Volume 33: Number 12
Wed, 21 Jan 2015
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:31:05 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Beit Yosef's Algorithm
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 08:43:02AM -0500, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: The Beit Yosef in his introduction provides his algorithm for arriving
: at psak. The first step is to look at Rambam, Rif and Rosh and go by
: the majority. He then states what to do in cases where one of the 3 has
: no opinion etc. I was wondering if anyone has ever done a study of
: all or a subset of the Beit Yosef's rulings to see what percentage of
: the rulings support the claimed algorithm...
: As a follow up issue: If you always reach a conclusion on an issue based
: on a vote of 3 authorities (assuming the only choices are permitted or
: forbidden), if you then codify the results without the reasoning and then
: try to produce a function to project results in other cases, won't this
: data set of results yield a function which is likely to project results
: in some other cases which differs from what the 2 out of 3 authorities'
: algorithms of Psak would have resulted in and which does not have a
: consistent theoretical basis?
I thought that the BY's head-count was not on the pesaq level, but on
the sugya level. 2 out of 3 authorities' theoretical bases, not pesaqim.
IOW, to explain by fictional example: Say the Rif is silent on some
issue of establishing residency WRT setting up an eruv chatzeiros, but
his position WRT mezuzah implies (as the BY sees things) a given pesaq
here. Then, that Rif would be counted in the majority when it comes to
hilkhos Shabbos as well.
The only way one could end up with an inconsistant result would be if
one of the three (as understood by the BY) applies different sevaros in
different cases -- but then the inconsistency would be the rishon's
(or a misunderstanding by the BY) and not due to the vote-taking.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM)
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:15:02 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Metzitza on Shabbos, Beris in the Midbar
Rabbi Meir G. Rabi asked:
> What are the Halachic medical issues or suspect medical issues,
> which are not recognised by our modern medical experts - for which
> R Kenneth says, we are nevertheless instructed by Halacha to be
> Mechallel Shabbos?
I quote from the English version of Nishmat Avraham (ArtScroll, 2000) by Rabbi Dr Abraham S. Abraham, vol 1, pg 182:
"The seriously (or dangerously) ill patient ..."
"(d) One whose state or illness our Sages have defined as being dangerous,
even if this is contrary to current medical opinion; for example, a woman
during the first seven days following childbirth..."
Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata 36:13 writes: "You can do for her whatever she
asks for her health and comfort (l'briutah ul'hargashatah hatovah) even of
the doctor says there's no need for it at all." See there and the following
paragraph for examples of what can be done, and how to do it.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
What's your flood risk?
Find flood maps, interactive tools, FAQs, and agents in your area.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54be551a87dd4551a7f67st03vuc
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: David Wacholder
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 00:47:57 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Captain Nemo meets Midrash
Does Midrash Raba in Parshas Bo recounts Jewish reaction to questions
posed by "AbNEMUS the weaver". Was he a well known figure, or an
ignoramus? Was he the famed Athenian Abnemus or -- a common weaver
named mockingly "From Nobody"?
There is an intrinsic unspoken "conflict" at beginning of Parshas Bo.
after 7 miracles what do you need three more? At first glance the goal
is to show even more ways that Hashem is great. On the other hand, seven
plagues already bounced off Pharaoh. On the other hand -- look at your
audience -- see how the lack of responsive reaction to seven ever more
awe-inspiring Makos lasted less time than the Makos themselves (almost)!
What will three more teach them?
Midrash Raba wants to answer that the greatest wonders are Pharaoh's
intransigence -- and even more the patience and forebearance of the
Almighty. From this new angle, deadly plagues showed the biggest wonder --
that even Hashem's best magnificent efforts could not cause Pharaoh to
repent!! The stubbornness of the Mitzriim was illustrated by the simple
weaver -- nicknamed "From Nobody".
