Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 158

Wed, 09 Dec 2015

• 1. Re: Ahab (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: chu'l duchening (Isaac Balbin)
• 3. Re: chu'l duchening (Isaac Balbin)
• 4. ikveta demeshicha (saul newman)
• 5. Re: chumrah leading to a kulah (Marty Bluke)
• 6. Kidneys (Micha Berger)
• 7. Siyata diShmaya and the SA (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Ahab (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Deriving halachah for new situations (H Lampel)
• 10. torah and mada (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Is it Musar to Buy Chocolate? (Micha Berger)
• 12. Hallel - sung? (Alexander Seinfeld)
• 13. Re: Hallel - sung? (Micha Berger)

On 12/06/2015 07:53 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> So according to the second perush there was no problem with marrying
> canaanite women

Rashi makes a point of translating "Bat ish kenaani" as "trader", not
as an actual Canaanite.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
>: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY
>: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to
>: Duchen....

> I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense
> needed to qualify someone as a MSbF.

That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros
Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy
benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He
was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming
into Shule

> That the point of MSbF is that it
> shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But
> with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially
> acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that
> "in your face" even when in public.

Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable
as a general klal

>: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal
>: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker.
> ...

> But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF
> wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF

In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular
chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them.

These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from
home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna
was pogum and would accept an Aliya!

> Why would he
> feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason,
> or make implications about their yichus?

I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if
he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father
??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for
a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his
chance to show thanks.

He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others
felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of
survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos
week in week out even at the age of 85+

Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of
cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He
would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned
in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he
said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I
don't see anyone driving

On 7 Dec 2015, at 6:43 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:02:01AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
>: I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY
>: a Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to
>: Duchen....

> I think RHS's point is that today, there is no "befarhesia" in the sense
> needed to qualify someone as a MSbF.

That was not his point. His point was in respect to Farhesya Aveyros
Bdavka in Dinei Kehuna no longer have the 'icky I can't stand that guy
benching me' factor that it used to have and STILL has in some areas. He
was speaking re a modern orthodox style hanhogo to one of these coming
into Shule

> That the point of MSbF is that it
> shows he is neither concerned about Shabbos or who knows about it. But
> with a non-observant majority ba'avoseihu harabbim, it is too socially
> acceptable to violate Shabbos for someone's violation to be all that
> "in your face" even when in public.

Yes, but it's a din in Behavo in Birkas Cohanim ... It isn't extendable
as a general klal

>: The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal
>: Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker.
> ...

> But if someone is being excluded from duchening for being a MSbF
> wouldn't that be an honest statement of being a MSbF

In that case they are known Befarhesya already and feel the particular
chiyuv of duchening doesn't apply to them.

These were holocaust survivors who knew what the 'din' was back from
home. Many who came from strict homes felt incorrectly that their Kehuna
was pogum and would accept an Aliya!

> Why would he
> feel it's dishonestly claiming to be excluded for a different reason,
> or make implications about their yichus?

I took one Hungarian Gentleman aside and explained to him that even if
he ate trayf now, when he ate kosher he should make a brocho. My father
??? convinced him to stay at Shule on Yom Kippur and not disappear for
a nap and he got an Aliya (and gave an enormous nedava) as it was his
chance to show thanks.

He obviously came from a very frum Hungarian home and unlike some others
felt the shame himself of what he did. By the way in that Shule of
survivors 95% were of the same ilk but would drive to Shule on Shabbos
week in week out even at the age of 85+

Lots more I could write halachically how the Rabbi dealt with his deck of
cards. One thing he did was leave LAST on a Shabbos after a Kiddush. He
would wait in his office. If any Charedim would ask him (and he learned
in Telz in Europe) why do you allow an Aliya for such ovrei Aveyros he
said I see a Yid come into Shule I assume he has changed his ways ... I
don't see anyone driving

gemara  sota.   is the general understanding  that all  these events
described need occur simultaneously; or some  have occured somewhere prior?
  eg  massive chutzpa  , failing leadership [pnai hakelev] , and lack of
torah learning are all described.    while one can easily argue that the
first two conditions currently exist,  the massive number of torah learners
is so vast , that one cannot imagine their disppearance from the scene
[absent  nuclear attacks on selected East Coast cities and all of Israel ,
r''l].  also , hyperinflation  has existed,even in the Holy Land,  but not
currently ....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20151206/bc518ea7/attachment.html>

R' Micha Berger wrote:
"Someone who starts Shabbos earlier than 1 mil before sunset and ends later
than 90 min after sunset is machmir about bein hashemashos on both days, as
extreme as every shitah I've heard of."


