Volume 31: Number 57
Thu, 04 Apr 2013
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Meir Rabi <meir...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 23:17:00 +1100
Subject: [Avodah] Lo BaShaMaYim Hi
: Reb Micha does not follow why I mentioned - Otherwise Lo BaShaMaYim Hi.
:
: I mean to say that shutting down ones mind to accept the Pesak or opinion
: of a great rabbi or BD is a desecration of Lo BaShaMaYim Hi...
Reb Micha argues - The tanur shel akhnai story, is about submitting to
halachic process despite proofs from heaven and is not about seikhel over
submission.
Reb Micha, Why do you say this? He could not persuade his colleagues with
his Sevara so he resorted to miracles, and they responded that miracles are
not a proof, their Seichel reigns supreme, even eclipsing Gds will. If they
don?t understand it they do not Pasken it. It is most certainly all about
Seichel and Sevara.
Reb Micha contends that from R' Eliezer's point of view, it was okay to let
the world treat such an oven as tahor DESPITE his seikhel.
But I disagree ? It WAS NOT OK. When BD eventually realizes its mistake,
who will bring the Chatos??
R Eliezer did not require miracles to help him understand that a Machlokes
is Paskened by the majority. He also always maintained his position for
himself, that such an oven is Tamei and that eventually they will bring a
Chatos for their error. Its back to our old core discussion, who brings the
Chatos? Must everyone follow BDs Pesak?
Reb Micha also suggests that the story shows how halakhah is defined by the
legal process, and not by means of determining truth.
I don?t follow this at all. Halacha is defined by Seichel and Sevara, which
is Truth. This is the same as Halachic process. I don?t follow why there is
any reason or purpose to differentiate.
Best,
Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130403/1b118414/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 14:47:41 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Kitniyot - errors
R"n Lisa Liel wrote:
> Rabbis Shlomo Riskin and David Bar Hayim once had a debate
> at the Israel Center in Jerusalem. During the course of
> this, R' Riskin claimed that "lo tirtzach" applied to
> non-Jews. R' Bar Hayim said that it didn't, but that
> "shofech dam adam b'adam damo yeshafech" did. R' Riskin
> pulled out a copy of the Rambam and read: "Kol horeg nefesh
> adam oveir b'lo taaseh, she-ne'emar, lo tirtzach." R' Bar
> Hayim pulled out a copy of an edition of the Rambam based
> on actual manuscripts (as opposed to the one R' Riskin had
> used, which was published under the kindly auspices of the
> Polish Catholic Church), and read: "Kol horeg nefesh adam
> *miYisrael* oveir b'lo taaseh, she-ne'emar, lo tirtzach."
> R' Riskin's response was not to argue in favor of his
> nusach being more correct, but rather to say, "This is the
> version we have today."
>
> Would RMB agree with R' Riskin?
To *me*, the question of which version was actually held by the Rambam is
mildly interesting, but only academically. For paskening purposes, there is
a much more important and valuable question that needs to be discussed: How
did subsequent authorities react to this Rambam?
If subsequent authorities saw a certain text, and they made no comments,
then it seems to me that they sort of "ratified" it. If they saw an
opinion, and no eyebrows were raised, then it passed muster, and became the
accepted halacha. Halachic literature is filled with places where an
authority says, "He couldn't possibly have meant that. He was either
mistaken, or there is typo." Much (most?) of the time, this happens even
without any archeological evidence (i.e., early manuscripts) to support the
claim that the earlier authority had erred. It is all based on the opinion
of the later authority, together with whatever evidence he can bring, such
as other comments elsewhere from that same author.
In my experience, this is the essence of the halachic process. Halacha
k'basrai - we follow the later authority. And WHY do we follow the later
authority? It is because the passage of time allows errors to be
discovered, debated, discussed, and corrected.
Going back to the dispute between Rabbis Riskin and Bar Hayim, as cited by
RLL: It really matters very little to me what the Ramabam actually held,
and I really don't understand why the question of manuscripts is relevant
to anyone. The real question is how the Rambam was understood and
interpreted by his commentaries. If someone wants to know how the Rambam
personally held, that counts for Mitzvas Talmud Torah. But if you want to
know halacha l'maaseh, go to the Kesef Mishne, and the Lechem Mishne, and
so on.
> Certainly, if we find the Aron under Har HaBayit and see that
> the copy of the Sefer Torah that Moshe wrote has differences
> from the one we have, we'd be obligated to make ours conform
> to his. Or is that also something RMB would dispute?
>
> If we were to find a copy of a Sefer Torah in a cave,
> preserved like the Dead Sea Scrolls, and that was different
> from ours, we would *not* change ours, because who knows if
> that one wasn't ganuz for a reason. Maybe it belonged to
> sectarians who changed it. But if we were to find one in the
> actual Aron, that would present us with a fact, and we'd have
> to accept it.
