Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 157

Thu, 06 Aug 2009

• 1. Re: some halachot of moser (Daniel Israel)
• 2. Re: some halachot of moser (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 3. Re: ?????: medieval jewish history (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Categorical imperative (Micha Berger)
• 5. The Gra on Aleinu (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: The Gra on Aleinu (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: some halachot of moser (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: some halachot of moser (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: some halachot of moser (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. scientific advances (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: "scientific advances" (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 14. Re: some halachot of moser (Micha Berger)
• 15. AhS and A Tale of Two Humros (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 16. Re: The Gra on Aleinu (David Riceman)
• 17. Re: some halachot of moser (Zev Sero)

Zev Sero wrote:
> 2. The Aruch Hashulchan absolutely cannot be relied on in this area;
> his exaggerated flattery of contemporary government is transparently
> designed to please the censor, and is so over the top precisely so
> that the reader should understand that he doesn't mean it.  E.g. see
> the title of the siman on hilchot gerut.   It's of a piece with the
> siddurim that proclaimed "avinu malkenu en lanu melech *bashamayim*
> ela ata"; everybody understood that the extra word was not to be said.

Unfortunately, as far as authoritative sources go, once you insist on 
such a reading, the authority of the source is back to being simply your 
assertion.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

Zev Sero wrote:
> Because that's all the Rama says (at the end of se'if 7).   He doesn't
> say anything about other people being allowed to inform on an assailant,
> but he also doesn't say anything about the crime having to be regular
> or habitual.  It seems to me just from the Rama's words that this may
> be a privilege granted to the victim of an assault, because ein adam
> nitpas al tzaaro.
At this point I have presented a number of sources while you keep 
responding with "it just seems to me". Thus you don't have a clear 
statement that it only applies to victim and you refuse to accept the 
sources that this is not so. No point in continuing this

>> *Sema (C.M. 388:30)*:This that the abuser is not reported to the
>> secular authorities is only when he is verbally abusive to the
>> individual but if he causes financial loss and surely if he beats
>> him or causes bodily suffering it is permitted to report him to the
>> secular authorities as is stated in the Rema and the Darchei Moshe.
>
> Sorry, you've mistranslated the Sema in several places.  There is
> nothing in the Sema about "verbally abusive", or "causes financial
> loss".  

This is the understanding of the Chasam Sofer (Gittin 7a) and the 
Minchas Yitzchok (8:148)- sorry you disagree with them.

Bottom line. You have a concern that there might be a difference between 
the victim and others. You bring no source to justify this concern and 
you reject all the mainstream sources which indicate that there is no 
difference. At this point I don't see any benefit continue the discussion.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yadmoshe.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 109 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090805/c9687b87/attachment-0001.vcf>

On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:01:43PM -0600, Daniel Israel wrote:
: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: >So if academics TODAY trash what was out there 100 years ago, then in
: >one hundred years should we expect to trash current prevailing
: >academic opinions?

: Not sure what your point is.  In any case, this seems to be driving 
: towards a pet peeve of mine.  The scientific model is not that 
: subsequent models trash previous models, rather subsequent models refine 
: previous models...

OTOH, when an academic studying Talmud thinks he can correct the
understanding of Rabbi Yishmael compared to the teirutz given by Reish
Laqish, one can be understandably skeptical.

Because when it comes to academia studying halakhah, the model RDI
describes isn't really what holds. There is also a problem that in
history, unlike science, more information and cultural cues are lost
over time than discovered.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 04:09:15PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: As usual when I look at the Maharal, I understand only a small fraction 
: of what I suspect is there, but I'll give it a whirl since no one else 
: seems to be doing so...

I have a bigger problem learning Maharal; my mind fills in the gaps in
my comprehension -- Rorschach inkblot test style. That caveat in mind,
here's how I understood the Tif'eres Yisrael ch 6.

The key is to note that he discusses how the two shitos in gemara explain
the problem with a shaliach tzibbur who says "al qan-tzippor yagiu
Rachamekha" in a different place than his own theory of taam hamitzvos
(the holistic question -- the reason for the whole enterprise). With an
explanation of the Rambam and Ramban's shitos in between, as far as I
can tell as I discussed it in v26n138 at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol26/v26n138.shtml#14>.