There is a Latin phrase -- ab aeterna -- from for ever, or ab antique
-- from ancient times. In that vein the ignorant Roman is named for
his half thought out argument disguised as a question -- from nobody,
there is no question.
AB NEMUS short for Ab Nemine or ab Neminibus -- Latin for "From Nobody"
-- simple Latin spoken to Roman soldiers.
Most will remember Captain Nemo, (meaning nobody), the protagonist in
Jules Verne's novel "60,000 Leagues Under the Sea" by. Captain Nemo
perhaps adopted the invented name AbNemus.
Did the Midrash foreshadow Captain Nemo? Captain Nemo was the submarine
captain before the invention of submarines. While the oceans were all
within his reach, on land Nemo was the first non-person, as he had no
country and spent only the shortest amount of time on land.
Applied to Captain Nemo's acolytes -- rebellious non-acceptors will
ever remain impervious to acceptance of the Deity. That was the Mussar
Haskeil of the miracles of Parshas Bo.
The arguments were heard often in discussions with soldiers and other
Romans. The Midrash gives the proper reply to a familiar argument. It
was typical Roman soldier conversation -- where did world come from?
Hagardi -- the low-skilled weaver. He has no special talents for even
simple weaving, implying the futility of a technical conversation and
deep argument.
The unskilled weaver asks a technical question to the nearest Jew. The
average Jew answers -- I don't have any special skills either -- go to
the skilled craftsman architect. Seek him out in the new construction
over there.
The weaver finds the project and asks for Abba Yosef the Builder. They
point him to a man on the roof cementing the eaves of the roof so they
won't leak. The weaver gets Abba Yosef the Builder's attention. From the
roof above we hear Abba Yosef the Builder's voice -- I would come down
but -- I am a day worker -- I speak to you from up here -- [as opposed
to you] as my boss is paying me -- what do you want?
The Midrash contrasts the busy constructive Jewish People -- independent
contractors -- versus the aimless questioner, who will not devote
himself anyway.
The Throne of Glory is a Macrocosm -- the upper world -- is the Microcosm
-- the lower worlds writ large. Pointing to the cement he was mixing with
water, Hashem took a small handful of dust, mixed in some water, to make
land. The larger pebbles became mountains. For the Almighty, it was just
a minor project. The Jews are doing on their level similar efforts.
Contrast Pharaoh's tyrannical slave colony.
How was the world created from earth?
Well -- that is easy -- he took a bag of sand and pebbles and put it
down -- sand became this, pebbles became mountains... that was the easy
part... the hard part is Hashem finding patience to listen to all the
Drei Kops -- finding patience for that is ever so much more difficult
than creating the World!
How does sand hold water in the oceans? Weight of the sand -- it carries
above it the heavy waters. Perhaps with effort and dedication mere
grains of sand will hold up the sea! Similarly -- extensive efforts at
not advancing the cause of Hashem -- like Mitzrayim in the face of the
Makos -- will manage to ignore Hashem if they will it.
The Midrash meta message that the stubborn impudent questioners are the
"challenge" -- having patience to deal with them! The Makos showed ten
times that Paroh was primarily stubbornly evil.
Nemo means "nobody" -- the phrase "Nemo est supra legis" Nobody is above
the Law -- neatly turned into -- Captain Nemo is beyond the reach of all
Law. Nemo fought to overthrow organized society. Captain Nemo's nihilism
extended to the Deity. The Midrash furnished a reply 1500 years earlier.
--
David Wacholder
Email: dwachol...@gmail.com
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:22:26 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] conquest of EY by Yehoshua
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:01:44PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: I always understood that the mitzva was to remove all the Caanainites, see
: the story with the Giveonites. Certainly Sefer Shoftim seems to fault the
: Jews for not expelling the Caananites.
The Rambam apportions 23 mitzvos to Hilkhos Melakhim. #6 is "lehachrim
shiv'ah amamin", #7 is "shelo lahachayos meihen neshmah".