I totally agree. The manuscript of Moshe Rabenu is, as they say, a whole
'nother story. It differs from other situations for a very specific reason:
We don't dare suggest that our Torah text is in error. We acknowledge some
spelling differences, but we're always very quick to point out that they
are so minor as to have no halachic ramifications. The Gemara is filled
with questions of how to deal with anomalous spellings and incompatible
pesukim. If it turned out that one of those spellings or pesukim were
mistaken, the fallout could be... I tremble even thinking about it.
But all texts OTHER than this one lone case are fair game. We are not
afraid to point to a word in the gemara and say, "This word should not be
here," or "There is a missing word here," and this is precisely what gives
credence to the silence of complaints. What I'm trying to say is this: When
someone suggests emending the Gemara or the Rambam, a totally natural
debate ensues and the emendation is either accepted or rejected (or both,
depending who you choose to follow). But of the many texts which no one has
ever suggested emending - why should anyone care if a differing text is
found, even if in the author's own handwriting? He too was fallible, and
the silence of the centuries testifies to the original manuscript being the
one that had the typo.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:53:48 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] kitniyot
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 11:39:47PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Shmita is rather like kidush hachodesh, in the sense that it depends on an
> actual count...
I know there is a chiyuv to count, but does it /depend/ on counting?
In either case, the Rambam's closing words in Shemittah 1:6 make a general
statement about hora'ah. To quote:
Shehaqabalah vehama'aseh amudim gedolim bahora'ah
uvahen ra'ui lehitalos.
The Rambam makes a point in heading in the opposite direction as Zev --
he generalizes from shemitah to pronounce a rule about hora'ah.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 11:36:40AM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
:> If you can explain why you do not believe Shemittah 1:4-6 isn't a
:> pre-10th cent example of accepting halachic process produced results
:> over a computation of truth, I would appreciate it.
: 1) Bayit sheni is irrelevant, because anshe knesset hagedola HAD
: legislative power and ultimate power of interpretation.
How does that make them irrelevent? What you're saying is that one
Beis Din haGadol may choose interpretation over historical evidence of
another BD haGadol, but one local poseiq cannot choose interpretation
over historical evidence of another local poseiq?
: 2) You are, IMHO, completely misunderstanding the rambam - which is
: actually a ra'aya listor.
: The rambam does not, in general, give the post amoraic geonim
: automatic credence, and frequently paskens against them. However,
: their authority derived from two different (albeit related) sources - 1)
: Personal stature 2) As transmitters of traditions from amoraic times -
: and amoraic traditions are binding.....
Well, the Rambam is the Accumulativist, seeing legal interpretation as
having one correct answer, and other answers are the best we can do to
try to find that answer. So of course, his example of authority over
reason will be an example of mesorah from time immemorial.
Still, the Rambam didn't simply say the evidence is compelling and we
have to question the accuracy of the qabbalah. The geonim stated they
had an old tradition, and the Rambam took that belief of accuracy and
antiquity over his own understanding.
...
: Remember he also argues for the utter freedom of a bet din to reject the understandings of previous bate din after the talmud....
If it's gadol bechokhmah uveminyan. I see no reason why the same wouldn't
be true for local pesaq as well.
But that's the legal process. I'm not questioning that process. In fact,
I'm arguing for the version of it the Rambam spells out in the haqdamah
to the Yad ("halakhos" 29-36). He spells out that the difference between
BD haGadol or Talmud Bavli and a gaon or later poseiq is the breadth of
the community that accepts their pesaqim. Shas is shas because
ufashtu gezeirosam, vesaqanosam uminhagosam
bekhol Yisrael
bekhol meqomos mosheveihem (29)
and
hisqimu aleihem kol Yisreal (35)
In contrast to later pesaqim, where their authority is limited to their
acceptance in practice.
As I wrote before, RYBS extends this notion to explain why the greater
Shulchan Arukh has its authority.
But yes, if you find a case where the authority is not absolute, of course
it can be changed. But through halachic discourse.
: finally, framing the debate in terms of constitutive versus
: nonconstitutive misconstrues the issue. yes, there is interpretative
: freedom (eyn lebet midrash bli hiddush), and there is debate about
: the extent of how much the interpretative efforts of predecessors
: actually bind us. However, even the constitutive proponents are not
: post modernists - there is some objective truth traceable to Sinai,
: and it is not merely the invention of creative halachists and our
: deferral to communal norms (catholic Israel anyone??)...
I don't think Catholic Israel is wrong, I think it's missing a piece.
"Hisqimu aleihem kol Yisrael" is a source of authority. As is Hillel
going to see how people manage to get the knives to the BHMQ on Shabbos
erev Pesach when they didn't bring them in advance.
Schechter's problem was that he allowed halakhah to define which subset
of the Jewish People are Catholic Israel, and Catholic Israel to decide
which practices are halakhah. The result is circular reasoning that can
be used to justify anything.
Ad absurdum: If a group of Reform Jews decided that their practice was
an interpretation of halakhah, Schechter's theory gave no real reason
why not. And as proof: they, a section of law-observing Catholic Israel
follow this "halakhah", so it moust be halakhah.