The shitos in the gemara as to what's wrong with such a chazan, as per
my understanding of the Maharal, are:

1- "It arouses jealousy of other animals". The implication is that
G-d doesn't run all of the world equally, and thus some species have
a reason to be jealous of others. It opens room for polytheism or
incomplete theism.

2- "Mitzvos are nothing but decrees." We can not assign attributes to
HQBH. Hashem chose these mitzvos because of pure Will, not because of
this middah or that.

It seems that to the Maharal, din is more than a middah that contrasts
chessed, since it means our following His Will. It doesn't imply a
character trait of G-d's. Also, it would seem that the Maharal agrees
with the Moreh that speaking of Hashem's Will doesn't violate Negative
Theology (the idea that the only thing we can assert about Hashem
Himself is what He isn't).

I don't know why the usual teirutz, that we mean Hashem acts in a manner
from which we would emulate Rachamim, doesn't work. Like "Avinu, Av
haRachaman, racheim aleinu..." Perhaps, as per the Moreh and the Gra,
we could distinguish between anthropomoriphications made by neviim and
crafting one's own. More likely in my eyes is that the Maharal feels
the gemara is objectiving because the chazan in question phrased it as
a motivator, not the action itself.

An interesting tangent would be what the above says about the Maharal's
understanding of the 10 sefiros. But I am not capable of even guessing
at that one.

After explaining the Rambam and Ramban, the Maharal then defends the
Ramban's position from this critique, since he assigns desired attributes
for people. It could be pure Divine Will that we be rachmanim.

But this he objects to as well, even while saving the Ramban from being
branded by the same "kefirah" label as the hypothetical chazan.

He objects to the Rambam's placement of cart and horse. (Starting with
the words "Aval midivrei chakhamim nir'eh that one should not say that the
mitzvos which Hashem yisbarakh gave are for the sake of the recipient...")

Leshitaso, mitzvos are decrees, causeless. Hashem then created a universe
and people such that derakheha darkhei no'am. It's not that HQBH wishes
us to be rachanim that He told us to send away the mother bird, but
rather because He commanded us to send her away, Hashem made it so such
behavior would have results that are ne'imos.

In terms of the Euthyphro Dilemma (as reformulated for monotheists):
    Is an action morally good because G-d commands it, or does G-d
    command it because it is morally good?

The Maharal appears to come down on the side of "because G-d commands it",
and thus of Divine Command Theory.

However, while we can't assign explanations to the will of G-d, the
commandments aren't really arbitary in the usual sense of the word. In
the sense that they do correlate to something, actually - to everything:
they correlate to the world that Hashem created in consequence to His
choice of commandments and the people whom He commanded.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org        once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I just posted:
: I don't know why the usual teirutz, that we mean Hashem acts in a manner
: from which we would emulate Rachamim, doesn't work. Like "Avinu, Av
: haRachaman, racheim aleinu..." Perhaps, as per the Moreh and the Gra,
: we could distinguish between anthropomoriphications made by neviim and
: crafting one's own. More likely in my eyes is that the Maharal feels
: the gemara is objectiving because the chazan in question phrased it as
: a motivator, not the action itself.

The Moreh 1:59 appears to consider it important that our tefillos were
constructed by Anshei Kenesses haGdolah who included nevi'im. This is
developed using the gemara of R' Chanina complaining about the talmid of
his who went to the amud and listed adjective after adjective praising
HQBH.

The Gra was a reference to his nusach for Aleinu. The more common nusach
is "umoshav yeqaro bashamayim mimaal". The Gra objects, since "moshav
yeqaro" is an anthropomorphication not found in Tanakh. He insists it
must have been a shibush, since we do not make up our own metaphors for
HQBH.

However, the Gra also takes the attribution of Aleinu to Yehoshua bin
Nun quite seriously. He removed the addition at the end of Aleinu of
"vene'emar, 'Vehayah H' leMelekh...'" from Zechariah, an addition that
dates back to at the late geonim or early rishonim. His reasoning being
that Yehoshua's words don't need support from a late navi. It's a little
odd to support a claim with a proof from a less authoritative source
than the claim itself.