But the Rambam also famously allows people to leave the 7 nations without
being expelled or killed (Melakhim 6:1), if they become tax-paying (in
money and/or state services) members of the Jewish state and accept the
7 mitzvos.
But the idea was to break the nations of Canaan, their sovereignty,
and elements of their culture, not to rid the land of the individuals.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the
mi...@aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for
http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 00:18:29 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] conquest of EY by Yehoshua
<<But the idea was to break the nations of Canaan, their sovereignty,
and elements of their culture, not to rid the land of the individuals.>>
which didn't happen. In the end The Jews followed the Canaanites rather than
the Canaanites giving up their culture
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:01:44PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> : I always understood that the mitzva was to remove all the Caanainites,
> see
> : the story with the Giveonites. Certainly Sefer Shoftim seems to fault the
> : Jews for not expelling the Caananites.
>
> The Rambam apportions 23 mitzvos to Hilkhos Melakhim. #6 is "lehachrim
> shiv'ah amamin", #7 is "shelo lahachayos meihen neshmah".
>
> But the Rambam also famously allows people to leave the 7 nations without
> being expelled or killed (Melakhim 6:1), if they become tax-paying (in
> money and/or state services) members of the Jewish state and accept the
> 7 mitzvos.
>
> But the idea was to break the nations of Canaan, their sovereignty,
> and elements of their culture, not to rid the land of the individuals.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the
> mi...@aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for
> http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary.
> Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning
>
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150121/17a273ba/attachment.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 23:34:45 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Getting along with the in-laws
R' Micha Berger referred us to the Ahs OC 371:2, but I'm having trouble
translating it. The Aruch Hashulchan writes: "This is davka when he went to
'bito', but when he went to 'chasno' it assurs, because it is likely that
'kalaso' will fight with him."
The first word, 'bito', is very common and means 'his daughter'. But if so,
then what does 'chasno' mean? I might have translated it as 'son-in-law',
but I'd like to think that his daughter's home is the same as his
son-in-law's home.
So I thought that perhaps 'chasno' means 'father-in-law', to suggest that
the operative criterion here is not the genders of the folks involved, but
whether it is the children who are the guests or the parents who are the
guests.
But then I got thrown off by the word 'kalaso', which I understand to mean
'daughter-in-law', which means that throughout the se'if we're talking
about the older folks being guests at the kids' home.
'Chasno' can't mean 'his son', can it? Why not just us the word 'b'no'? Can someone translate that line for me, please?
Akiva Miller
KennethGMil...@juno.com
____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:21:13 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Getting along with the in-laws
So, there appears to be a machloqes over whether it's typical to get
along with your in-laws.
The case the Ahs (OC 371:2) discusses is when one of the residents
of the courtyard didn't participate in the eruv but is away for
Shabbos. If he is a guest out of town, he isn't an issue (se'if 1).
If it's in town:
If he went to his home one courtyard over, if he has no intent to
return on Shabbos, he doesn't prohibit the chatzeir for them.
The gemara (Eiruvin 86a) says that if he goes to his daughter's house
and has no intent to return, the eiruv is okay.
The Tur writes that this is only his daughter's house, ubt if he
goes to his son's home, the eiruv is pasul. Because a spat with the
daughter-in-law that sends him back home is too likely.
-------------------------------
And is this (in the tur's opinion) an existential truth or subject to changes in society?
Kt
Joel rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
Thank you.
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Zev Sero
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:57:33 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Getting along with the in-laws
R Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> The gemara (Eiruvin 86a) says that if he goes to his daughter's house
> and has no intent to return, the eiruv is okay.
>
> The Tur writes that this is only his daughter's house, ubt if he
> goes to his son's home, the eiruv is pasul. Because a spat with the
> daughter-in-law that sends him back home is too likely.
This has nothing to do with the Tur. It's an open gemara!
