuvah VELIMSHOKH OSAM BEDARKHEI SHALOM ad sheyachzehu le'itan
>haTorah.
In the Tshuvot ha'RADBAZ I 73, the Karaites are deemed invalid
witnesses [*pesulei eidut*] [see also the lengthy discussion in the Beit
Yosef TUR Even Ha'Ezer 4].
All that is understood from the Rambam in the RADBAZ is that in the time
of the Rambam, the Karaites may not have been invalid witnesses but were
*anusim*, especially the many generations after the first Karaites [see
also: Rambam Hilchot Mamrim 3:3].
This is no way suggests that the Rambam ever considered that NOT believing
in the Oral Law as NOT engendering the category of apikorus.
KT
Josh
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:08:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Avodah] justifying hating the wicked
On Thu, May 10, 2007 4:33 pm, Dr. Josh Backon wrote:
: In the Tshuvot ha'RADBAZ I 73, the Karaites are deemed invalid
: witnesses [*pesulei eidut*]...
How is that more relevant than the Rambam actually treating nidon
didan (as per the subject line) -- how one treats them on a day-to-day
basis? And he explicitly says in Mamrim 3:3 that we should be friendly
with them.
So, lehalakhah, I would conclude the Rambam prohibits hating the
typical current adherent of non-Torah Isms, no less than his
requirement to act bedarkhei shalom with a Qara'i.
Regardless of the proper label implied for such "nebich apiqursim",
the Rambam spells out our bottom line.
Tir'u baTov!
-mi
--
Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:47:13 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Torah Study vs. other contributions to soCIETY
Thu, 10 May 2007 09:12:56 -0400 from: R. David Riceman <driceman@att.net>
>>Zvi Lampel wrote:
> It is not so poshut to go from the classical cases of temporarily
> interrupting one's learning for doing an immediately necessary deed
> that required no training, to the kind of training and more permanent
> time commitment that preparing for Zaka requires, and certainly to
> the time and effort needed to become a medic in preparation for
> situations not yet in existence (although of course predictably they
> will be). In the first case, Talmud Torah remains the kevius, as
> opposed to in the other two cases.<<
RDR:
>The Shulhan Arukh requires (YD 245:1) kvias ittim day and night. It
recommends (ibid. 21, especially in the Rama) that in order for divrei
Torah to be "miskayymim" that one make them ikkar and other occupations
tafel. It is this second form of kevius that you are recommending, yet,
as far as I can tell, there's no halachic requirement for a person to
ensure that his divrei Torah be "miskayymim".
ZL:
I wasn't making any recommendations. I was just commenting on a post that used (a) the halacha about temporarily interrupting one's learning to indicate that (b) one has reason to be a Zakka member, and then that therefore (c) one has reason to study medicine. I commented that it is not so poshut to go from (a) to (b) or from (b) to (c). I was commenting on the logic, not the conclusion.
>Furthermore the prohibition of interrupting Talmud Torah is expressed as
"hayah l'fanav" (ibid. 18). which seems to mean interrupting ittim
kevuim rather than any potential opportunity to learn.
>As an example, my own doctor, in addition to working at a teaching
hospital and running his private practice manages to be president of the
shul and to be kovea ittim. I've never understood the halachic meaning
of the phrase "not so poshut" (I hope RZL will translate into Rabbinnic
Hebrew), but I think his behavior is not only unobjectionable, but even
admirable.
ZL: I agree.
The question about a rabbinical lashon equivelant to "it's not so poshut" in the context I used it (the Latin would be "non-sequitor") is an interesting one worth pursuing. I know that the way it is often used in conversation--when one makes a statement and another says "it's not so poshut" to mean, "I disagree on the grounds that your conclusion is too blanket and simplistic, there are many variables, not everyone agrees to it, it's much more compicated than you're presenting it"--always struck me as itself shallow, if not followed by evidence.
Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070510/12fba21e/attachment.htm
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:51:11 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] FW: Torah Study vs. other contributions to soCIETY
>The question about a rabbinical lashon equivelant to "it's not so poshut" in the context I used it (the Latin would be "non-sequitor") is an interesting one worth pursuing.<
Maybe "eino domeh," or "lo s'vara hee."
Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070510/4d564ad7/attachment.html
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:32:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Davening Netz (sic)
On Thu, May 10, 2007 1:40 pm, R Dov Bloom wrote:
: Netz would be a non-kosher bird, he-netz hachama would be the sunrise,
: the letter heh would be a crucial part of the form of this
: bird/oops/word. Netz hachama is I believe a common misnomer.
... and davening neitz would be AZ. <g>
But I think the error comes from rendering the hif'il "honeitz" (with
a qamatz, shown here as an "o" to make the point), which sounded
enough like "the neitz" to confuse people.
Honeitz is correct biblical Hebrew.
As for proper mishnaic Hebrew, this was discussed on mail-jewish.
R' Mark Steiner
<http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v37/mj_v37i83.html#CAAV> quotes the
Kaufman Codex, Berakhos 1:1 - "heneitz".
R' Mechy Frankel
<http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v37/mj_v37i89.html#CACZ> found in
the same codex Ta'anis 3:9, Pesachim 4:5 - "honeitz. He then cites
Yalon who in turn brings more ra'ayos for the use of honeitz in
mishnah.
Tir'u baTov!
-mi
--
Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:52:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ahavat Yisrael
On Thu, May 10, 2007 11:05 am, R Samuel Svarc wrote on Areivim:
:>On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 11:52:51AM +1000, SBA wrote:
:>: Come now... the MB CLEARLY states:
:>: 'apikorsim HAMISKOMEMIM AL HATORAH'.
Me:
:>Which, again, excludes anyone not raised O, and according to the CI,
:>anyone raised O in today's heterogeneous world.
: Kindly provide a source for this assertion in the name of the CI on
: Avodah.
: He, IIRC, quite clearly doesn't say this.
Two points about the MB's expression.
1- The MB is setting two requirements: that the person be an apiqoreis
and that he be the kind of apiqoreis who attacks the Torah. Someone
who lacks the knowledge to be an apoqoreis but is still someone who
attacks the Torah doesn't qualify.
2- I do not think that someone who attacks the Torah but doesn't come
from a Torah background is "misqomeim". He isn't in a state of
rebellion, but of attack from the outside..
The other issue is whether the typical Jew is a tinoq shenishba. RMF
held yes, with the exception of their religious leadership. RMF's
sevara, however, would apply to nearly all of the current generation
of rabbis as well, since they are no longer products of a classical
Jewish education who left, but products of the education provided by
those movements. The level of education in things we consider Torah is
comparable to early HS (they are well educated, but in other things),
and everything is presented prespun to bias someone against accepting
any of it.
The key CI is YD 2:16.
See the back-and-forth at
<http://tinyurl.com/2tnhf6#TINOK%20SHENISHBA> and adjacent topics --
this is a recurrent theme on Avodah, and I would prefer not to start
at ground zero all over again.
We have debated this in the past, and RYGB wrote about the CI's
position on tinoqos shenishbe'u bizman hazeh at some length. The CI
says that there are two kinds of TS, and the one who heard of Torah
but never lead to embrace it has a sheim rasha, but there are numerous
halakhos that do not apply to him. Such that "lo ma'alim velo moridim"
does not apply to the TS, nor leshitaso anyone who didn't live to see
the beis hamiqdash. See also
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol15/v15n045.shtml#08> where RYGB
cites many question marks (<g> Hebrew that didn't come out) on the issue.
RDJBackon stated that discussion with roughly the same mar'eh meqomos
as before, but left it with a tzarich iyun since the CI does say what
RYGB claimed he did.
RMShinnar <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol15/v15n002.shtml#11> cites
the Pachad Yitzchaq to be even more embracing of the TS. And more
recently RMS cited the Radvaz (4:187) that an apiqoreis defined by his
rebellion, not by having the wrong beliefs in and of itself. And so
someone who reaches kefirah through honest derishah bechaqirah does
not get the chalos sheim kofer.
Ramban at Bemidbar 15:22 discusses the mumar lekhol haTorah kulah
beshogeig.
RDE (unsurprisingly) cited IM OC 5:28.22 pg 103.
Tir'u baTov!
-mi
--
Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your
grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Tir'u baTov!