In which case, why doesn't the fact that Yehoshua would have been the
one who wrote "moshav yeqaro" in Aleinu enough to accept that it could
have been authentic nusach?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
mi...@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R"n Chana Luntz wrote:

> given the discussion on domestic abuse taking place ...
> according to my understanding, a lot of professionals ...
> have a very negative view of concepts such as kol kavuda
> bas melech penima because they see such concepts as tools
> that are extremely open to, well, abuse...

and

> RMB is hence likely to find, among many (perhaps more
> often women, but not always) a knee jerk negative
> reaction when they see a man lecturing women of the
> virtues of tznius or bas melech penima.

I totally agree that these concepts are ones which are "extremely open to
abuse". But this does not mean that the concept is inherently wrong or bad,
only that it is easily misused. We need to distinguish betwen proper uses
of the concept, and improper uses of it.

In the case here, I'd like to focus on RCL's example, in which she used the word "lecturing".

My teachers taught me many things about relationships in general and
marriage in particular. One of those lessons was the importance of focusing
on one's OWN obligations and responsibilities, and not so much (if at all)
on the other person's obligations and responsibilities. In short, for a
husband to "lecture" his wife on "the virtues of tznius or bas melech
penima" is a recipe for disaster.

I note that RCL did not write of a husband lecturing his wife, but of a
generic "man lecturing women". These lectures can come from her father, or
from her teachers (or, perhaps best, from her mother or friends). But when
they come from her husband, I think that is where the abuse begins.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Patio furniture that can last you a lifetime.  Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsJcEh0eyYNQOXIeOUWF3MkaZkAucFzStZ5k9nI22pOYTW38P8cC3m/

On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 11:47:30AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: > given the discussion on domestic abuse taking place ...
: > according to my understanding, a lot of professionals ...
: > have a very negative view of concepts such as kol kavuda
: > bas melech penima because they see such concepts as tools
: > that are extremely open to, well, abuse...
...
: I totally agree that these concepts are ones which are "extremely open
: to abuse". But this does not mean that the concept is inherently wrong
: or bad, only that it is easily misused. We need to distinguish betwen
: proper uses of the concept, and improper uses of it.

I planned on waiting another couple of days and replying to the next
round of responses at once. One of the items in the notes in the margins
of printed-out Avodah digests is this one. RAM did a clearer job than
I had in my head.

I just want to bring up one parallel to illustrate his point about
not avoiding institutionalizing something positive because some small
subset may abuse it (or, in this case, refraining from institutionalizing
something):

Much of halakhah and minhag can be severely abused by someone with
OCD tendencies. Our religion can be a minefield for someone with
this condition. One instance in particular, the way we (nearly all
non-Yemenites) wash our hands for neigl vasr and before hamotzi in
particular. It's hand washing, something someone with OCD is prone to
have problems with, and it's not ikkar hadin -- the patterns are al pi
qaballah. And then they have /different/ particular orders. Yet, I haven't
heard anyone turn that into an argument against maintaining the minhagim.

But the bulk of my reply to the responses to my previous post will come
later.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

Re: Moshav Yekaro

I heard [no source]that it was changed because yekaro is gematria yeshu.

If so then Gra's objections were not historical or scientific
But reactionary

Think of his objections to trees in shul on Shavuos being assur because
Goyim use trees...

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Daniel Israel wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote:
>> 2. The Aruch Hashulchan absolutely cannot be relied on in this area;
>> his exaggerated flattery of contemporary government is transparently
>> designed to please the censor, and is so over the top precisely so
>> that the reader should understand that he doesn't mean it.  E.g. see
>> the title of the siman on hilchot gerut.   It's of a piece with the
>> siddurim that proclaimed "avinu malkenu en lanu melech *bashamayim*
>> ela ata"; everybody understood that the extra word was not to be said.

> Unfortunately, as far as authoritative sources go, once you insist on 
> such a reading, the authority of the source is back to being simply your 
> assertion.

When a source is *known* to write things he doesn't mean in order to
get by the censor, how can you possibly rely on anything he writes in
that vein?  I have pointed to a place where he wrote that a halacha
no longer applies because nowadays we live under the wonderful and
enlightened rule of the KYRH, and where surely nobody will claim that
he meant it.  Therefore whenever he writes of a halacha that the
censor wouldn't like, that it no longer applies because of the
enlightened nature of the modern government (and remember just which
government he was talking about), surely you must concede that we
must treat it with extreme skepticism.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote:
>> Because that's all the Rama says (at the end of se'if 7).   He doesn't
>> say anything about other people being allowed to inform on an assailant,
>> but he also doesn't say anything about the crime having to be regular
>> or habitual.  It seems to me just from the Rama's words that this may
>> be a privilege granted to the victim of an assault, because ein adam
>> nitpas al tzaaro.