I agree that there is some kind of constitutional law. I'm saying it's
not the same as truth, such that we can say that one can determine truth
by other processes. (Like botanical or archeological studies of olives.)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another?
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: "Elazar M. Teitz" <r...@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 03:14:47 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Which Day is YK? Defying BD
RMeir Rabi makes much of the fact that Rabban Gamliel did not require
that R. Yehoshua eat or wear leather shoes on the latter's computed
Yom Kippur, and comes to the novel conclusion, not mentioned nor even
hinted at by anyone in the nearly two millennia since the incident,
that RG did not really intend to compel RY to violate his YK
I believe that RMR overlooks one point: that RG wanted a _public_ act
on the part of RY. Eating, by its very nature, is done privately.
RG certainly would not have asked RY to be an ocheil bashuk. On the
other hand, walking through the streets and carrying is as public an
act as can be.
Furthermore, RMR's contention that the actions RG decreed need not
represent chillul YK is easily disposed of. All RG had to do was to
greet RY outside his home and have him stop, then continue to walk
indoors. This would undo the lack of akira accomplished by the use
of a m'kom p'tur on route to RG, and render RY a motzi meir'shus
lirshus.
(If one wants to engage in fanciful explanation, it could be argued
that RG required RY to come michutz lat'chum, since the Mishna
indicates that RY traveled to Yavne on that day -- "natal maklo
umaosav v'halach l'Yavne b'yom shechal YK." This is no less fanciful
than RMR's novel interpretations.)
RMR also posits that R. Akiva did no more than remind RY of a halacha
which he, RY, had himself taught but forgotten. This, too, is a
novel theory, which never seems to have occurred to the m'farshei
haMishna through the ages. And if it was the case, why would RA say
"yesh _li_ lilmod shekol ma she'asa RG asuy," rather than "halo
limadtanu shekol ma she'asa RG asuy"?
EMT
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:09:32 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Schlissel Challah ? An Analysis BY RABBI YAIR
From http://tinyurl.com/ck27rjw
As a general rule, we do not find Chassidish customs in the Rishonim
because the movement itself only began in 1740. We, however, do find
mention of the custom to bake Challah in the shape of a key in many,
many Chassidish Seforim. These Seforim were written by genuine Torah
scholars, and it is difficult to propose that a Christian practice
somehow entered into their literary oeuvre. The Klausenberger Rebbe,
the Satmar Rebbe, the Belzer Rebbe, Rav Moshe Aryeh Freund, and
numerous Chassidishe Rebbes and Poskim all punctiliously observed this custom.
Most of the reasons have to do with the Kabbalistic notion of
"Tirayin Petichin" that the gates to Heaven are opened. This concept
of opened gates is found throughout the Zohar and is discussed by
such authorities as the Shla (whose father was a student of the Remah).
The earliest reference is in the works of Rabbi Pinchas Shapiro of
Koritz (born 1726), a descendent of the Megaleh Amukos and a student
of the Baal Shem Tov. In his work called Imrei Pinchas (#298) he
explains that the reason to bake Schlissel Challah on the Shabbos
following Pesach is that during Pesach, the gates to Heaven were
opened and remain open until Pesach Sheni. The key alludes to the
fact that these gates are now open and that we should focus our
prayers ever more on that account.
See the above URL for more. YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130404/7cdd966e/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:09:32 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Chareish (was: Kitniyot)
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 01:13:44PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> I doubt they did such a thing. Rather, the metzius is that most deaf people
> are not also mute. Their speech may not be easily intelligible, but it is
> recognisable as speech. And of course today there are cochlear implants that
> effectively cure a cheresh.
There are machloqesin on "cheireish" in various places in the Y-mi
whether Rebbe meant "deaf" or "deaf-mute" in that particular mishnah
(eg Terumos 1:2, where it includes a deaf person who can speak).
> I've also seen poskim suggest that Chazal's psak only applies to a person
> who can't communicate, but any cheresh who learns sign language and lip
> reading is no longer a cheresh...
RHSchachter goes further, and suggests that someone who is mentally
retarted is more of a cheireish than a shoteh. A shoteh can't make value
judgments because they like shells more than nuts (to use the gemara's
test case). A cheireish is someone who is sane, but can't be taught
enough of the facts that allow a pragmatic definition of right and wrong.
> I find that hard to understand, because
> the halacha is clear that a cheresh who communicates clearly in writing is
> still a cheresh. He could write volumes of shaalos and teshuvos, but he's
> still patur from mitzvos. So how can sign language or lip reading be
> different?
Thinking out loud:
Writing isn't the same as conversation. Someone who knows ASL can join
a community, if a smaller one than is available to the rest of us. Lip
reading opens more doors. Writing is still holding the qehillah at
arm's length, and the person feels cut off. Perhaps that's why he's not
culpable; he lack the same pull to conform.