-mi
--
Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:01:51 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Davening Netz (sic)
R' Dov Bloom wrote:
> Netz would be a non-kosher bird, he-netz hachama would be
> the sunrise, the letter heh would be a crucial part of the
> form of this bird/oops/word. Netz hachama is I believe a
> common misnomer.
It is only a misnomer if the speaker intends to speak Hebrew. But if
the speaker is speaking Yeshivish or Yiddish, it is perfectly
acceptable. This is similar to many other terms, such as:
"b'dieved" rather than "b'd'avad"
"yomtovim" rather than "yamim tovim" or "yomim tovim"
"shabbos" with the accent on the first syllable, rather than the last
Akiva Miller
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: David Riceman <driceman@att.net>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:33:10 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Torah Study vs. other contributions to soCIETY
Samuel Svarc wrote:
>
> one might not be obligated to learn all day <snip>, but it definitely is preferred over
> other Mitzvos. R' Lampel was pointing out that the obligation to interrupt
> Talmud Torah for an immediate necessary deed, does not extent to training
> for that necessary deed. So one can't interrupt Talmud Torah to train for
> Zaka. If one is not learning full time, like R' Riceman's doctor, then we
> all agree that it's "admirable" to volunteer for gemilas chasadim.
>
Consider the (not uncommon) case of someone who has been studying in
Yeshiva full time for several years, and one semester takes a course in
some money making skill. So, for example, on Tuesday and Thursday
afternoons he no longer studies in Yeshiva, instead he studies plumbing
in a trade school. He is not being m'vatel a seder kavua of talmud
Torah on those days; instead he is changing his ittim k'vuim so they
don't include Tuesday and Thursday afternoons.
I think it's very hard to find any realistic example of training which
is prohibited by this halacha.
David Riceman
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: "Moshe Yehuda Gluck" <mgluck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 19:18:27 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Torah Study vs. other contributions to soCIETY
R' David Riceman:
*Consider the (not uncommon) case of someone who has been studying in
*Yeshiva full time for several years, and one semester takes a course in
*some money making skill. So, for example, on Tuesday and Thursday
*afternoons he no longer studies in Yeshiva, instead he studies plumbing
*in a trade school. He is not being m'vatel a seder kavua of talmud
*Torah on those days; instead he is changing his ittim k'vuim so they
*don't include Tuesday and Thursday afternoons.
*
*I think it's very hard to find any realistic example of training which
*is prohibited by this halacha.
A pertinent Mareh Makom is in Even Ha'ezel Hilchos Melachim 3:5-6: "...this
is only regarding a king; but a commoner is permitted to have pleasure even
though that this necessarily causes Bittul Torah through drunkenness or
intimacy. For a commoner, the only prohibition is to perform Bittul Torah
without any cause; then, if he removes himself from the Torah he
transgresses U'pen yasuru m'lvav'cha kol yemei chayecha, and many other
verses that obligate one to learn Torah..."
I was once told that at one point someone wanted to republish Even Haezel
without this "offensive" passage. R' Aharon Kotler objected, and had it
published as is.
KT,
MYG
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: "Meir Rabi" <meirabi@optusnet.com.au>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 10:34:34 -0700
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Meat that is NOT Fleishig? Non Terief Cows for
Shalom Josh,
I believe I have seen that earlier post of yours in my scoutings.
The Rabbanut of Jm suggested that the herd be protected by the army and high
tech surveillance equipment. I think the island idea is a better option.
Who suggests that the meat is not fleishig?
The prohibition of Chazal was not absolute, not every BP requires Shechitah.
In fact the Gaonim were at pains to ensure that this tradition not be
forgotten and would thus take BP to public functions, kill them and feed the
masses.
meir
-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Josh Backon [mailto:backon@vms.huji.ac.il]
Sent: Thursday, 10 May 2007 1:16 PM
To: avodah@lists.aishdas.org
Cc: meirabi@optusnet.com.au; JRich@sibson.com
Subject: Non Terief Cows for Milk - Why Not BP Cows? Even Better.
>There is an additional benefit. The Acharonim argue about the status of a
>Ben Pekuah's milk; is it Chalav Shechuta and therefore Pareve or is it
>Chalav of a "mother", an Eim (as in Lo SeVuShel BeChalav Imo) and therefore
>"normal" milk? At least the ShaAr HaMelech and R Akiva Eiger consider BP
>milk to be pareve.
