Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 264

Mon, 28 Dec 2009

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:17:41 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere


Rn Chana:
"halacha Moshe m'Sinai, "

Ironic choice of words here

R Shimshon of Sens [Rash] proves that several cases Of HLMM cannot be
taken lliterally. FWIW This was posted on avodah this past year

And RSR Hirsch and Zehcaryah Frankel had bitter debates about defining
this terms

And the use of "sinai" with regard to high holiday melodies is rarely
seen as literally misinai, it just means "fixed"

So HLMM and Sinai is a popular topic itself for deconstruction and
while hard-liners might see this as "Reform" most ortho's who are into
Wissenshaft would dissent with that point completely.

[email #2 -mi]

Rn Chana: 
> This is a standard deconstructionist theme, that words are ultimately 
> empty of meaning. If you want to get into deconstructionism and Humpty 
> Dumpty (which was Lewis Carol's version of it, "words mean whatever 
> I say they mean"), you can do so, but at that point there is no point 
> talking about halacha, and you might as well go off and join the Reform. 
> After all, as I pointed out "melacha" is certainly an elusive word, 
> if you want one, so why not go on what one "feels" Hashem wants when he 
> wants us not to do melacha -- and whatever feels right in terms of your 
> understanding of the word is what you should do (or not do) on shabbas.
 
Why not see this as complex rather than deconstructive? 
 
 
A Chaveir just sent me this offline. 
 
I will BEH take a look at these articles soon 
 
Meanhwile the Chaveir wrote 
> I looked in the local beis medrash, and there's an article in the
> Encyclopedia Talmudit titled "Gezera", in volume 5. It has a section
> titled "sugei (types of) gezeira" from columns 533 to 537.
 
> From my very cursory skimming of that section, I see ten consecutive
> paragraphs, all beginning with the words "v'yesh shegazru".
> This leads me to conclude that 
> + they have collected at least ten distinct types of gezeros, 
>  or perhaps 
> + ten different reasons for enacting them.

I don't know the threshold here, but if there are indeed 10 categories of
g'zeira then it takes a lot of time energy to make a proper taxonomy. I
think it's premature to jump to conclusions! Havvu m'saunnim baddin!

[email #3 -mi]

This is intended as my final post - except for answering questions and
perhaps tying up some loose ends.


See Enc. Talmudit vol. 5 column 529 Deifintion: "Issur shell chachamim
bidvar hamuttar mishum s'yag V'geder ... "Divrei hachamim b'chol dor
v'dor lhachmir laasos s'yag" Seems straight out of Avos 1:1

Also See Enc. Talmudit vol. 5 column 540

3 eras delineating "sof g'zeira":

> One opinion: Only up thru AKHG and BD hag'dolim see fn 163 tshuvas Rav
> Sar Shalom Gaon - tshuvos hag'onim "chemda g'nuzah" 77

Not to be gozeir after the g'onim fn 164 Maggid Mishneh hametz umatza 5:20

And some say even the g'onim lacked this right after the Talmud Fn 165
[Rosh shabbas ch. 2 siman 20


Tiyuvta on RRW? Maybe so or maybe no

Ok, assuming the above is correct then how can my colleague also be
correct?

Namely:
> A beit din can decide to enact a ban on anything it thinks needs
> to be banned, and the ban is only enforceable in the community which
> recognizes the beit din as its authority for such matters, and only to
> the extent that that beit din has the power to enforce its rulings or
> to the extent to which people follow the ruling anyway in the absence
> of enforcement power

[EG g'zeira against bigamy and qitniyyos on Passover Also how can these
posqim nullify a 'mishnah brura' {pun intended} of "asu s'yag letorah"!?]



Once you answer this vital question I will simply recommend some further
reading

NB Tur Sa Rema on Choshen Mishpat 1 thru siman 25 but especially siman 2

[TOC in tur for siman 2: "Mipnei tzorech sho'oh danin bechutza lo'oretz
"bizman hazeh" deenei k'nasos, v'dinei n'fashos v'dinei makkos ..."]

Tur ChM 2: [paraphrasing Rambam] V'keivan shero'im BD sheporztim ha'am
b'davar, yeish lahem ligdor ul'chazeik"



Rambam Haqdama to Mishnah Haqdama to mishmah torah re: Taqqanos G'zeiros
and minhaggim by Gaonim

Rambam MT hil. hametz umatzah ch. 5 re: 3 Gaonic g'zeiros or minhaggim.

Rambam MT Mamrim ch. 1 and 2


The aforementioned Enc Talmudit article

Elon's Mishpat Ho'Ivri Chapters 13-20.

Hataqqanos b'yisrael [locations still unknown]

Kushiya on the Enc article col. 539 "Ein ledamos g'zeiros hachamim
zo l'zo"

But that's precisley what RMF did when comparing a microphone on Shabbas
to "klei shir" by saying "mah lee microphone mah lee klei sheer?"!