The pull to conform that the Rambam refers to in his justification of
"kofin oso ad sheyomar 'rotzeh ani'" -- "mei'achar shehu rotzeh lihyos
miYisrael..." (Geirushin 2:20)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate?
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:09:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Kitniyot
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 11:22:29PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> R' Gamliel made him violate hotza'ah (aside the derabbanan of muqtzah)
>> on YK. Is that different than had it been an invitation to a se'udah?
>> And it's clear from R' Aqiva's response that the point was to force him
>> to accept BD's qidush hachodesh. Not just make a reconciliatory display.
> The cases are entirely different. The same evidence was available to
> both Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua. If Rabban Gamliel had been
> locked in a closet during the time the eidim were testifying and made
> his decision anyway, and Rabbi Yehoshua had heard and questioned the
> eidim, that would be a case more similar to what we're talking about.
By R' Gamliel's day, qiddush hachodesh was al pi cheshbon. Eidim were
part of the pro forma process of qiddush, not data.
But I still think this is tangential, because of R' Aqiva's answer being
specific to qiddush hachodesh. It wasn't a case of pesaq after all.
Back to our topic, Lisa writes:
> You're sorely mistaken if you think I'm rejecting the determination of
> poskim. Or as you said earlier in your response: "Lisa is arguing that
> I should not be bound by the authority of accepted legislation or
> interpretation, but by the Truth." That is a wholly untrue evaluation
> of my position. I would thank you to refrain from reformulating my
> words when I'm right here to clarify my intent.
I was checking I understood you. Just as you do in the next paragraph
in return:
> You seem to be taking an extreme position that reality/facts are
> irrelevant in the face of psak. If that's not the case, correct me.
But sometimes, the check engine light is broken, and feedback loop fails
without telling you if the engine is okay. IOW, you are taking objection
to a misunderstanding of my spelling out what I think I am responding
to.
I did not say you're rejecting the determination of posqim. I said that
you give no authority to a given pesaq simply because it's accepted. (Which
might also be wrong...)
As for your feedback about how my position seems to you, that's also
not what I meant at all. I am saying that reality could be irrelevent
in the fact of pesaq. Not that they are. And that it takes a poseiq,
not someone inexperienced who reads RNS's article and decides on his
own that this makes sense and should determine the law halakhah
lemaaseh.
> Whereas I am saying that psak can be reconsidered in the face of new
> evidence...
I believe there are times evidence will overturn pesaq. But because pesaq
is law, there are times it won't.
Some of the questions that sit between RNS's data and pesaq:
Is the word "kezayis" prescriptive or descriptive? How significant is
acceptance that many people recall other common practices? Were those
practices justified, happen to match justification, or not justifiable
textually (by formal halachic process)? How much burden of proof outweighs
how much acceptance?
For years I batted around with RRW here on Avodah the notion of pesaq
as a heuristic (in the CS sense of the word) rather than a hard-n-fast
algorithm. That it takes the weighing of pros and cons that can't be
assigned exact numbers or even measured in the same dimensions.
Not only does one need the book-knowledge of the specific issue and
the kelalim of pesaq, a good poseiq needs to have had shimush. Because
pesaq is an art, a feel. All of this is being circumvented by saying that
the halakhah is what is logical, which is shorthand for saying that the
halakhah is what I believe to be logical.
But I don't know or have a feel for determining what is logical in terms
of conforming to the halachic process. I might be capable at working
something less subjective, less of an art, like science, but halakhah
isn't truth-finding, it's legal interpretation (and legislation).
Just as halakhah doesn't follow evidence from G-d Himself. The procedural
constraint of lo bashamayim hi only makes sense because we are creating
law, not finding truths. Qabel es ha'emes mimi -- and certainly miMi --
sheomru. If it were about truth, why would we tie our hands behind our
backs this way? But WRT law, only the valid ways of interpreting law are
meaningful.
> evidence. I know rabbanim who have reconsidered their piskei halakha
> when new evidence comes to light. And in case you think that this is
> not the same as questioning the psak of earlier rabbanim, I would simply
> point to deaf people as my proof. I haven't seen the recent article in
> Ami Magazine called "Being Deaf and Jewish", but I do know that the
> understanding of cheresh was reevaluated in the face of new evidence,
> even though it effectively changed the psak of Tannaim and Amoraim!
>> If you can explain why you do not believe Shemittah 1:4-6 isn't a
>> pre-10th cent example of accepting halachic process produced results
>> over a computation of truth, I would appreciate it.
> I'm willing to bet that if they'd had concrete evidence showing how the
> Yovel was counted back during Bayit Rishon, that would have trumped the
> process. It's easy enough to say that process wins in the absence of
> evidence to the contrary. I don't think anyone disputes that.
They continued with AkHG's pesaq even after they knew it differed from
bayis rishon's. How do you think Chazal (Zevachim 61b) knew to point
out the switch?
I think we can agree that NO Sanhedrin during bayis sheini would
consider itself gadol bechokhmah compared to Shelomo's -- they weren't
overruling. They pasqened in ignorance of prior pesaq, and the *accepted*
pesaq stood even after the prior pesaq was cleared up.
