Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 15

Sat, 20 Oct 2007

• 1. Re: May Kohanim visit the Rebbe's Ohel by means of a box (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. Re: May Kohanim visit the Rebbe's Ohel by means of a "box"? (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos (Arie Folger)
• 4. Religion and Falsifiability (Richard Wolberg)
• 5. tower of Bavel (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: Religion and Falsifiability (David Riceman)
• 7. Netilas Yadayim (Dov Kay)
• 8. Re: When was the Bris Bein Habesarim? (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 9. brit ben habasrim (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: May Kohanim visit the Rebbe's Ohel by means of a "box"? (Menachem Posner)
• 11. Re: Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Re: Regarding Anger: What is R' Moshe's Resolution? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: May Kohanim visit the Rebbe's Ohel by means of a "box"? (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: May Kohanim visit the Rebbe's Ohel by means of a box (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 15. Re: May Kohanim visit the Rebbe's Ohel by means of a box (Russell Levy)

R' Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> BTW, I've heard an argument similar to R' HS's in the name of
> a major Posek regarding wearing modern-day Techeiles: If this
> is it, explain why the generations before us were not able to
> have it?

I don't understand this argument at all. I'd think that the new techeiles is a great example of advancements in technology. Previous generations did not use the new techeiles, because they had no access to it. It was only discovered as a result of various factors in chemical knowledge. (Maybe I've misunderstood the whole business of the new techeles?)

There are other examples of new technology as well. From what I've heard, until recent decades, no one had the ability to make tefillin batim as strong as the ones we have now. But with advancements in metallurgy and other manufacturing processes, we now have tefillin that are so weather-resistant that many poskim advise us to never open them for inspection, unless there is a specific reason to suspect that they've gone bad. To me, this is a significant change to the previous halacha (2 inspections every 7 years) and it is a direct result of the new technology.

But other innovations have nothing to do with new technology. Previous generations could easily have done it. The claim is being made that these kohen-boxes are in this category. (I wish I could think of other examples, but my mind is drawing blanks at the moment. But the comment "If this was okay, earlier generations would've done it" sure sounds familiar.)

I might have thought that the kohen-boxes were in the "new technology" category, because they would have been very impractical before the availability of lightweight materials. But R' Zev Sero's post about using humans as a mechitza suggests that there's really nothing at all new about the kohen-boxes.

Akiva Miller

RRW wrote:
> Huh?
> Of course this impacts Halacha! if the box is a kosher workaround for
> Tum'ah - Then Kohanim should be EXPECTED to vist kever Avos.

Eh, perhaps the presence of the box means that the visitor is emotionnally 
close, but not visiting, since he is - according to those who permit the use 
of the box, in a different reshus? Do the kohanim enter the ohel? The box 
won't help, so they must perhaps also be lenient in assuming that qivrei 
tzadiqim are not metame (or feel that there is no one really burried there).

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Friday, 19. October 2007 11.25:24 avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org wrote:
> I guess I feel RHS is coming across not acknowledging other "kosher"
> approaches - his way or the highway. ?Whether he intends to do that, I do
> not know, I have not verified this with him. ?I would say that we can
> quibble with the underlying premise in any given paragraph.

This is common in literature, especially in books like MiPninei HoRav, for 
there, RHS is trying to explain his master, it is not a Shu"t.

BTW, I am fascinated by your abilities to analyze this matter with such 
thoroughness, but fear it will go nowhere. Halakhah is not mathematics, and 
posqim are not mechanics. Clearly, the GRA often overturned consensus, and it 
doesn't always jibe with what we are used to see. Others do so more modestly 
all the time.

I would tend to believe the following: Halakhah - within bounds - clearly 
develops over time. However, this development isn't always positive. 
Sometimes, after a few centuries, someone will notice how the bounds within 
which Halakhah should be allowed to develop have been overstepped, because we 
have gotten too far from the psaq in the Bavli, Yerushalmi, Midrash Zohar or 
whatever. The list isn't always exactly the same, but dependent upon the 
minhag and hashqfah of the poseq.

Some people are very modest, on account of their less great stature, and hence 
will not want to overturn consensus so quickly. Others, like the GRA, are so 
great that they are bothered by some deviations that most of us don't feel. 
Being as great as they are, they are bold and quick to disregard some 
concensus, and on account of their greatness, that is tolerated. Finally, 
there are some little people who feel that they can act like the GRA did, and 
they overturn consensus, but no one (or almost no one) will listen. The 
process of accepting ideas here is probably similar to the way RMF discribed 
his growth into becomming the American posseq par excellence.

Also relevant is the kind of halakhic issue we are talking about. Having two 
matzot instead of three isn't as grave IMHO as blowing shofar on RH she'hal 
beShabbat where unwarranted. Hence, you'll find a lot fewer people 
entertaining pasqening like the RIF on shofar, but more about 2 matzot like 
the GRA.