And so too those who are "gozeir" on bicycles on shabbos Mishum shema
y'taqein mah lomar?

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



Regarding the Gaonic issur on NOT salting meat after not being washed
for 3 days, it makes more sense to me to label it as a g'zeira and
not a p'saq. [As was done with qitniyyos] Few of you will concur, but
I actually thing calling these g'zeiros. @'saq deconstructs the term
"p'saq" for me. I'd rather use a more straightforward approach.

And apparently ROY agrees that prohibiting bicycles is really a g'zeira,
but apparently he disallows such g'zeiros - but I don't.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:19:03 +0000
Subject:
[Avodah] More on Kidra Hayssa and Sheetas R. Henkin


Corrigenda and Addenda 
 
According to the Sabbath Kitchen by R Simcha Bunim Cohen 
Pp 56-57 & fn 15 
 
It is indeed true that Rav Henkin stated we may not rely upon Kidra
hayssa in our days and as per this source:
 
1 It's due to the fact that "since with modern coolking mthods almost
any typr of food can be cooked in a relatively short period"
2 "however, this ruling does NOT apply with a crockpot, which cooks slowly" 
 
 
[Personal Note: 
This crockpot aspect had been my biggest "whine" about the entire issur of
Rav Henkin ZTL Now that I see crockpots are OK -- I'm OK with Rav Henkins
issur -- whether regardles of whether it's a p'saq or a g'zeira] ;-)
 
Tangentially: 
In my research on Orach Hayyim 253 it seems clear that AhS says
hesech hada'as works if the kidra hayssa is not ready for Friday Night
DINNER. But it seems per Chayei Adam the kidra hayssa should not be
ready any time on Friday Night w/o any qualification. [Perhaps the Dinner
Clause was intended but left unarticulated] 
 
KT 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Samuel Svarc <ssv...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:32:20 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Masneh al Mah Shekassav baTorah


On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 8:17 PM,  <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In a recent daf [BB 126] it is quite clear that anyone who makes a tnai
> upon what is written in the Torah, that t'nai is batteil.
>
> I'm looking at Rema Choshen Mishpat 8:1
>
> "Any tzibbur may accept upon themselves a beth din that is not worthy
> according to the Torah"
> source given
> Beth Yosef in the name of Shu"t Rashba [sefer toldos adam 290]
>
> How can that be so?

I fail to hear the difficulty. Could you elaborate?

KT,
MSS



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:47:59 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Masneh al Mah Shekassav baTorah


MSS:
> ?<rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In a recent daf [BB 126] it is quite clear that anyone who makes a tnai
>> upon what is written in the Torah, that t'nai is batteil.

>> I'm looking at Rema Choshen Mishpat 8:1
>> "Any tzibbur may accept upon themselves a beth din that is not worthy
>> according to the Torah"

> I fail to hear the difficulty. Could you elaborate?

OK - As per Shas:
If Reuven makes a tnai in an agreement to disregard a torah law the
condition is bateil.

EG from 126 a father cannot make a tnai to disregard hilchos y'rushah

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


to disregard Torah laws when appointing a beis din. How can that be?
Since Torah laws may not be disregarded in an agreement therefore how
can they be disregarded when appointing dayyanim? Shouldn't those
appointments be bateil?

[Note: FWIW I would guess the Rema is referring to a community that has
no better alternative.]

I hope this helps
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Samuel Svarc <ssv...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:01:30 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Masneh al Mah Shekassav baTorah


On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:47 PM,  <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OK - As per Shas:
> If Reuven makes a tnai in an agreement to disregard a torah law the condition is bateil.
>
> EG from 126 a father cannot make a tnai to disregard hilchos y'rushah
>
> -----------------------
>
> Now OTOH the Rema ?pasqens that a tzibbur can - by mutual consensus
> -agree to disregard Torah laws when appointing a beis din. How can
> that be? ?Since Torah laws may not be disregarded in an agreement
> therefore how can they be disregarded when appointing dayyanim?
> ?Shouldn't those appointments be bateil?
>
> [Note: FWIW I would guess the Rema is referring to a community that has no better alternative.]

I think you have just answered your question. Their not making a tnai
against Torah - and in fact they can't pasken against anything in
Torah. They are agreeing to be bound by particular people in cases
were they don't know what the din is. E.g. If this BD knows dinnie
yerusha they can't pasken not in accordance. If they don't know then
their psak is valid.

Good question: What happens when they paskened in a state of lack of
knowledge and then a TC comes to town?