That actualy doesn't work for the following reason. You cannot be mekabel
shabbos before plag hamincha and many of the rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who
hold like R' Tam say that plag hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before shkia (they
are assuming that the day goes from alos until tzeis). Therefore according
to these rishonim you can't be mekabel shabbos 1 mil before sunset it is
too early so you do have a chumra becoming a kula.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151207/a936cd6d/attachment-0001.htm>

RSN asked on areivim:
: does anyone offhand know what mitzva was tied specifically to the
: kidneys? i looked online and can't find an easy source

The canonical source for mapping mitzvos to the human body is Seifer
haChareidim, but that's more gross external anatomy, not internal
organs.

However, kelayos are associated with decision-making. Thus HQBH
is the "Bochein kelayos veleiv" (which vidui borrows from Yeshaiah
11:20). Tehillim 16:7 speaks of "yiseruni khilyosai", from which evolved
the idiom "musar kelayos" to mean the pangs of regret a person feels
after doing soemthing wrong.

Berakhos 61a: Kelayos yo'atzos, leiv meivin.

Similarly, Vayiqra Rabbah 18:1, Rabbi Chiya bar Nechemiah: eilu hakelayos,
shehein choshevos, vehaleiv gomer.

More sources about the role of kidneys in thought at
http://www.aspaklaria.info/020_KAF/%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA.htm

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every child comes with the message
mi...@aishdas.org        that God is not yet discouraged with
http://www.aishdas.org   humanity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Rabindranath Tagore

And interesting end-note in the AhS YD 71:11. RYME knows that he gave
peshat in the SA that isn't the likely intent of th machaber, given what
is written in the BY. But he says:

    Vehagam that this was not his own kavnah, it is known that our rabbis,
    the baalei SA, merited miShmaya to write according to the halakhah,
    even if they didn't intend for it. And as is written in siman 10,
    se'if 3 ayin sham.]

AhS YD 10:3 is another case where the AhS holds like what the SA says,
because it better fits the Shas and the Tur, then what the SA probably
meant, given the BY.

(71:11 is a din involving melikhah of the sort that makes me wonder if
I will complete YD vol I before deciding to become a vegetarian. That's
why specifics were omitted; mercy on those who can't handle gory mental
images, nor stop themselves from going there.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org        Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 01:55:53PM -0500, RZLampel via Avodah wrote:
: >those who believe that "Moavi velo Moavis" was a new derashah by
: >Boaz's court (eg the Rambam)

: The Brisker Rav's vort (on Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2:1)  assumes
: Rambam held that this was a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, not a new
: derashah...

Agreed that such a shitah exists, thus my "those who believe". HOwever,
R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash
'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for
7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei
ha'ir". Why 10? I presume -- and not 3: lefirsumei milsa.

Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu.

(When there is opposition to coronating David, Do'eg ha'adomi said that
he received this din from Shemuel haRamasi's BD, which is after Boaz. So
it's nt a data point.)

In any case, regardless of whether you want to say it's HlMM or a
derashah, and if the latter, when the derashah was made, an opinion in
the gemara and the medrash cannot be kefirah. Just the presence of an
opinion tells you it's okay to say a derashah wasn't discovered until
centuries after Matan Torah.

(I guess unless the gemara continues to ask the RBSO to be mokheil
Rabbi Hillel for what he said about mashiach.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org        Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 12/6/2015 4:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> R. Micha Berger:
>:> And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one
>:> understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or
>:> gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on
>:> a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant.

> Zvi Lampel:
>: No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim
>: are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation?
>: Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's
>: discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be
>: learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest
>: ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous?

> Yes, they are deriving implications from established halakhah. But that
> doesn't mean that the amora (eg) had our case or something just like it
> in mind, that he would have made the same implication if he had been
> introduce to the possibility.

It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have the case
in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he probably did not
anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an essential property
(my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that determined his p'sak in
the case he dealt with, which would also determine the p'sak in the case
he was not aware of. Being medameh milsa l'milsa is not looking at the
external similarities of the scenarios, but at their abstract, essential
properties. When the Torah speaks of what damages must be paid by the
owner of an ox that gored another ox, the baalei mesorah do not restrict
the halacha to oxen or things that look like oxen. They determine what
the essential property of the case of the ox is, and apply the Torah's
p'esak to any other entity that possesses that essential property. Then
we say with certitude that this is the din d'oraissa, meaning this is
what the Torah paskens for this situation. It is clear from the Gemara's
discussions that the baalei mesorah, in determining the p'sak for new
situations, are intent in knowing what their predecessors held was the
essential property that determined the halacha in the scenarios they
had addressed. The assumption is that the predecessors were working with
principals that determined the halacha, not reacting to a situation in an
ad hoc and superficial manner. Another assumption is that the predecessors
were not fuzzy in their minds about the specifics of those principals.