In conlusion, I do not believe that we can find a single overarching principle 
that explains all ma'hloqot in halakhah.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

R' Richard Wolpoe:

But I was told Mirshatarbed NISHt fu na kasha. We do NOT die from a
question!? 

 

But we certainly can die if we fail to ask the question...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071019/4c38e74b/attachment-0001.htm 

<<The Gemara in Shabbos 10b says that at the time of Lot's escape, S'dom was
52 years old and Tzoar was 51. Rashi there states the following:
"Sdom preceded (Tzoar) by one year), as it explains that Sdom was 52,
because you must say that the builders of the tower were in Shinar, and
there was no population in the world except in that Bik'ah, as it writes
"And the entire Land was one language.... and it was when they travelled
from the east... and from there they dispersed to other places when they
were scattered and they built themselves cities; and from the time they were
dispersed until Sdom was destroyed it is but 52 years, for at the end of the
days of Peleg is when the dispersion happened, as it says in Seder Olam...
calculate the years of Peleg and it comes out that the year he died in was
Avraham's 48th year, and when Sdom was destroyed that was the 99th year of
Avraham...>>

This contradicts the various theories that only a few people were in
Shinar at the
time of the dispersion. Thus, we return to my question that Ur of the
Chaldees seems to be older.
Furthermore it implies that Charan and Egypt were just beginning when
Abraham visited them
i.e Tzohar is not just that city but all of Egypt including the Pharoh
dynasties were less
than 51 years old.
It also eliminates the ancient Sumer, Akkadian etc dynasties not to
speak of China.

-- 
Eli Turkel

Micha Berger wrote:
> What information would you need to be presented to take off your kipah?
>
> However, this does mean that in religion's core domain, I do believe
> that certain things could not possibly ever be found.
I'm surprised not to find mussar on your list.  I once had a 
(non-religious) officemate who lived in Brooklyn and who insisted that 
certain groups of orthodox Jews were notoriously dishonest businessmen.  
I argued that he probably had a biased sample - - he just noticed these 
people more when they behaved dishonestly.

Suppose, however, that someone asked you for an example of evil 
behavior, and then produced a survey showing that observant Jews were 
evil in that way more than <picture your favorite control group here>.  
Would that affect you?

David Riceman

> Sefer Toldoth Adam (a biography of R. Zalman Volozhiner, who> was a student of the Gra) says that R. Zalman used to wear> mittens when he slept so that he could start learning when> he woke up without having to wash his hands first.
 
I think the source for this is the Sefer Chassidim.
 
Kol tuv
Dov Kay
_________________________________________________________________
Feel like a local wherever you go.
http://www.backofmyhand.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071019/066408c1/attachment-0001.html 

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:54:53 +0200
"Marty Bluke" <marty.bluke@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you just read parshas Lech Lecha you would think that first Hashem
> told Avraham to go to Eretz Yisroel, then came the story with Lot etc,
> and then came the Bris Bein Habesarim. However, the Rishonim point out
> that if we take a closer look at the chronology we see that this is
> not true.

[snipped details of the standard, Medrashic chronology]

Note that not all Rishonim accept this version; see Ibn Ezra She'mos
40:12 ("long" and "short") and Ralbag Be'reishis 15:13 ("explanation of
the words"), who both reject elements of the Seder Olam / Rashi
chronology.  The Ralbag gives his own interpretation of all the
relevant passages, and then continues:

And what the author of Seder Olam has said ... does not appear to me to
be correct".

He then proceeds to propound numerous difficulties with the SO
account,  Ayyen Sham.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

<<Hashem tells Avraham by the Bris Bein Habesarim that his descendents
will be in golus 400 years. Rashi points out that we were only in
Egypt 210 years and therefore explains based on the medrashim that the
400 years started with the birth of Yitzchak. However, the Torah says
in Parshas Bo that we were in Egypt 430 years. Rashi there explains
(again based on medrashim) that the extra 30 years is from the Bris
Bein Habesarim, in other words the Bris Bein Habesarim was 30 years
before Yitzchak was born. We know that Yitzchak was born when Avraham
was 100 years old which means that Bris Bein Habesarim had to be 30
years earlier when Avraham was 70. However, at the beginning of
parshas Lech Lecha the Torah tells us that Avraham was 75 years old
when he left Charan. This means that Lech Lecha had to be 5 years
after the Bris Bein Habesarim. Tosafos in Shabbos 10b makes this
calculation and says this is what happened. Avraham came to EY when he
was 70 and went through the Bris Bein Habesarim, and then he returned
to Charan for 5 years until Hashem told him Lech Lecha.

