Avodah Mailing List

Volume 38: Number 40

Sun, 24 May 2020

• 1. Re: BAmidbar or BEmidbar? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Mumcheh Kemeia (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: zoom minyan (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Street Minyanim (Marty Bluke)
• 5. Then Be Consistent (Jay F. Shachter)
• 6. Re: Street Minyanim/sh'as hadchak (Sholom Simon)
• 7. Waiting to Daven Maariv on Shavuous (Prof. L. Levine)
• 8. Re: Street Minyanim/sh'as hadchak (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Re: zoom minyan (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Re: zoom minyan (Rich, Joel)

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 07:46:50PM -0400, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote:
> The Dikdukian: B_MIDBAR
> Posted: 20 May 2020 08:45 PM PDT
...
> While you are correct that in context the word is read Bemidbar, the name
> of the parsha is clearly Bamidbar. The custom has been to isolate the word
> or words that are the title and conjugate accordingly. This is why we have
> Tazriyah and not Sazriyah. Mishpatim and not HaMishpatim... Devarim
> and not HaDevarim...

Shemos, Behar?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 01:45:49PM +0300, Moshe Koppel via Avodah wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 2:31 PM Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> > ...Shabbos 61a yesterday, and what defines a kemeia mumcheh.
> > Chazal appear to define expertise in the same terms as chazaqah
> > -- it it works three times.
> >
> > Double blind studies weren't invented yet. So, if the kemeia works
> > 3 times out of 40, it's a kemeia mumcheh? ...

> Apologies for not getting to this sooner. See what RNER z"l wrote in Yad
> Peshutah on Hil. Shabbos 19:13-14, where Rambam discusses the issue. He
> doesn't get into your statistical question there at all, but says what
> you'd expect him to say about quackery. (You can navigate there in Otzar
> Hachochma, but I can't get a direct link to work.)

RNER doesn't really touch my question that chazaqah doesn't prove much if
it works 3 times out of dozens. With no comparison to doing nothing.

On 13 the focus is on medicines the doctors think work. The
non-professional can't do anything but go by expert opinion. So, Chazal
permitted he rely on them -- even for hotza'ah. RNER also brings the
Me'iri, who splits the reasoning into two: 1- The doctors may have been
wrong, but no one could have known. 2- Placebo effect.

0n 14, he discusses Rabbeinu Chananel's girsa, in which either the
kemei'ah itself or the author could be tested and proven. As well as
the question of whether mumcheh means worked three times or on three
different people.

But still, the absolute number 3 isn't discussed in comparison to a
statistical approach.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 42nd day, which is
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   6 weeks in/toward the omer.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF     reliability crucial for universal brotherhood?

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 07:41:13AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
> So why is a zoom "minyan" different than a woman putting on a tallit
> without tzitzit? (I think you know the story I'm referring to)

Your question is like saying that if you enjoy a kumzitz, you should
question whether your tefillah betzibur is really based in the Torah.

Even if your cases are similar, many rabbis wouldn't agree with RYBS's
approach. After all, most of us believe Judaism does have ceremony and
is enhanced by practices that are neither halakhah nor minhagim that
follow halachic forms.

That's why most posqim have little problem with the way the Three Weeks
and 9 Days have been observed. But RYBS felta need to correct them to
match the halakhos of stages of aveilus for a family members.

The Brisker Rav, RVZ, OTOH, distinguished between minhagim that have
halachic forms and those that don't. Arguing that the former get a
berakhah, and the latter do not.

From there to saying there are benefitial hanhagos tovos that aren't
minhag nor "Brisker chumeros" is a hop-skip-and-a-jump.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 42nd day, which is
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   6 weeks in/toward the omer.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF     reliability crucial for universal brotherhood?

R?n Chana Luntzs point reminds me of what Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik wrote
about derech hapsak in a footnote in Rupture and Reconstruction

Rupture and Reconstruction footnote 20 - The crux of the Gaon?s approach
both to Torah study and pesak was its independence of precedent. A problem
was to be approached in terms of the text of the Talmud as mediated by the
rishonim (and in the Gaon?s case even that mediation was occasionally
dispensed with). What subsequent commentators had to say about this issue,
was, with few exceptions (e.g. Magen Avraham, Shakh), irrelevant. This
approach is writ large on every page of the Biur ha-Gra, further embodied
in the Hayyei Adam and the Arukh ha-Shulhan, and has continued on to our
day in the works of such Lithuanian posekim, as the Hazon Ish and R. Mosheh
Feinstein. The Mishnah Berurah rejects de facto this approach and returns
to the world of precedent and string citation. Decisions are arrived at
only after elaborate calibration of and negotiation with multiple
?aharonic? positions

I think this issue of porch minyanim is a good example of the 2 approaches
mentioned above by Dr. Grach. The MB goes with his approach of precedent
etc. and therefore would allow porch minyanim based on the the precedent of
the Pri Megadim etc. while the Gra and his ideological descendants like the
Aruch Hashulchan simply reject the Rashba.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200522/850a2f74/attachment-0001.html>