> The Rambam (Eiruvin 4) omits the law, the AhS assumes (and understand
> the MM as making this point) because the thing about a daughter's house
> is just the most likely situation.
He doesn't assume anything -- this is what the MM says.
> And one can't be medayeiq.
This he doesn't say, because it's not true. The gemara is explicitly
medayeiq, how can you say one can't be? All the MM says is that the
Rambam understood the gemara's diyuk not to be making a halachic
distinction between a daughter's house and a son's, but merely making
an observation about people's likely behaviour, but if a person behaves
atypically the halacha is the same.
> It's not in the BY either.
It is in the BY, but it's not in the SA.
R Akiva Miller <KennethGMil...@juno.com> wrote:
> R' Micha Berger referred us to the Ahs OC 371:2, but I'm having
> trouble translating it. The Aruch Hashulchan writes: "This is davka
> when he went to 'bito', but when he went to 'chasno' it assurs,
> because it is likely that 'kalaso' will fight with him."
Yes, the AhS's language is clearly a mistake. He meant to write
"beno", not "chasno".
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:01:26 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Getting along with the in-laws
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:34pm GMT, R Akiva Miller wrote:
: R' Micha Berger referred us to the Ahs OC 371:2, but I'm having trouble
: translating it. The Aruch Hashulchan writes: "This is davka when he went
: to 'bito', but when he went to 'chasno' it assurs, because it is likely
: that 'kalaso' will fight with him."
Actually, the most "critical" edition of the AhS is probably the one at
http://j.mp/1JhoSqP , and I'm not just saying that because R' Avi Kaddish
is on list.
You'll notice that he has "aval keshehalakh eitzel (chosno) [beno] --
oser", which is why I translated it as being about son and daughter-in-law
(kalaso).
The Tur contrasts staying at one's daughter "she'efshar lo ladur
eitzel chosno", in contrast to staying at his sons, which isn't a
hesech hada'as from living at home, "shema lo yachol ladur eitzel
kalaso". That's probably how the wrong word crept in.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:21pm EST, R Joel Rich asked:
> And is this (in the tur's opinion) an existential truth or subject to
> changes in society?
I would assume it's a default assumption. The neighbors, who have to
decide whether or not they may carry in their chatzeir, should assume
they can if he went to his daughter's, and not if he went to his son's.
But what if everyone in the couryard know the family well, and
know the chance of his daughter-in-law not being able to handle
their visit is minimal? May they carry? And in the reverse -- if
they know the son-in-law hates their guts and is very controlling,
are they prohibited from carrying?
As for whether default assumptions change with society...
1- Is the mishnah giving a pesaq or recording legislation. If legislation,
it might outlive its reason.
2- Even if pesaq,
2a- Based on the CI, one might
2ai- be able to make an argument that halakhah as decided in the years
2000-4000 AM is binding even if the realia change; or perhaps
2aii- that even leshitaso, one might say that the mishnah originally meant
to be conditional on contect.
2b- But according to most understandings of the tana vs amora line,
there would be no reeson to question changing pesaq as the underlying
facts of the case do.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:57:33PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
:> The Tur writes that this is only his daughter's house, ubt if he
:> goes to his son's home, the eiruv is pasul. Because a spat with the
:> daughter-in-law that sends him back home is too likely.
:
: This has nothing to do with the Tur. It's an open gemara!
Which I mentioned. However, if I'm telling you what the AhS says, the
the AhS introduces the shitah as the Tur's and then adds "vechein hu
bigmara". So, that's the way I wrote it as well.
:> The Rambam (Eiruvin 4) omits the law, the AhS assumes (and understand
:> the MM as making this point) because the thing about a daughter's house
:> is just the most likely situation.
: He doesn't assume anything -- this is what the MM says.
Again, he doesn't say that's that the MM says, he says "vezehu kavanas
haMM", and so my presentation parallels.
:> And one can't be medayeiq.
...
