Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 70

Mon, 29 May 2017

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: elazar teitz
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 01:01:55 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros?


     I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his
minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not to
single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two different
practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the entire aliya
in which the dibros appear.  For those who feel the dibros merit standing,
they are indeed standing.  For those who feel that the dibros should not be
singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up specifically for the
dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria of the dibros begins.
Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since their end is always the
end of the aliya.

EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170529/0193dce5/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Zev Sero
Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 23:04:06 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus


On 28/05/17 15:18, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> R' Ben Waxman wrote:
>> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their
>> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities.
> 
> Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that
> Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent
> introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth,
> pages 48-52.

Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation that 
has such "gedolim".



> R' Zev Sero wrote:
>> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the
>> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it
> something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus
> and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus
> then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz.

On the contrary.  If it were a matter of yibum then it would depend on 
whether there was an original marriage.  But then why would it be 
connected to redeeming the field?  It seems obvious to me that the issue 
was discharging Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an 
obligation.  Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he owed her, 
and unless she was taken care of his obligations would not be settled.

Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages were 
legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz agreed with them.


-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Lisa Liel
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:10:26 +0300
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus


On 5/28/2017 10:18 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> R' Ben Waxman wrote:
>> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their
>> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities.
> Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that
> Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..."

Yes, but the dor in question was one where "each man did what was right 
in his own eyes".  So their being gedolei hador doesn't mean they were 
any better than, say, Yiftach.

Lisa

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:23:39 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus


On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation
: that has such "gedolim".

According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP
beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah
Neustadt <http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&;pgnum=474>,
this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam.

Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim
of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim".

But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers
of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past
that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el...

If this is the Rambam's intent, it would fit a number of gemaros which
refer to various shofetim as amei ha'aretz. See the article.

OTOH, Tosafos's treatment of the question of how Devorah could serve as
shofetes presumes the role includes being a dayan in the halachic sense
(and then explains why Devorah is neither role model nor eis-la'asos
exception), rather than only the serarah question of her being a civil
leader.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 48th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different
Fax: (270) 514-1507             people together into one cohesive whole?



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Zev Sero
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:17:08 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros?


On 29/05/17 01:01, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote:
>       I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his 
> minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not 
> to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two 
> different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the 
> entire aliya in which the dibros appear.  For those who feel the dibros 
> merit standing, they are indeed standing.  For those who feel that the 
> dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up 
> specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria 
> of the dibros begins.  Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since 
> their end is always the end of the aliya.


Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk 
*before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. 
(Personally I stand for the whole leining so it's not an issue for me, 
but this is what I've seen.)

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:33:29 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim


 > Ok let's accept your presumption-Who that has the authority to 
determine which changes are with in the halachic system and which 
aren't. Can I say libi omer li if I have smicha and that's good enough? 
If not , how do you draw the line?
------------------------
I can't say that I can draw a clear line. Certainly someone who passes a 
2 year  smicha program (a change, BTW) shouldn't be doing this type of 
thing. It seems that change doesn't require unanimous agreement and very 
possibly it can be done even if the greatest rabbis disagree. My example 
for this would be chassidut.  The changes that it brought were huge and 
as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, 
with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher.

Ben
-----------------------
Yup, as  said, the wheel is still in spin with regard to this and the other
current thread Maharat/smicha. Now "everyone knows" it was obvious that
Chassidus would be accepted and Conservative not (see Kahnemaan Tversky on
how we all do this) Anyone who thinks these or those are simply matters of
black letter law discussions (hat tip R'Micha) IMHO is fooling themselves. 
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: 7
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 09:09:10 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Maharat


R' Micha Berger wrote:
> One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in
> the same town as one's rebbe.

If the shiur-giver is very careful to merely read and explain the QSA,
then I'd agree with you.

But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this
other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that
question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require
require semicha?

Akiva Miller



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Joseph Kaplan
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 13:12:59 +0000
Subject:
[Avodah] (no subject)


"Let's be dan l'kaf zechus.   People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time.  I sit during the Aseres Hadibros.

And in light of this,  may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed."

Do you also sit for the musaf amidah on Rosh Hashana and Ne'ilah on Yom
Kippur? And since there are those who cannot and do not stand for those
because of physical infirmities, would you suggest that everyone sit for
those teffilot so as not to embarrass the ones who truly must sit?

Joseph


Sent from my iPhone


Go to top.

Message: 9
From: via Avodah
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:41:32 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres




 

From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah"  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>


Let's be dan l'kaf  zechus.   People like me who have knee problems find it 
difficult to  stand for any length to time.  I sit during the Aseres  
Hadibros.

YL

 
 
>>>>>>
 
I want to thank RYL for the reminder we all need -- myself very much  
included -- not to be too quick to assume we know other people's motives.   
Sitting during the reading of Aseres Hadibros may indeed be an indication not of  
arrogance but of arthritis.  Let us be kind to one another, even in our  
thoughts.
 
 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170529/5c151635/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Zev Sero
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:26:55 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus


On 29/05/17 08:23, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation
> : that has such "gedolim".
> 
> According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP
> beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah
> Neustadt<http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&;pgnum=474>,
> this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam.
> 
> Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim
> of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim".
> 
> But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers
> of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past
> that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el...

I actually had that article in mind, but was not taking Rashi's side. 
Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the mesorah 
reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the "godol hador" 
-- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel Bedoro".  So even 
if Machlon & Kilyon were considered "gedolei hador" that wouldn't seem 
to be sufficient reason to assume that they acted properly, even in the 
sense that they had an opinion which is one of the shiv'im panim and 
followed it.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: via Avodah
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:46:19 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus




 
From: Akiva Miller via Avodah  avo...@lists.aishdas.org



It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum," or you call  it
something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus
and  Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus
then she was  *not* married and not connected to Boaz.


Akiva  Miller





>>>>>>
 
There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events in 
 Megillas Rus were taking place.  Ploni Almoni held that there was no 
mitzva  of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was.
 
--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170529/1abfd752/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Ben Bradley
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 20:01:22 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim


'There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of
all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what
can be done today.  When members of the left claim that brachot should
be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the
basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod
ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label
to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old.'


No argument there at all. The point was really to buttress the truism that
halacha and Torah are not synonymous. Halacha works within the larger
structure of Torah and is guided by principle and values.
Your point that this idea is mangled and misused throughout heterodoxy is
well taken though. I was not suggesting that someone can pick a favourite
value, decide that it doesn't shtim with a particular halacha and proceed
to mangle the halacha into submission. Not for a moment.

'The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum".  If you mean that the
system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the
ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to
respectfully disagree.  The ethics must themselves come from within our
own cultural framework, based on our own traditions'.

Again, agree 100%. Don't think I suggested otherwise. I'm a neo-Hirschian
after all. What I was taking issue with was your contention that it is 'It
is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in
a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.'  That's true for the
heterodox tendency to sidestep halacha (or worse) due to what they consider
to be ethical issues. But it doesn't take into account the centrality of of
values in the whole system of Torah, including underlying TSBP.
Just for example, Pirkei Avos is not halachic but it's vital and has implications for halacha.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20170529/6ff3cccc/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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)


< Previous Next >