I believe the Rambam is saying the same. Somewhere along the chain of
qabbalah, and error crept in, but halakhah follows qabalah, *accepted*
pesaq.
Again, not always, that would be algorithmic. But it's a kelal that
has to be given much weight.
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 05:02:04PM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
: But I am probing the HaVa AmiNa, the situation as it was BEFORE Rebbi Akiva
: reminded Rebbi Yehoshua of this fact. Rabon Gamliel needed to make a
: special decree [really a request - see my other posting] because he KNEW
: that he had no power, no right and no authority over ANY sage who argued
: with the BD. So he merely requested that for the sake of quelling any
: suggestions of personality dividing the BD, he create the pretence of
: accepting Rabon Gamliels authority.
We have no indication that Rabban Gamliel forgot that qiddush hachodesh
creates the chodesh rather than acting as pesaq. Only that R' Yehoshua
did. But even if he had, RG was ordering RY not to be a zaqein mamrei.
Because nimnu vegamru DOES have authority over any sage who argued.
As long as both pesaqim were validly derived, such that eilu va'eilu.
But I'm more concerned with "he KNEW that he had no power, no right
and no authority over ANY sage who argued with the BD." This line of
reasoning would justify abandoning the entire concept of pesaq. Ish
hayashar be'einav ya'aseh. I have raised this before, and while you
point out that you would never take things that far, you have no said
how your position can both be valid and NOT take things that way.
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:17:00PM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
: Reb Micha argues - The tanur shel akhnai story, is about submitting to
: halachic process despite proofs from heaven and is not about seikhel over
: submission.
: Reb Micha, Why do you say this? He could not persuade his colleagues with
: his Sevara so he resorted to miracles, and they responded that miracles are
: not a proof, their Seichel reigns supreme, even eclipsing Gds will. If they
: don't understand it they do not Pasken it. It is most certainly all about
: Seichel and Sevara.
It started out being two valid pesaqim. Sevara couldn't compell either
case over the other. One might have been stronger in a relative sense,
but which was the stronger was a matter of opinion.
Then yachid verabim kicked in, and R' Eliezer became wrong.
Then R' Eliezer tries bringing in heaven, and they still follow the
kelal of yachid verabim.
Very relevent is another bas qol, "eilu va'eilu divrei E-loqim Chayim,
vehalakhah beBH." Because (1) there we do follow the bas qol, and (2)
Tosafos (Niddah 7b) say R' Eliezer was on the losing side of that bas qol.
Rashi ad loc says "shamuti" means "put in cheirem", as a consequence of
refusing to give in in our case. Tosafos say it's a term for a member
of Beis Shammai.
However, we also know that Beis Hillel was larger. That when Beis Shammai
forced everyone into an attic to end their machloqesin with a vote, BH won
consistently.
So we don't really relying on bas qol there either, we're following
acharei rabim lehatos. (Tosafos Eiruvin 66b; see also Or Sameiach, Yesodei
haTorah 9:4) Now the question is why HQBH bothered with the bas qol. Was
it because people weren't following the vote anyway? That they would
prefer two Toros and two voting pools -- splitting the qehillah -- to
giving in? Was this the first time we relied on nimnu vegamru outside
the Lishkas haGazis? (The period is around 40 years before the churban.)
But in any case, if we were relying on seikhel rather than the kelal of
pesaq of yachid verabim, the experimental data provided by shamayim should
be pretty compelling data to reason from.
: Reb Micha contends that from R' Eliezer's point of view, it was okay to let
: the world treat such an oven as tahor DESPITE his seikhel.
: But I disagree ? It WAS NOT OK. When BD eventually realizes its mistake,
: who will bring the Chatos??
Depends on a lot of things. But in any case, it's a chatas, not an asham
-- implying that following BD over his own judgment was being honestly
misled, not a conscious mistake. I already dismissed Hil' Shegagos as
a source on these grounds weeks ago.
: R Eliezer did not require miracles to help him understand that a Machlokes
: is Paskened by the majority...
But he did need them to prove that the majority wouldn't be swayed.
...
: I don?t follow this at all. Halacha is defined by Seichel and Sevara, which
: is Truth. This is the same as Halachic process. I don?t follow why there is
: any reason or purpose to differentiate.
I already gave examples earlier in this email: Acharei rabim lehatos trumps
you deciding which is more reasonable. And lo bashamayim hi means that you
can be told the truth by G-d Himself, and still ignore it.
There is still valid halachic process and being wrong -- and many shades
of grey. As in my example of something being uncompellingly argued
from the formal halachic process, and therefore puq chazi (mimeticism)
wins the day. Or something is compelling halachically, or even of great
value to the sho'el for aggadic reasons (eg not wearing tefillin on ch"m
for someone who values kavanos based on Qabbalah) and that may at times
trump commonly accepted practice. As I said, it's an art.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 03:21:00PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
: R' Riskin
: pulled out a copy of the Rambam and read: "Kol horeg nefesh
: adam oveir b'lo taaseh, she-ne'emar, lo tirtzach." R' Bar
: Hayim pulled out a copy of an edition of the Rambam based
: on actual manuscripts ..., and read: "Kol horeg nefesh adam
: *miYisrael* oveir b'lo taaseh, she-ne'emar, lo tirtzach."