: Rambam understood the gemara's diyuk not to be making a halachic
: distinction between a daughter's house and a son's, but merely making
: an observation about people's likely behaviour, but if a person behaves
: atypically the halacha is the same.
Of there is nothing to be learned out of the word choice, I wouldn't
call it a diyuq. That's all I mean; that according to the Rambam, the
gemara is telling you not to read to much (be medayeiq) into R' Shim'on
(in the mishnah) saying "bito".
:> It's not in the BY either.
: It is in the BY, but it's not in the SA.
Correct.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:07:23 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] conquest of EY by Yehoshua
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:18:29AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: which didn't happen. In the end The Jews followed the Canaanites rather than
: the Canaanites giving up their culture
... and you wondered why the original 14 years weren't enough to get the
job done?
Or were you asking what landmark Yehoshua hit in the process that said
that then was the time to start dividing the land? I think this latter
question was answered as well in a few ways. My own suggestion was that
(1) he erred in thinking how far along Israel actually was; and (2)
Yehoshua thought they had conquered enough for each sheivet to start
imposing local government, even if there were holes in actual settled
area.
You effectively suggested now a third piece... The flaw in Yehoshua's
assessment could have been that he overestimated loyalto to Beris Sinai,
and therefore how much a sheivet can impose a government based on it,
and how much they would assimilate values from the local pockets.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: elazar teitz
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 10:29:49 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Fascinating, Little Known History of a
>> But PS I have another question, something I've long wondered about
but never got around to asking anyone. It applies also to Yizkor,
when we say that we will give tzedakah for the merit of the niftar.
My question is, can you at that point fill in something else other
than giving tzedakah, something specific? Can you say, "May Hashem
remember Ploni ben Ploni in the zechus that I will do taharos for the
chevra kadisha" or "I will volunteer for bikur cholim" or "I will
write an article in his memory" or "I will invite guests to my home
who are not pleasant company but really need an invitation because
they're so lonely" or or or......?<<
>Of course. Most of those things *are* tzedaka, in person rather than
with money. But even a mitzvah other than tzedaka is fine, e.g. I will
learn so many prakim of mishnayos, or blatt gemara, or whatever. It's
just that shul gaba'im naturally prompt people to fill in the blank with
a nedava to the shul, and those who print up yizkor pamphlets prompt
people to give to their institution, etc. So usually nobody suggests
other options.<
Those things are g'milus chasadim; I'm not sure that they are referred
too as tzedaka in the halachic sense.
However, as it applies to Yizkor, it's not just the gaba'im who made
contributions the blank to be filled in. In fact, it is not the tzedaka
that is a fill-in for hazkaras n'shamos; it is the hazkara that is a
fill-in for the mitzva of tzedaka. This is obvious from OC 621:6, where the
M\chabeir writes that "nahagu lidor tzedakos b'ad haniftarim," without
mention of Yizkor; it is the RM"A who adds "umazkirin nishmoseihem," since
the departed, too, have kappara on YK. See MB there, who explains why, and
from whose words, too, it is obvious that the reference is to donations of
money, not other mitzvos or other forms of g'milus chasadim.
EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150121/704101f9/attachment.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:38:20 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] measurement error
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 3:05pm EST, R David Riceman wrote:
:> Shuls which reach the Shma after the calculated SZKS (or before
:> it, for maariv) are presuming that their congregants are careful to
:> have said it individually in the proper time.
:
: But don't forget, we're talking about how halachos change. It's
: true that in every shul I've been in which has a late minyan on
: Shabbos morning, someone on Friday night says "don't forget to say
: Shma before you come to shul." But I've never seen a poll about how
: effective that announcement is, and I suspect that people like those
: of us in this mailing list, who actually know when SZKS is, are a
: small minority of attenders of shul.
Something dropped out between RAM's positon and RDR's response.
RAM began this sub-thread with:
>> do you claim that "the halachic process" is capable of being mafkia
>> the kiyum d'oraysa of saying k"sh at 10 AM? What's the mechanism that
>> enables it to do this?