KT,
MSS



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 05:15:24 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Masneh al Mah Shekassav baTorah


MSS: 
> I think you have just answered your question. Their not making a tnai 
> against Torah -- and in fact they can't pasken against anything in 
> Torah. They are agreeing to be bound by particular people in cases 
> were they don't know what the din is...
...
> Good question: What happens when they paskened in a state of lack of 
> knowledge and then a TC comes to town? 

Maybe so 

Remember, though that the rules are not just about ignorance 

There are other rules 
EG two brothers 
A ger 
Etc. 

The torah says don't appoint these as dayyanim nevertheless by concent
they can be appointed despite their "P'sul"

And they are not just doing pesharah or arbitration! They have authority
to "subpeona" etc.

[I'm not saying there is NO answer, I'm just not clear what the answer
would be]

KT 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Samuel Svarc <ssv...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:23:56 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Masneh al Mah Shekassav baTorah


On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:15 AM,  <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Micha:
> Plz Post if you wish
>
> MSS:
> ?I think you have just answered your question. Their not making a tnai
> against Torah - and in fact they can't pasken against anything in
> Torah. They are agreeing to be bound by particular people in cases
> were they don't know what the din is. E.g. If this BD knows dinnie
> yerusha they can't pasken not in accordance. If they don't know then
> their psak is valid.
>
> Good question: What happens when they paskened in a state of lack of
> knowledge and then a TC comes to town?
>
> KT,
> MSS?
>
> Maybe so
>
> Remember, though that the rules are not just about ignorance
>
> There are other rules
> EG two brothers
> A ger
> Etc.
>
> The torah says don't appoint these as dayyanim nevertheless by concent they can be appointed despite their "P'sul"
>
> And they are not just doing pesharah or arbitration! They have authority to "subpeona" etc.
>
> [I'm not saying there is NO answer, I'm just not clear what the answer would be]

Nu, this isn't a BD so those p'sulim don't disqualify them. This is an
accepted binding arbitration board that now has a lot of powers (I'm
giving one paradigm, not defining it). They can't go against Torah and
where they don't know they use their best judgement.

KT,
MSS



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 05:31:39 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Masneh al Mah Shekassav baTorah


MSS: 
> Nu, this isn't a BD so those p'sulim don't disqualify them. This is an
> accepted binding arbitration board that now has a lot of powers (I'm
> giving one paradigm, not defining it). They can't go against Torah and
> where they don't know they use their best judgement.

OK so why can't an invalid tnai re: yerushah [BB 126] equally "morph"
into valid t'nai re: mattanah which does work halachically speaking? But
we don't say that, rather we say the entire enterprise is batteil instead.

I guess had Rema said: if any tzibbur wishes to appoint a board of
arbitration in lieu of appointing a BD and then they would no longer
subject to the laws of appointing dayanim I would agree with you w/o
further ado

It's just not so likely this is what the Rema means, nor did I see any
of the meforshim pick up on this.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Samuel Svarc <ssv...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:42:20 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Masneh al Mah Shekassav baTorah


On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:31 AM,  <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Plz post:
>
> MSS:
> ?Nu, this isn't a BD so those p'sulim don't disqualify them. This is an
> accepted binding arbitration board that now has a lot of powers (I'm
> giving one paradigm, not defining it). They can't go against Torah and where they don't know they use their best judgement.
>
> KT,
> MSS?
>
> OK so why can't an invalid tnai re: yerushah [BB 126]equally "morph"
> into valid t'nai re: mattanah which does work halachically speaking?
> ?But we don't say
> that, rather we say the entire enterprise is batteil instead.

Explained already, because then you're going against what you know to
be Torah. Whereas, the same way you can have two brothers as partners
in a business and this isn't, somehow, against having them on a BD,
you can have two brothers on this "arbitration" board which is not a
BD.
>
> I guess had Rema said: if any tzibbur wishes to appoint a board of arbitration in lieu of appointing a BD

There is no in "lieu" here. They are unable to have a BD so instead of
having the Wild West they use 'sechel'. If they can have a BD they
cannot have this.

> and then they would no longer subject to the laws of
> appointing dayanim I would agree with you w/o further ado

What's the lashon?

>
> It's just not so likely this is what the Rema means, nor did I see any of the meforshim pick up on this.

I've heard this quoted many times b'shem R' Akiva Eiger. Nu, so it was
really the Rema.

KT,
MSS



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Arie Folger <arie.fol...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:57:55 +0100
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere


RRW wrote:
> RHS ignored RYBS's prohibition Re: Eruv in Manhattan and re-opened the
> issue and revised the p'saq and certified an eruv around YU.