> At this point I have presented a number of sources while you keep 
> responding with "it just seems to me". Thus you don't have a clear 
> statement that it only applies to victim and you refuse to accept the 
> sources that this is not so. No point in continuing this

Because the sources you present are not talking about the same thing
that the Rama's plain language is talking about.  I'm just taking him
at his word.  This is what he says, and he doesn't say any more than
that.  I have *not* claimed that a third party may *not* masser someone
who has assaulted someone once, but the Rama doesn't say one may, and
nothing you have presented shows otherwise.


>>> *Sema (C.M. 388:30)*:This that the abuser is not reported to the
>>> secular authorities is only when he is verbally abusive to the
>>> individual but if he causes financial loss and surely if he beats
>>> him or causes bodily suffering it is permitted to report him to the
>>> secular authorities as is stated in the Rema and the Darchei Moshe.
>>
>> Sorry, you've mistranslated the Sema in several places.  There is
>> nothing in the Sema about "verbally abusive", or "causes financial
>> loss".  
> 
> This is the understanding of the Chasam Sofer (Gittin 7a) and the 
> Minchas Yitzchok (8:148)- sorry you disagree with them.

Again, you have simply mistranslated the words.  The Sema's words are
what they are, and anyone can look at them and see that they are not
as you have quoted them.   The Chasam Sofer does say this, but not in
the Sema's name.  The Minchas Yitzchok quotes the Sema, and seems to
understand him to be *generally* following this line of reasoning, but
doesn't go into details, since the point of the teshuvah is not about
an individual at all, but about a tzibur.   Nor is any of this
relevant to our question, which is whether a third party can inform on
one who assaults an individual.


> Bottom line. You have a concern that there might be a difference
> between the victim and others. You bring no source to justify this
> concern

My source is the Rama himself.  All I have done is quote his exact
words, and posit a reason for why he *might* mean exactly what he
says.  To show that he didn't mean it, the burden is on you to show
him saying the opposite somewhere else.


> and you reject all the mainstream sources which indicate that there
> is no difference.

So far you haven't brought one.  All the sources you quoted were
about averting danger to the public, which is not what we are talking
about.  Again, the topic here is the Rama's heter for an individual
to inform on someone who has physically assaulted him; we are not
talking about someone who poses a likely danger to the public - that
is another topic.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Zev Sero:
> 2. The Aruch Hashulchan absolutely cannot be relied on in this area;
> his exaggerated flattery of contemporary government is transparently
> designed to please the censor

Caveat:
Zev well knows I question many of his assertions

But to the best of my knowledge he is correct on this point. Most
critical readers consider the AhS gushing comments as a nod to the
oppressive czarist regime.

*******************

Furthermore I want to make a Hilluq

Disobeying "free" or democratic regimes is one thing. Disobeying
Opressive regimes such as the Czarist regime is different.

My 2 cents
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Yes, there are times when a revolutionary new advance
means reversing previous understanding, but e.g., Einstein proved
Newton wrong doesn't mean things fall up.>>

We have to distinguish between facts and science philsophy.
In terms of facts or equations Einstein's equations reduce to Newton's
laws for most situations. Only in the presence of very high speeds or
extreme gravitational forces does the answer change.

Of course Einstein's way of looking at the universe is different than
Newton but various physicists are indeed looking into alternatives.
Should a grand unified theory (GUT) ever be fund it may und Einstein.
However, as Daniel stated it would only undo Einstein's
philosophy and not the facts which have been verified experimentally.

One has to differentiate between the grand theory and details. No one
doubts the present anatomical theories of blood circulation which were
misunderstood by the ancients including the Talmud and rishonim. That
doesnt imply that every latest medical theory is correct

-- 
Eli Turkel

RET
> That doesn't imply that every latest medical theory is correct

About 100 years ago science said:
Since diabetics lose sugar in their urine
And
Since they lose weight and grow weaker
Therefore they need to supplement their diets with MORE sugar to compensate!

Today we would laugh at this - but Woody Allen's Sleeper provides a
model on how that someday OUR scientific beliefs will be laughed at too.