> Yes, it certainly can, IF one has a sufficiently convincing argument.
Consensus only decides pesaq if the shitah itself is viable on a textual
level. It isn't a replacement for that argument. So it wouldn't replace
the question of whether the princes are a post-facto explanation of
a hard answer, the cause of an unchanging pesaq that outlives them,
or an example that changes with the times.
Only after we prove the latter is viable would we care if people are
following it de facto.
(Schechter didn't mention that bit in his description of "Catholic
Israel", taking it for granted. We can argue about whether later
generations of C did actually take it for granted, or just paid the need
for halachic justification a lip service, but not on Avodah.)
Jumping backward in time to an earlier post, Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:33pm
EST, R David Riceman wrote:
: take another example - - the earliest time for KS at night. The
: mishna says "misha'ah shehacohanim nichnasim ..." The braysa adds
: "siman ladava tzeis hakochavim". The poskim say "tzeis hakochavim".
: But I've certainly never seen any laments of the type "when I was a
: boy we used to watch the cohanim go eat trumah...
Not quite the same thing. This isn't "when the kohanim [who are tevulei
yom] would go", but the intent is to refer to the earliest they *may*
go -- connecting one pesaq to another.
: I've never seen any arguments about when SZKS should be in
: the absence of princes. So where's the evidence that there was a
: process which "may take decades, or even centuries, but it can
: happen, and it *has* happened"?
In any case, it happened twice with defining sheqi'ah -- from the ge'onim
to the rishonim, and back again in the 18th cent, as already noted.
: RMB:
:> RAYK also applies it to other dinim derabbanan and pesaqim as well.
: Where does he say this?
Daat Kohen #79, #140, $191, and Ezrat Kohein #41, but only when there is
sufficient experimental evidence. Not that everything a scientist says
needs to be accepted.
Looking at it, he also gives a second argument -- every scientific
theory is falsifiable.
:> This is not an issue of Chazal legislating or pasqening based on a
:> misunderstanding of the metzi'us. But the actual realia changed.
: I don't know why you mention misunderstanding. Your claim was that
: the stated reason for a gezeirah could be one of many possible
: reasons...
The original context where RAYK was mentioned was science and
halakhah. What do we do when chazal pasqen based on Greek Natural
Philosophy that science has since proven to be a misunderstanding.
That's why I used the word.
I agree that it's reasonable to extend that to cases where the situation
actually changed, which is why I mentioned RAYK on this thread to begin
with. But that's different than having a source where R' Kook said
so himself.
: But what bothers me about the claim that SZKS is a gezeirah is that
: it is a vacuous gezeirah. You're allowed to say KS with the brachos
: after 9 AM. So what's the content of the gezeirah? ...
Lekhat-chilah, one is obligated to say it before 9am. It's that enoug
reason
In any case, I wouldn't use the word "gezeira", as not all rabbinic
legislation are gezeiros. The rules of gezeiros, such as ein danin
gezeira al gezeira, are specific to "fences" that prevent sinning due
to habit or accident. Not reading the Megillah.
R' Yonsan Sachs (now of Lander's, and of the Agudah of Passaic-Clifton)
explained the difference between shehiyah and chazarah along these lines.
From http://www.aishdas.org/asp/types-of-halachic-rulings
...
2. Din deRabanan. A rabbinic law. These are set up by the rabbinate,
instead of the masses, in order to preserve the spirit of the law.
For example, Purim and Chanukah. There are 7 new commandments
that are entirely rabbinic. According to the Rambam, who only
counts biblical mitzvos amongst the 613, this means there are
actually 620 mitzvos altogether.