The point is that each sincerely held that this is what the predecessor
would have said in such a situation, based upon (each one's understanding
of) his principals. The approach is always to cite the earlier
authorities to apply their principals to the new situation. And the
earlier authorities invoke those before them, back to Moshe Rabbeynu. This
is what makes TSBP a mesorah.

> There are often many ways to extrapolate from the known situation to
> decide new ones.

> To illustrate:
> If the amora [Tanna?--ZL]
>              said A is okay and B is assur, and never pictured that
> there might be a situation with both A & B, or that neither apply.

If a food item has in it something that is okay and something that is
assur, then there is no issue. It is assur. Perhaps a better example
would be where the posek said A is obligatory and B is assur, and a
situation arrives in which they coexist and conflict. But here too,
it would just be a matter of determining whether that authority held in
principle that an issur overides a chiyuv or vice versa.

Always, the aim to is find out what the predecessor would have said the
halacha is.

> A tanna [An Amora?--ZL]
>         who considers A to be the definitive criterion will reach a
> different conclusion than someone who bleieves B is, or for that matter,
> one who decides that both A and the absence of B both contribute to
> permissability.

But their "belief" is that this is what the predecessor would have held
was the definitive criterion, based upon his known opinions. Even if
they have no way to know what his principals were, they are convinced
their reasoning is so sound that the predecessor must have shared it.
But always, the intent is to determine what the predecessor would have
said the halacha is.

> Or what if there are middle states that are somewhere between the two
> that a rishon would need to decide where the line goes when a case
> arises that sits in that range? Different rishonim could analyze the
> same statement and extend it to the new situation differently.

Analyze it based upon what criteria? Based upon the criteria they held
was that of the predecessors.

Zvi  Lampel

for those interested in a thourough discussion (Hebrew) of the knowledge of
chazal in science and the various shitot see


http://daf-yomi.com/BookFiles.aspx?type=1&;id=363

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151208/084633ab/attachment-0001.htm>

Rn Shira Shmidt wrote on Cross-Currents a post titled "Money DOES Grow
on Trees-Chocolate Chanuka Gelt" <http://j.mp/1jOcl8f>. In it she points
to an interestin kof-K collection of teshuvos about chocolate
<http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/halacha/Volume_5_Issue_19.pdf>,
and to other halchic discussions, and then a bit about the Jewish history
of choclate.

My comment there didn't generate any dialog, and dialog is more an
email list thing anyway, so, I'm copying what I wrote there:

    I would like to see a teshuvah deal with the issues of how
    chocolate is farmed. Are we prohibited from buying a product made
    by child slavery in hopes that a boycott would help change industry
    practices? And I mean literal slavery: human trafficking, work
    without pay, whippings, having to spray pesticides with no personal
    protection, young children with scars on their arms wielding machetes
    to open the cacao bean, etc

    Is it like hunting for sport, an activity that even if technically
    permissible, is something Jews should not want to be involved in
    [eg Nodah biYhudah YD 2:10]?

    (There is fair trade kosher chocolate [OU certified], but at $3.50
    for a bag of ten chocolate coins...)

    Why does it seem that these questions are left for those who
    redefined Judaism to Liberal Democrat ideals under the rubric of
    Tikkun Olam? Why cant we find actual halachic discussion in our
    community of this kind of issue?

In terms of the metzi'us question of whether we actually can hope to
improve the lives of those slaves by boycotting, I am was emailed the
following:

    ... [B]oth Hersheys and Nestle are facing class action suits by
    their investors. The companies will lose and have already begun to
    promise to change in the next decade. Right now, the better bars like
    scharffen-burger, green and black, and the other Fairway brands are
    all slave free. All the protest has gotten them to change.

But on Avodah, we talk Torah. Assuming for the sake of discussion
that this description of the mtzi'us is the situation at hand, is
it assur to buy chocolate from any of the firms one might be able
to influence to force humane treatment of other humans?

And if mutar (which I am currently doubting), is it appropriate for
Mevaqshei Tov veYosher?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison?
Individually?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151209/77a87507/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:31:28AM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote:
: Is there a l?chatchila way to say Hallel? Chanted? Sung? In unison?
: Individually?

Responsively, I would think. Pesachim 119b says that this was the custom
in some medinos. Sukkah 38b-39a R' Chanan bar Rava says mitzvah la'anos
rashei peraqim. Chazan says Anah H' Hoshiah Nah, they answer Anah H'
Hoshia Na, etc... Abayei may even be saying that we double the last
pesuqim in Hallel because the responsive format doesn't work for them
otherwise. It depends how you understand the relationship between kofeil
and mosif. Rashi 39a makes it sound like the mosif takes over the role
of kofeil. And thus our minhag of saying both copies of the line to
ourselves defeats the original point.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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



_______________________________________________
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.)