#############

DI
> Not sure what your point is

To get people to reflect

To think "critically" in the sense of not drinking the "Kool-aid"

Newer may be better or may be nothing more than revisionism to sell
new books.

EG:
A Rabbinical Colleague into "wissenshaft"
[Name available offline] has warned me about not running too far with
the latest scientific conclusions

##############

Many "revisions" in minhag are similar.
Often a new "insight" is popular, but the change provides nothing more
than a "trade-off"

Examples abound: here is one:
Artscroll is even-handed

L'eila l'eila. (Sans a connecrive vav) is deemed "grammatically" superior

OTOH from the Manuscripts of the Maharil the VAV is considered the
original nusach.

Classic svara vs. Mesorah stuff.

AISI changing a shul's exisitng minhag one way or the other nets no
benefit - and is merely change for change's sake.

OTOH Setting up a NEW Minhag would be different

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 04:50:31PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
wrote:
: Zev Sero:
:> 2. The Aruch Hashulchan absolutely cannot be relied on in this area;
:> his exaggerated flattery of contemporary government is transparently
:> designed to please the censor

: But to the best of my knowledge he is correct on this point. Most
: critical readers consider the AhS gushing comments as a nod to the
: oppressive czarist regime.

The rule of thumb I was taught is that the AhS's flattering is overt
and obvious. And so, when Zev Sero wrote on on Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at
8:11am EDT:
: When a source is *known* to write things he doesn't mean in order to
: get by the censor, how can you possibly rely on anything he writes in
: that vein? ...

Because RYM Epstein is known to do it with "transparent design", as RRW
put it. If it's not patently obvious, then the AhS meant it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

In YD 89:11 AhS seems to accept the premise of the Rema - namely that
we wait after Hard Cheese to eat meat, just like we wait after meat in
order to eat dairy. Although he does acknowledge that "Rabbim ein
nizharin bezeh.."

However, in YD 89:17 he objects to a gzeira about kashering a keli back
and forth from meat to dairy

A: it's a humra yeseira
B: ein lanu ligzor gzeiros midaateinu

Q: Mah nafshach! Siman 89 has many humros and gzeiros not found in
the Talmud! Why pick on this one?

KT
RRW.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Micha Berger wrote:
> The Gra was a reference to his nusach for Aleinu. The more common nusach
> is "umoshav yeqaro bashamayim mimaal". The Gra objects, since "moshav
> yeqaro" is an anthropomorphication not found in Tanakh. He insists it
> must have been a shibush, since we do not make up our own metaphors for
> HQBH.
>   
I was curious about the source for this, since I had also heard the same 
explanation as RRW.  I found both explanations in Ma'aseh Rav haShalem.  
The notes in Siddur Ezor Eliyahu, which purports to identify the Gaon's 
nusah, say that both versions are found in early Ashkenazic siddurim, 
and, indeed, points to Tur OH 133 which mentions both versions and 
prefers umoshav yekaro.  The recent Siddur Maharal says that the old 
Prague version was v'chisei kvodo.
> However, the Gra also takes the attribution of Aleinu to Yehoshua bin
> Nun quite seriously. He removed the addition at the end of Aleinu of
> "vene'emar, 'Vehayah H' leMelekh...'" from Zechariah, an addition that
> dates back to at the late geonim or early rishonim.
Is that really true? Siddur Ezor Eliyahu says that all early Ashkenazic 
siddurim lack it (and that adding it is a Lurianic custom), and Siddur 
Maharal says that the old Prague nusah lacked it.  Ma'aseh Rav haShalem 
offers the explanation I had previously heard, that the passuk from 
Zecharyah appears considerably later on in the Yamim Noraim nusah, in 
addition to offering a variant of your explanation (attributing it to 
Achan rather than Yehoshua).  What I didn't see is any evidence your 
contention that the addition is early.  How do you know that?

David Riceman

Micha Berger wrote:
> The rule of thumb I was taught is that the AhS's flattering is overt
> and obvious. And so, when Zev Sero wrote on on Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at
> 8:11am EDT:
> : When a source is *known* to write things he doesn't mean in order to
> : get by the censor, how can you possibly rely on anything he writes in
> : that vein? ...

> Because RYM Epstein is known to do it with "transparent design", as RRW
> put it. If it's not patently obvious, then the AhS meant it.

Nu, so why do you assume he's not obvious here?  It's certainly obvious
to me.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 157
***************************************

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..."