FYI, there is an eruv around at least parts of YU, and RHS supports it
(or atleast, there was such an eruv there when I was there, and
reportedly, it has expanded since).
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Equal Justice for All - even in Israel?
* The Warmongering Laboring Amazons
* But is it Still Pork?
* Glaubensweitergabe ? Ein Videovortrag



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:31:23 GMT
Subject:
[Avodah] Name of this week's Parsha


In the thread "Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere", R' Rich Wolpoe pointed out that:

> for 50+ years I pronounced vayhi with a sh'va na, but as
> hazal note it's VAY HEE no sh'va na

It is the perfect time of year to point out that this is also true of the name of this week's parsha:

The all-too-ubiquitous "Vayechi", with a sheva nach and three syllables, is an error. Rather, it has a sheva na and only two syllables: "Vaychi" or "Vaichi".

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Save $10 on Flowers and Gifts!
Shop now at www.ftd.com/16714
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL213
1/c?cp=L_ZUkKQsYnvZUnnR9DjFdgAAJz3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAIAAAAUAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVBAAAAABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmZ0ZC5jb20vMTY3MTQ=



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: t6...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:39:00 EST
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] anarchy/libertarianism




 

>> ...It's not a matter of the Rambam's correctness, it's
a  matter of the usability of his position given where we stand. And I
was  saying that for most of us, this position doesn't fit.

My problem with  the Rambam is more the Shuby question... Personally, I
am incapable of  believing that a person with Downs, who is capable of an
incredible emunah  peshutah (he doesn't reason his way out of believing
that G-d is as real as a  person he never met) but less compehension,
actually not only gets a harder  olam hazeh, but less hana'ah miziv
haShechinah when it's all over. I can't do  it, because my son Shuby
makes me nogei'ah bedavar, but I still think the  objection is sound. <<


-- 
Micha  Berger             

 
 
>>>>>
You have touched on this before, but it's still not clear to me.  Does  the 
Rambam actually say or imply that only intellectually superior people go to 
 olam haba or to the highest level of olam haba?
 
The confusion to me is that Shuby's brain may be limited but surely his  
neshama is not limited?  Assuming that he fulfills all the mitzvos he is  able 
to the best of his understanding and ability in this world,  surely  his 
neshama will not have "less hana'ah miziv haShechinah when it's all  over"?  
 
You know the famous story, "You won't be asked, 'Why weren't you the Vilna  
Gaon?'  You will be asked, 'Why weren't you Zusha?' "
 
Does the Rambam hold that you /will/ be asked, "Why weren't you the Vilna  
Gaon?"  even if your IQ was fifty points lower than the Gaon's?  
 
(The average Jewish IQ is 110 and the Gaon's was at least 160, probably  
higher.)  (Yes I know that the average IQ on Avodah is higher than 110 but  
it's still way lower than the Gaon's!)  
 

--Toby  Katz
========== 

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091227/91eccdbc/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 13
From: t6...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:06:16 EST
Subject:
[Avodah] remarriage after divorce


I want to ask the chevra whether there is any possible work-around or  
exception to the rule that a couple cannot remarry after a divorce if the woman  
had subsequently married someone else?
 
This is something that actually affects people I am close to, a case where  
the couple divorced years ago and the wife remarried and was subsequently  
widowed after several years in her second marriage.  The husband never  
remarried.  Now, years later -- they are both in their seventies -- they  have 
become friendly with each other again and are thinking about getting back  
together.  I told the husband that sadly, he is out of luck -- he is not  
halachically permitted to take back his ex-wife.  However, he has not asked  a 
shaila and I am not a posek.  So I wonder, is there any way he can marry  his 
ex-wife again?  When I told him he can't marry her, he asked me, "Well,  
can we live in sin?"  It certainly doesn't seem that that would be mutar  
either, but would it be worse or better, or no different, from actually marrying 
 her?  
 
There is a comical side to this question, I know, but I'm dead  serious.  
It is in reality a story with a lot of heartache in it.   This man and woman 
lost a son under tragic circumstances several years ago and  altogether, 
their lives have been full of sadness and hardship.  At their  age they have 
also lost many friends.  
 

--Toby Katz
==========


--------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091228/40e9d51b/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Simon Montagu <simon.mont...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:30:45 -0800
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reciting Shir haMa'alot or 'Al Naharot Bavel


On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Dov Kaiser <dov_...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>  R. Arie Folger wrote: <<The Mishnah Verurah, following Peri Megadim,
> following Magen Avraham ...>>
>
> I note that you transliterate Mishnah Verurah as... Mishnah Verurah.  Could
> you please explain the rationale for this.  I note that the Roedelheim
> siddur vowelizes safa berura (not verura) in birkhas yotzer, and yism'chu
> b'malkhus'kha (not v'malkhus'kha) in Shabbos mussaf.  How is this different?
>
>
This would be a question on Roedelheim, since Tzefanya 3 9 (and many other
siddurim) say "safa verura".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20091227/a16c2692/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 264
***************************************

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..."


< Previous Next >