The question we have now is why is the Torah written this way? What is
the lesson we are supposed to learn from the way the Torah ordered
things? Tosafos points out the discrepancy but doesn't explain why.
>>

R, Medan addresses this issue

http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/parsha65/03-65lekh.htm

In fact he concludes that Bris Bein Habesarim occurs before Abram came
to Canaan! (but was within greater EY)

In either case the beginning of lech lecha and G-d's command for Abram
to go to EY
is not the first time G-d spoke to Abram (according to this Rashi) and the
events in the parsha are not in order.

-- 
Eli Turkel

FYI A few years ago a temporary fence was erected on both sides of the narrow path leading from the visitors center to the Ohel relegating this entire discussion to the realm of theoretics for the moment since there are no more boxes used. 
Lehagdil Torah Ulehaadirah!
Menachem Posner

_____________________________________________________________
Click for free info on college degrees.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iieX4ntREudLhyM98dDH6oaTz9VmwLXnHZ1VynS7dXsApNlBQ/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071019/acc4dc84/attachment-0001.htm 

In conlusion, I do not believe that we can find a single overarching
principle that explains all ma'hloqot in halakhah.
--
Arie Folger
=================================

Which is exactly what bothers the unified field theorists -  then
halacha seems arbitrary and the halachik process not reproducible.

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On Sun, October 14, 2007 12:03 am, Meir Rabi wrote:
: R' Moshe's explains an inconsistency in the RaMBaM Hilchos DeOs at the
: conclusion of the first part of his Teshuvah, O"Ch 1:54.

I was actually nearing completion of a blog entry on this subject when
RMR's email arrived.

: Would someone help me understand this? Because this appears to be a
: surprising reading of the RaMBaM who at first glance is proposing that
: in some circumstances one should NEVER get angry....

Does the Rambam actually ever speak about circumstances? RMF's peshat
is difficult in that the Rambam speaks of shevil hazahav in pereq 1,
and "never" in pereq 2. Nothing about them being different situations.

I think there is a tip-off in that the Rambam tells you in pereq 1
that he believes there are two different ideals. But that is a new
peshat, not Rav Moshe's.

: Could R' Moshe understand
: that this means NEVER get angry to correct that evil? But to prevent
: others
: from concluding that this does not require a strong protest one MUST
: express anger?

RMF is saying that getting angry doesn't help correct evil. But
external signs of anger can. Therefore, where such external signs
would be helpful, express anger.

I am hoping to have something on the apparent setirah at
http://www.aishdas.org/asp by the end of the weekend, be"H. I have
something on the difference between pereq 1's focus on the chakham and
pereq 2's focus on the chassid. Also, on pereq 1's focus on the ideal,
and pereq 2's discussion of the refu'ah. And possibly combining the
two: never getting angry is the proper refu'ah if one is trying to be
a chassid, but hergel is the proper refu'ah for the aspiring chakham.
I am hoping over Shabbos to figure out the relevence of the examples
in pereq 2 -- gaaavah and ka'as -- being two of the three middos that
take someone from olam haba. If not, I will post the entry with the
open question.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

Arie Folger wrote:

> Do the kohanim enter the ohel? The box won't help

There is no roof over the graves.  Therefore no problem.


> so they must perhaps also be lenient in assuming that qivrei 
> tzadiqim are not metame

There is such an opinion, but L is far too much like B to rely on it.
When you get right down to it, L are Litvaks, and a Litvak bleibt a
Litvak, even if he learns chassidus.
  

> (or feel that there is no one really burried there).

Those who feel that way don't go in the first place. (For some reason
they don't feel the need to visit the previous rebbe, who AFAIK everyone
agrees is buried there; though who knows, maybe they don't believe he's
there either.)

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:56:28 GMT
"kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:

[snip]

> There are other examples of new technology as well. From what I've heard, until recent decades, no one had the ability to make tefillin batim as strong as the ones we have now. But with advancements in metallurgy and other manufacturing processes, we now have tefillin that are so weather-resistant that many poskim advise us to never open them for inspection, unless there is a specific reason to suspect that they've gone bad. To me, this is a significant change to the previous halacha (2 inspections every 7 years) and it is a direct result of the new technology.

Tefilin that are regularly worn have never needed any inspection; the
requirement of twice in seven years applies to those that aren't - SA
OH 39:10.  Do Poskim say that today's Tefilin don't need checking even
in the latter case?

> Akiva Miller

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On 10/19/07, kennethgmiller@juno.com <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
> But other innovations have nothing to do with new technology. Previous generations could easily have done it. The claim is being made that these kohen-boxes are in this category. (I wish I could think of other examples, but my mind is drawing blanks at the moment. But the comment "If this was okay, earlier generations would've done it" sure sounds familiar.)

For one example, see Igros Moshe YD II 51 regarding waiters wearing
gloves to avoid the issue of stam yeinam. He specifically uses that
argument.


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 15
**************************************

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..."