: R' Riskin's response was not to argue in favor of his
: nusach being more correct, but rather to say, "This is the
: version we have today.
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:47:41PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: To *me*, the question of which version was actually held by the Rambam
: is mildly interesting, but only academically. For paskening purposes,
: there is a much more important and valuable question that needs to be
: discussed: How did subsequent authorities react to this Rambam?
I would fully agree with RAM on this point.
1- The machloqes isn't pragmatic, so it's not 100% relevant. But if
there is a pragmatic difference, I would say that we apply the laws of
"lo sirtzakh", not "shofeikh dam adam be'adam". Not because we think
the Rambam would have, though.
2- Pesaq is based on the flow, the evolution of halakhah down the ages,
the intergenerational dialog of TSBP. And thus yes, when dealing with
halakhah, we aren't looking at what the Rambam meant, but how the Rambam's
shitah evolved by further generations of posqim.
Returning to Lisa's post:
:> Certainly, if we find the Aron under Har HaBayit and see that
:> the copy of the Sefer Torah that Moshe wrote has differences
:> from the one we have, we'd be obligated to make ours conform
:> to his. Or is that also something RMB would dispute?
And RAM's reply:
:> If we were to find a copy of a Sefer Torah in a cave,
:> preserved like the Dead Sea Scrolls, and that was different
:> from ours, we would *not* change ours, because who knows if
:> that one wasn't ganuz for a reason. Maybe it belonged to
:> sectarians who changed it. But if we were to find one in the
:> actual Aron, that would present us with a fact, and we'd have
:> to accept it.
: I totally agree. The manuscript of Moshe Rabenu is, as they say,
: a whole 'nother story...
I'm inclined to agree, but am not sure. I know the CI disagrees. (As do
the Torah Code people. <grin>) But I do not know anyone who gives what
I would otherwise think is the obvious answer.
And it /is/ consistent with RCVolozhiner's take on the SA and sharp
beets, RCBrisker on chilazon (although again, there it's not mesorah vs
science but mesoretic silence vs research), not switching the mizbeiach
during bayis sheini after the "mistake" was found... And (to add to the
list) RSZA's objection to using R Prof Yehudah Felix's identification of
shiboles shu'al for hilkhos matzah and R' Kook's rejection of archeology
as a means to determine who observes Shushan Purim (Igeros haRe'iyah #423;
h/t RCJachter).
People who know how to pasqen are repeatedly doing things the non-obvious
way. Which is (as per my clarification above) my point: I'm not saying
we should or shouldn't use the ancient olive in deciding what a kezayis
is halakhah lemaaseh. I'm saying that without a rebbe telling you you're
capable of hora'ah, the odds of erring are too high. The rules used for
for creating law aren't the logic used for finding Truth.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate?
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 20:39:34 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Schlissel Challah ? An Analysis BY RABBI YAIR
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 01:09:32PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://tinyurl.com/ck27rjw
R' Yair Hoffman is responding to an article by R' Shelomo Assafa. There
is a pretty PDF version, but RYH points to
<http://www.mesora.org/Shlissel.html>, so I won't bother looking for it.
He lists a number of places where RSA's citations are misleading:
Alfassa writes that "at least one old Irish source tells how at
times when a town was under attack, the men said, "let our women-folk
be instructed in the art of baking cakes containing keys." This is
Alfassa's lead reference, but looking up his reference ... [I]t is a
quote from the fiction works found a collection of Irish newspaper...
[T]here is no correlation between this 20th century literary statement
and a custom that dates back to Eatsern Europe centuries earlier.
Let's now look at the second reference...
citing a book written by James George Frazer...
"Another account mentions a key in
a loaf: "In other parts of Esthonia [sic], again, the Christmas Boar
[cake], as it is called, is baked of the first rye cut at harvest;
it has a conical shape and a cross is impressed on it with a pig's
bone or a key, or three dints are made in it with a buckle or a
piece of charcoal...."
The fact is, however, this source does not mention a key in a loaf
at all. It mentions a cake with a cross on top of it. How was
the shape of the cross made? Either with a bone of a pig or with
a cross shaped key. There is no parallel to the Schlissel Challah
here whatsoever.
Alfassa further tells us in a footnote, "Small breads with the sign of
the cross have been found as far back as 79 CE in the ancient Roman
city of Herculaneum (see The New York Times March 31, 1912). This
was when Christianity emerged in Roman Judea as a Jewish religious
sect which gradually spread out of Jerusalem.