>
>I believe that Rabbi Moshe Heinemann was once toying with the notion of
>setting up a Ben Pekuah Kosher herd for meat production. Has anyone heard
of
>such a thing?
This could be done only on a deserted island where there is NO
possibility whatsoever
of mating a Ben Pekuah herd with "normal" cows [see Aruch haShulchan YD 13
#12
"oto ha'vlad ein la takana b'shechita " and Aruch haShulchan YD 13 # 15]
[From a post I had on this topic on another group]
Re: mixing meat of a Ben Pekuah with milk:
a) "tzarich iyun" (needs further examination) [R. Akiva Eiger]
b) Only due to SAFEK (doubt) may it be forbidden (Meshivat Nefesh YD]
c) Nodah B'Yehuda: prohibited
Although according to Torah law this animal when grown
doesn't require shechita (Yoreh Deah 13:2) Chazal prohibited this
and even in the case of mating a male *ben pekuah* with a female *ben
[bat] pekuah* (YD 13:4) the offspring of which wouldn't have the halachic
category of meat according to Toraitic law.
BTW a more intriguing possibility would be a *ben pekuah* found in a
*chaya* (deer, or other kosher wild animal YD 87:3). Eating a CHAYA with
milk is only a rabbinic prohibition. But if one could mate a male ben
pekuah of a chaya with a female ben (bat) pekuah of a chaya, the offspring
wouldn't even be prohibited rabbinically (as meat) especially if this
"meat" were then fried in butter made from deer milk and cooked by solar
heat.
But kids, don't do this at home :-)
KT
Josh
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: "Michael Elzufon" <Michael@arnon.co.il>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:22:38 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] Justifying hatred
> Come now... the MB CLEARLY states:
> 'apikorsim HAMISKOMEMIM AL HATORAH'.
> sba
He equally clearly states in the Mishnah Berurah which the Biur Halacha
comes to supplement that, in principle, one should not get into fights
because one acquires the attribute of "azuth," which is a very bad midah
and once acquired, even for use in the service of HKBH, is liable to be
used in other areas. Even though "apikorsim hamithkomemim al hatorah"
justify the fight, azuth remains a midah to be avoided.
It seems to me that azuth in this context refers to the nastiness that
seems to typify far too much frum discourse and most especially this
thread.
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: "Samuel Svarc" <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:05:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Justifying hatred
>From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net>
>From: "SBA" <areivim@sba2.com>
>> Fine, now define what are "apikorsim".
>> Come now... the MB CLEARLY states:
>> 'apikorsim HAMISKOMEMIM AL HATORAH'.
>No, that is what apikorsim DO. That is not how they are defined.
No. An apikoris doesn't have to do anything. It's a description of a
person's beliefs (or lack thereof).
>An apikorus doesn't believe in Yesodot HaTorah.
Correct.
>But one of the fundamental requirements is that HE KNOWS the Yesodot
>HaTorah.
Everyone instinctively knows them. That is the clear halachic consensus
throughout the ages. "Nebach an apikkoris blaibt an apikoris." A saying
from R' Chaim Brisker.
If you have a counter-assertion kindly post it to Avodah where we can
discuss it.
>If he doesn't know them, he is NOT an apikorus.
>Or, as they say in the name of Rav Eizel Charif:
>On a train, a Maskil sat opposite the rabbi and bragged about all the
>general knowledge he had and how he didn't follow Torah etc. and how he was
>an apikorus. When he took a break from speaking, Rav Eizel Charif (IIRC)
>asks him about how much Torah he has learned; how much G'mara and the Maskil
>admits to not learning any Judaica related studies.
>Rav Eizel says to him: You are not an apikorus -- you are an ignoramus!!!
>[you are not metzuve to hate an ignoramus!]
It's a nice story and 'd'rash', but it doesn't speak to our issue. We are
referring to people who *fight* against Torah, "HAMISKOMEMIM AL HATORAH".
All others we feel great pity for, despite their status of apikoris.
KT,
MSS
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 105
***************************************
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..."