> 
> The Dikdukian: B_MIDBAR
> 
> Posted: 20 May 2020 08:45 PM PDT
> 
> For some time, when I would write my Weekly Shtikle (shameless
> cross-promotion) for this week's parshah, I would write it Bemidbar
> since that is how it is pronounced correctly.  However, one year a
> friend of mine sent me the following convincing argument which I
> have accepted: While you are correct that in context the word is
> read Bemidbar, the name of the parsha is clearly Bamidbar.  The
> custom has been to isolate the word or words that are the title and
> conjugate accordingly.  This is why we have Tazriyah and not
> Sazriyah.  Mishpatim and not HaMishpatim (since we do not use
> v'aileh and clarify it with asher ...).  Devarim and not HaDevarim.
> Since the reference is to a specific desert (Sinai) the hay
> hayediyah is implemented.  The names, according to tradition, are
> clearly not just the word or words of the beginning phrase.
>

Then be consistent.  Say Sefer Sheimoth, Sefer Mshalim, and Parashath
Axarei HaMavveth.

But you don't say any of those things, do you?

                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 North Whipple Street
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784   landline
                                (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

RSZ wrote, re: RnChL:
> I would argue that in all those cases, the fact that we can rely on an
> opinion in an emergency means that we *really* hold that the halacha
> permits this, but since there is so much opposition to it we may not
> rely on it in normal circumstances.  If it is at all possible we should
> do better than that, and satisfy more opinions.  Only when we have no
> other choice will we fall back on the basic halacha...

That is my understanding, too. In my limited understanding, the Rema, in
his intro to Toras Chatas, his sefer on Yore Deah, on the phrase "k'dai hu
R so-and-so l'smoch alav b'sh'as had'chak" (me: this phrase only appears
once (al pi Sefaria) but perhaps the concept comes up a number of times?),
he asks: what does this mean? Something is either ossur or it isn't. Rema
suggests that perhaps ikkar hadin is like the meikel opinion, but many
instances we are choshesh for the kavod of the machmir opinion, at least
l'chatchila. (Note: (a) I am unsure if the word "kavod" belongs in there,
because: (b) I have not seen this inside).

R Sholom Rosner asks: Where do we see a source for such an idea? He
points to Demai 3:1 where an oni can eat demai. So, really, ikkar ha'din,
demai is not ossur. R"R continues: Ashkenazim do this every day: put on
tefillin with two brochos followed by "baruch shem k'vod..." Why in the
world would we say "baruch shem kavod" on purpose?! R"R answer: we pasken
like the Rema. Period. We say two brochos. (me: after all, if there was
a safek on the second, we wouldn't say it.) But we say "baruch shem" to
give kavod to Rambam who rules one brocho. But since the second brocho is
ikkar hadin, we are supposed to pause an adjust our head tefillin to show
that we really meant that second brocho, before we say baruch shem. (M"B
complains that to many say the second brocho, and baruch shem, and then
adjust tefillin, which undoes what we are intending.) (A dissenting
opinion on this example: R"R adds: the Aruch HaShulchan can't fathom this
whole idea, and brings the idea that tefillin is like K'Sh, kabbala ol,
and, therefore, we say baruch shem here just like after we say shema.)
Note: I have not seen inside the Aruch HaShulchan either. I'm just
reporting what R"R said.

-- Sholom

Virtually every shul will wait on the first night of Shavuous to daven
Maariv after Tza'as HaKochovim.  Many may be surprised to learn that this
was not the practice in the Ashkenazic world in the time of the Rishonim.
Also, it was not the practice of some Achronim.

The selections at http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/maariv_on_shavuous.pdf
are taken from the sefer Sheirushei Minhag Ashkenaz, volume 4, by Rabbi
Benyamin Shlomo Hamburger.  Anyone interested in going back to the old-time
religion and davening early  this coming Thursday evening?



Yitzchok Levine

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200522/5d9cc264/attachment-0001.html>

RZS writes:

<<I would argue that in all those cases, the fact that we can rely on an
opinion in an emergency means that we *really* hold that the halacha permits
this, but since there is so much opposition to it we may not rely on it in
normal circumstances.  If it is at all possible we should do better than
that, and satisfy more opinions.  Only when we have no other choice will we
fall back on the basic halacha.

Again, this appears to me to be  merely a question of terminology; what do
we mean by the term "ikar hadin".  I'm using it one way, you're using it
another way, so we appear to disagree when in fact we're using different
words for the same thing.>>

Well as we know from Humpty Dumpty, words can easily be asserted to be
whatever the assertee says they mean, so that "glory" can mean a "nice knock
down argument" - because Humpty Dumpty has decided that is what it is to
mean.  But more generally we determine the meaning of words by looking at
the way words are used by authoritative others. 