This footnote as well is extremely misleading. The city of
Herculaneum located in the shadow of Mount Vesuvius was destroyed
on August 4th, in the year 79 CE. At the time it was an entirely
pagan city where they worshipped Hercules, and were assuredly
not Christian....
Alfass further attempts to connect the practice with the idea of
placing figurines in cupcakes...
The connection that the author makes between this and Schlissel
Challah is perplexing. There is no geographic connection. There is
no timeline connection. The only similarity is the placing of an
item in something else.
It gave me a huge case of shadenfraude, because I objected when RSA
quoted something I wrote here on Avodah to support a point I would
never agree to:
Micha Berger, founder of the AishDas Society, [orthodox] calls this
type of logic 'reverse engineering,' it's like drawing a circle
around an arrow in a tree, and subsequently declaring the arrow is
a bullseye.[18]
[18] See. aishdas.org/avodah/vol25/v25n384.shtml &
aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n067.shtml#03
So, go see them. The first:
Taamei hamitzvos are lessons drawn from halakhah -- very much after
the arrow is shot. One doesn't darshen halakhah from the taam. It
might be useful as a factor when choosing between two shitos or
sevaros. But only one formal halachic process actually "shot the
arrow" and the question is still unresolved.
Does that sound like a condemnation of reverse engineering a motive for
an existing practice?
The second is on the topic of shlisl challah in particular. After
quoting snippets of the three explanations R' Jeffrey Sacks gives at
<http://torahmusings.com/2011/04/shliss-challah>
I add:
A more prosaic explanation...
Sourdough is hard to come by this week, as it takes over a week to
ferment. The other source of yeast frequently used before the Fleishman's
figured out how to isolate it is barm, a sideproduct of making bear.
But barm has more yeast and is more reactive than they were used to,
and would make softer more floury bread than sourdough. Most metals kill
yeast, although stainless steel doesn't. So they put a piece of metal
into the challah to kill some of the extra yeast off.
Then, once people did it, they reverse-engineered kavanos for the
practice.
Just made it up -- I'm not saying it's emes, just plausible.
Again, not a condemnation of the practice, as is clear from my citing
some examples of that (alleged) reverse engineering.
I have also "blamed" reverse engineering for justifying Purim costumes,
which apparently began in Italy, a country where the Xians celebrate
Carnival with costumes about 2 weeks prior. And I don't think there
is a coinvidence that milchigs on Shavuos starts in the same place as
Wittesmontag -- a dairy festival the Mon before Xian Pentacost. Both
are when the grass is back, and you don't have to ration that inferior
and lesser quantity of milk that cows produce on dried straw.
Reverse engineering is how minhagim are usually born, IMHO. Something
starts grass roots. Perhaps for pragmatic reasons, perhaps for ideological
ones. Then the derashos get started imbuing it with meaning, and a
sociological norm becomes a minhag.
For completeness, I'm going to repeat RJS's ideas here, since only
one is included in the quote R/Prof Levine provided:
1. Based on "Pitchi Li Achoti, Ra'ayati..." ..., on which the Midrash
states "Pitchu li petach ke-chudo shel machat...," ... = something
like "Open your hearts (in teshuvah) like the eye of the needle,
and I (God) will open the rest like [a very large opening].
2- According to Kabbalah on Pesach the gates to heaven were open,
and following Pesach the lower gates are shut, and it's up to us
to open them again...
Which was also mentioned in the quote of RYH's essay. And:
3- In the desert the Jewish people ate from the manna until after
Pesach upon entering the land (with the bringing of the Omer, see:
Josh. 5:11), at which point the ate from the produce... The key
in the challah after Pesach is a request the God should open the
Sha'arei Parnasah... Alternatively, the manna began to fall in the
month of Iyyar, and this Shabbat is always Shabbat Mevarchim Iyyar.
If the key reminds you Who holds the 3 mafteichos of geshamim, chayah,
and techiyas hameisim or 4 -- including parnasah, then it's a good thing.
If it's done instead of turning one's eyes up to our Father in heaven,
it's assur as derekh Emori. (IMHO, but I'm not a poseiq.)
(3 magteichos is R' Yochanan, Taanis 2a. Amora'ei EY -- I guess that means
the later amoraim were choleiq on RY, since he too is from "Maarava"
-- count 3 on the next amud. It seems to me the machloqes is about the
relationship between rain and parnasah in general. R' Yochanan assumes
they are so related that both only have one key; the other opinion counts
them separately.)
And that's my NSHO (not-sufficiently-humble opinion) about segulos in
general. The apple-in-honey of RH is great if it adds meaning to the Yehi
Ratzon. If you think it's sympathetic magick for getting a sweet year,
DON'T DO IT!
I am also worried about an over-emphasis on segulos. At some point the
inferior but still valid avodah of al menas leqabel peras crosses over
into aku"m. Judaism is about doing His Will simply because it's what
we were made for. The gemara (BB 10b) defines paganism as religion to
get something out of it from the divine, "... Any tzedaqah or chesed
that umos aku"m do is a sin for them, as they only act to aggrandize
themselves thereby." (Lehisgadel bahem.)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate?