3. Gezeira deRabanan. A rabbinic "fence". These are enacted to prevent
a common cause for breaking the act of the law. For example, one
may not place food directly on a fire before Shabbos in order to
keep it heated during Shabbos. This is a fence around the law
against cooking on Shabbos. To prevent the gezeira from being
violated, a metal cover, called a "blech" in Yiddish, is placed
on the stove top before Shabbos with the flame (turned to a low
setting) under one section and the pot with food placed on the
blech. This blech serves as a fence, allowing heating of the food
without any danger of violating the law. Note that a "gezeira
dirabanan" becomes binding only if the community accepts it.
According to the Rambam, a gezeira cannot be overturned. However,
a gezeirah where the law's purpose is included in the legislation
is implicitly conditional on the purpose. The problem is in
knowing when the purpose is given in the quoted gezeirah, and
when the gemara provides a motivation on its own, after quoting
the gezeirah. For example, meat must be salted within three days
of slaughter, or the prohibited blood will be too soaked into the
meat to be retrieved. What about the contemporary situation, where
meat is generally frozen solid? Some rule that since the reason is
given in the legislation, and the reason doesn't apply, neither
does the time limit. Others rule stringently, presumably because
they do not believe the reasoning about the blood being soaked
into the meat was part of the legislation as initially codified.
According to the Tif'eres Yisrael (Ediyos 1), there are actually
two sub-categories:
1. Siyag....
2. Cheshash....
...
The distinction between the second and third categories is subtle. In
order to be a din (or issur, or melakhah) deRabanan, the prohibited
action is one that is similar in purpose to the permitted one.
In contrast, a gezeira does not even require an action. In the example
I gave, it was inaction, leaving the pot where it is, that is
prohibited. Second, the category includes things that are similar in
means to the prohibited act, and will therefore cause confusion about
what is and what isn't okay; and things which will allow people to be
caught up in habit, and forget about the prohibition. Only a gezeira
may defy an actual Divine law (although a pesaq will often define one),
and even so only under specific circumstances. All of the following
must be satisfied:
* The law being protected is more stringent than the one being
violated. This determination isn't easy.
* The law is being violated only through inaction. No one is being
told to actively violate G-d's commandment.
* According to the Ta"z, the law being violated will still be
applicable in most situations. It still must exist in some form.
(Not every acharon agrees with this requirement.)
In another way, a gezeira is less powerful than a normal rabbinic law
in that it cannot be compounded. One may not make a "fence" for the
express purpose of protecting another "fence".
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
mi...@aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
mi...@aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am -
http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a
Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Jessica Setbon
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:33:39 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] Ha-Asiri Kodesh
Shalom, I'm new to this list.
I am a professional translator in the field of Judaica.
I am translating the diary of a Rav that was written during the Shoah.
I would like to know if there is an existing translation for the term
"ha-asiri kodesh" - observing every tenth calendar day in a special manner.
This was part of the Sabba mi-Kelm's mussar practices and was also
practiced during the Shoah when observing Shabbat was not always possible.
Any help on this would be appreciated.
Below is the citation -
The term ?tenth holy day? points to special spiritual or halachic behavior
every tenth calendar day, beginning with Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and
then counting from Yom Kippur to the following Rosh Hashanah. This is an
ancient concept, whose importance was emphasized by the Maharal and the
Shlah, and it was adopted and indoctrinated by the leaders of the Mussar
movement. In his essay ?The Topic of the Tenth Holy Day,? the Sabba of Kelm
wrote:
It is vital for us to accept the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven. But in our
multitude of sins, we do not accept the yoke of our King, blessed be He, as
we should. Thus we have taken upon ourselves, without taking a vow and
without commitment, one day in every ten, on which we will accept the yoke
of the Kingdom of Heaven more intensely. (*Pinkas ha-kabbalot*, in Writings
of the Sabba of Kelm, 142)
--
Jessica Setbon
Translator, Editor, Copywriter
Hebrew-English
Academia, Judaica, Literature, Web Content
077-702-6492
054-217-5544
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150121/cfee4348/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
------------------------------
**************************************
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
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)