In our case, the question, it seems to me, is do our meforshim use ikar
hadin to include a halacha that can only be applied in a sha'as hadchak
situation?

My understanding of ikar hadin is that no, ikar hidin means the basic
halacha, without the layering on of chumra (eg. ba'al nefesh machmir), but
that is not what is being applied in a sh'as hadchak situation.  I do agree
that it can be used in contrast to minhag.  So that the ikar hadin may be X,
but if the minhag is Y and a sh'as hadchak requires one to dispense with a
minhag, then it would be true to say that one falls back on the ikar hadin,
so in that context your understanding would be correct.  However, in
circumstances where we are not dealing with minhag (as we are not in the
gemora), but different halachic authorities ruling differently, it seems to
me that the understanding is different  - that what a sh'as hadchak enables
us to do is push aside the ikar hadin (where we rule one way), and fall back
on a position that is not and was never labelled ikar hadin, and follow that
position.

In that respect it seems to me that sh'as hadchak is a meta-halachic
principle, like darchei shalom, kovod habriyos and aiva, or for that matter,
(but also on a d'orisa level) pikuach nefesh.

Now, this is just me articulating how I have always understood it, so the
question becomes how can I justify this position?

And it seems to me that I can only justify my position by quoting poskim who
use the language as I do, and you can only justify your position by quoting
poskim who use the language as you do.  And of course most poskim when
commenting on a sh'as hadchak situation don't necessarily explain what they
are allowing in the sort of language that makes it clear.

So here are a couple of cases I have found that, it seems to me, make it
clear that at least certain poskim are using the language as I am.  Now that
I am looking out for it, I will no doubt find  others in my travels through
the sea of the halacha:

- the Sde Chemed in his index (vol 9) under Sh'as hadchak describes the
entry as follows "l'samuch al mi sheain hahalacha k'moso b'shas hadchak".
To me, if you say that the halacha "is not like him", that makes it clear
that the ikar hadin is not that way, and the allowance to rely on him in a
sh'as hadchak is a leniency taking away from the ikar hadin.

- Igeros Moshe Orech Chaim chelek 1 siman 51, discussing the location of a
mikvah in the women's gallery has a paragraph (fourth paragraph) in which he
discusses that even where the halacha is that we follow the rabbim, one is
permitted to rely on a yachid in a sh'as hadchak where the matter is
rabbinic.  He then follows with a paragraph that starts: " aval b'emet yesh
l'hatir af l'dina" - but in truth there is to permit even l'dina.  That is,
in the case under discussion, one could rely on the psak of a yachid because
we are in sh'as hadchak territory, but we don't need to, because l'dina the
halacha is that it is permitted.  Suggesting to me that Rav Moshe is using
the terminology the way I am, that what he suggested in the fourth paragraph
is not ikar hadin, only the fifth paragraph contains that.

I will keep a watch out, and if I see any more examples where the language
used by the poskim touches on this issue, I will bring them.

>Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer

Shavuah tov

Chana

RJR writes:

<<So why is a zoom "minyan" different than a woman putting on a tallit
without tzitzit? (I think you know the story I'm referring to) KT Joel
Rich>>

To be honest, I don't think that the sort of people allowing zoom "minyanim"
would have gone anywhere near the "woman putting on a tallit without
tzitzit".  I think the halachic mindset is completely different.

That said, the cases are distinguishable.

In the case of the woman putting on a tallis without tzitzis- there was no
real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis - ie fulfil the
mitzvah (except her rabbi told her not to), so why would you be satisfied
with second best.  In the case of the zoom minyanim, I don't believe anybody
is suggesting that these minyanim would be acceptable in circumstances where
real minyanim could meet.  The issue here is that pikuach nefesh and dina
d'malchusa dina are both prohibiting real minyanim.  In that sense, the
minyanim are like taking the posul esrog, in circumstances where there are
just no kosher esrogim to be had.  It is a form of zecher l'mitzvah, and it
avoids the torah of the mitzvah being forgotten.

The question regarding tzitzis is thus not really to this woman's case - but
why haven't men over the last couple of thousand years taking a blue dye and
made dyed tzitzis with something else, as techeles was not available -
zecher l'mitzvah?  The answer would seem to be the gemora's answer as to why
not use a pomegranate or a quince if no esrog was to be found, because
people would become convinced that actually this was the real thing, and not
take esrogim even if they were available.  Similarly if people had taken
some other blue dye (kla ilan) then it would have been even harder to
persuade them to switch when real techeles was available, minhag avoseihem
b'yadehem.

Shavuah tov

Chana

That said, the cases are distinguishable.

In the case of the woman putting on a tallis without tzitzis- there was no
real reason why she could not wear the tallit with tzitzis - ie fulfil the
mitzvah (except her rabbi told her not to), so why would you be satisfied
with second best.
-/??????
As I understood the story the rabbi told her to do this as a first step   I would assume she understood it as part of a mitzvah process
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200524/73ce0644/attachment.html>

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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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.)