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:33:10 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Why Did Rebbi Yehoshua Not Want to Accept Rabon
I would like to issue a correction. I mentioned Benei Beteira in the
Tosefta. That is, AFAIK, an erroneous reference. I was simply writing from
memory, and having gone back to the sugya, I see that I blundered in
citing, though my point stands, as you will see.
The Mishna mentions that R'Aqiva saw his master R' Yehoshua' upset, so he
told him ein lanu mo'adim ela elu. Let's call this R' Aqiva #1. Then, R'
Yehoshua' met R' Dosa ben Horkinas, and the latter told him that we must
follow the leaders because we cannot otherwise function (she-im ba-in anu
ladun achar beit dino shel Rabban Gamliel, tserikhin anu ladun achar kol
beit din uveit din she'amad mi-ymot Moshe ve'ad 'akhshav). Let's call that
R' Dosa #1. Then, R' Dosa elaborates by pointing out that the Torah
generally doesn't tell us who the zekeinim were, to teach us that their
decisions are binding. Let's call that R' Dosa #2.
Ad kaan the Mishna.
Finally, in the Gemara, we find out that R' Yehoshua' was still unconvinced
and still sad, until he met R' Aqiva, presumably for a second time. I say
presumably for a second time, because after meeting RA for the first time,
he still saw the need to consult with R' Dosa, while after the following
exchange, he famously said nichamtani, nichamtani. This is where R' Aqiva
tells his master that beis din's sanctification of a month is valid even
when it willfully ignored the actual phase of the moon. Let's call this R'
Aqiva #2.
Now what do the four subsequent opinions add to each other? I feel that
RA#1 implies that we should just get along with the flow, that is what
society accepted, ein lekha mo'adim ella elu. This was not pleasing to RY,
as ultimately, it provides hardly any reason for accepting erroneously
pronounced holidays. It is merely an argument of social cohesion. A bit
what R' Meir Rabi wants to read in what R' Gamliel expected of RY.
Then comes RD#1. The same argument as RA#1 is made, but a bit sharper: at
the court level, we must accept what is out there, because we cannot afford
to question the authority of the court and tehreby bring it down. Courts
can exist because they are ultimately accepted and supported by the people,
and the damage RY would inflict, despite being right, would be so
treemendous, that we must prefer to violate YK, so as not to destroy Jewish
authority in the form of RG's beit din. Now that is a very high proce to
pay for what is essentially an argument from social utility, and RY is
still unconvinced.
In comes RD#2, which makes a novel statement: court pronouncements are
valid by dint of coming from the court. It's RD#1, but much sharper. RY is
ready to go, but with a heavy heart.
In steps RA#2, to show that there is no problem, since mo'adot follow
pronouncements of beit din, even when willfully ignoring the moon's phases.
Now if RY accepted that the people would follow RG's pessaq, and he didn't
need to worry about his own violation of YK, since it was all a show he
could game, then why didn't he agree to go as soon as he heard RA#1 or
RD#1? Particularly RD#1 should suffice, so why RD#2?
So I deduce that the issue was different altogether. RY was expected to
show he accepted RG's authority by accepting his pessaq and violating his
own hypothetical YK, and this had nothing to do with social cohesion,
unity, etc.
To give credit where crdit is due, I should add that this is inspired
heavily by a shiur I once heard from R' Yoel Bin Nun.
Kol tuv,
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Meir Rabi <meir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To which RMR replied:
> > The point was to diffuse a potentially extremely divisive showdown
> > in which I think it is safe to assume, the general community was
> > in favor of the renegade. So it was a show, and it succeeded in
> > averting a uprising or a revolt and still permitted him to maintain
> > the Halacha as he understood it
>
> To which I replied:
> 1) But if so, why did RY not want to go?
> 2) That was the argument of Benei Beteira. R'Yehoshua' was unhappy with
> that.
>
> And I now respond to Reb Aries first point - he was distressed that the
> nation would not be sanctifying YK and they, not the BD, would suffer - as
> I have been explaining for some time now, BD will NOT bring the Chatos but
> the people bring their own Chatos.
>
> I dont follow the Benei Beteira argument, please explain
>
> Best,
>
> Meir G. Rabi
>
--
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Schnellkurs im j?dischen Grundwissen: I. Der Schabbat (Audio)
* Warum beschneiden Juden ihre Knaben ? Multimedia-Vortrag
* Beschneidung, die aktuelle Rechtslage ? Multimedia Schiur
* Was mir in Holocaust Museen fehlt
* Beschneidungslerntag ? Schlu?worte (Multimedia)
* Paneldiskussion zur Beschneidung ? Audio-Datei
* Welche B?nde gibt es zwischen Mensch und G?tt? (Multimedia)
* R?ckblick Gedenkfeier F?rstenfeldbruck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130404/0c13c003/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 57
**************************************
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..."
A list of common acronyms is available at at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)