Avodah Mailing List

Volume 43: Number 34

Thu, 05 Jun 2025

• 1. amen (Joel Rich)
• 2. Adam 1 and adam 2 (Joel Rich)
• 3. Re: Ein MeFarsemin HaDavar (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Material Ownership (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Atonement via proxy - SaIr HaMishtaleAch (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: prayer (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: The census numbers in bamidbar (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: kol shehu (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Adam 1 and adam 2 (Micha Berger)

I put together a shiur on when to answer amen when aveilim are saying
kaddish at different speeds. From a practical viewpoint, have you been
asked this question and what do you tell people, especially when it?s so
asynchronous that it?s not even toch kdei dibbur? If you only answer once,
is it the first or last? What about if toch kdei ? answer the first or the
last?
Bsorot tovot
Joel Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20250604/60d13fd6/attachment-0001.htm>

Adam 1 and adam 2 ? did the rav think that the dialectic was resolvable or
that one would continually oscillate between the two poles? Sometimes I
think it may just be an issue of semantics.
bsorot tovot
joel rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20250604/173ac4d9/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 01:04:11PM +0300, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> Rashi Chulin 12a writes,
>> Ein MeFarsemin HaDavar

> Are we to assume this is not the same as Halachah VeEin Morin Kein?

It sure sounds the same, but then why didn't Rashi pick a more common
idiom.
...

> What are the guidelines that direct us to not publicise such rulings?

When the question involves an issur that people would be tempted to
find heterim for to the point of being able to accept specious ones.
Or even if to the point of being able to say to themselves, "it may
not be mutar, but it's not so terrible -- look so-and-so was given
a heter".

I can think of two cases, offhand, when a poseiq may give such a pesaq:

1- The person is going to sin. The rav cannot precent that. All he can
do is advise how to minimize the sin, or (E.g. it's better for a kohein
to live with a gerushah without chupah veqiddushin.)

2- A situation came up where all the possiblities are assur for one
reason or another, and the poseiq has to decide which is dechuyah.

In both cases, the poseiq is forced to recommend violating an issur
(or at least a minhag) either (1) because the sho'el is unwilling
to be moseir nefesh or (2) there is no choice.

EDIT, I thought of a third case before approving my own message for
distribution:
3- There is a tzad heter that can be relied on for a hefsed meruba,
but (again) the aveira is such that people will weaken their resolve
in other cases too if they heard of it.
--- END EDIT --

And if everyone hears that there is a situations where Rav R said
that one can do issur X, the masses will lose at least some of their
aversion to doing X.

Lemashal:

There are some posqim who hold it is mutar to invite someone who otherwise
would have no Shabbos and never have an opportunity to experience a
Shabbos even though it is nearly certain that lemaaseh they'll drive
home after dinner. As long as you give them the option of staying.

How does this differ from the CLJS's Driving Responsum allowing their
congregants to drive to shul rather than never going to one. This
responsum is based on giving up on trying to get more of the masses
to C-nagugue during the week, or to move withing walking distance of
their C-nagogue.

But if one holds that it's a case of violating one Shabbos for a change
of being able to keep future ones, the only difference between their
pesaq and the C ruling is that the CLJS published their ruling, the
masses heard a message that further lessened their perception of the
severity of driving on Shabbos, and it *increased* driving (to places
other than services) and Shabbos violation in general, r"l.

A second example:

A rabbi on NY's Upper West Side quietly told sexually active single women
in his community to go to the miqvah. As they were going to sin either
way, at least it won't be an issur kareis.

Word got out, and even though he didn't intend to be moreh kein, it became
common knowledge.

(The usual minhag is the reverse: Not letting single women use the miqvah,
not even erev RH or erev YK. Because keeping relations being a greater
issur means fewer people will be doing it. I don't know if in our day,
this reasoning is valid. But I'm not a rav leading a community, so my
opinion is neither informed nor of any import.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 In today's rush we all think too much,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   seek too much, want too much and
Author: Widen Your Tent      forget about the joy of just Being.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                - Eckhart Tolle

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 11:06:45AM +0300, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> There are certain times when a partnership with a non-Jew affects halacha
> (eg
> pidyon bchor). Is there a minimum percentage ownership required?

I don't know. I just want to split up the problem by pointing out multiple
grounds for saying that the shituf doesn't fall under the obligation. And
it could depend on the mitzvah which sevara applies. A chiyuv could be on:
1- a cheftza,
2- rov (rubo kekulo) of the cheftza, or
3- anything, rather than thinking in terms of objects, and thus even a mi'ut
of a cheftza would be obligated.

In the first case, we would find that any share at all would be eneough
for the chiyuv not to apply. I didn't think it through, but at first
glance the beginning of Mes' Bekhoros seems to reason about bekhoros
this way. If a non-Jew owns a shar in even just an ear of the bekhor,
isn't it patur from being given to a kohein?

In the second case, the non-Jew would have to be at least half owner.
Can't think of an example, but it seems a legally plausible possibility.

And in the last case, as long as the Jew owns any of the cheftza, he would
have a chiyuv. And this could bery well apply to chameitz; wouldn't the
Jew have to divest from chameitz he owns with a non-Jew in partnership?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   but by rubbing one stone against another,
Author: Widen Your Tent      sparks of fire emerge. 
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz

On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 10:40:49AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> R Micha suggests that after the se'ir hamishtaleiach
>  they still said vidui, they still held ne'ilah.
> Which means they were NOT forgiven
> We too say VeHu Rachum when beginning MaAriv after YK

Because
1- we are relying on our teshuvah, and therefore cannot assume 100% total
kaparah, and
2- we say the normal matbeia', and how well it applies is secondary.

> Not saying Viduy is flaunting
> rather than expressing gratitude and celebrating
> Akin to YaAkob Avinu saying Katonti Mikol HaChassadim

Flaunting what? If HQBH said He guarantees saving us, taking that as a
given is simply having the emunah necessary to be thrilled for being
saved. We aren't flaunting our sins or patting ourselves on the back for
our teshuvah.

It would also make teshuvah as valuable as a Quidditch Match quaffle.*

(* In case someone needs the mashal explained: JK Rowling's parody of
sports in Harry Potter is a game where a quaffle is 10 points, getting
the snitch is 150 points, and games are portrayed as having about as
many quaffles as a soccer match has goals.)

To quote Peninei Halakhah (REMelamed) 7 "Hil' Yom Kippur", ch 6 (tr. is
by a team led by R Elli Fischer, who is active enough on-line that a
number of us must be e-friends):

    There is a disagreement among the Sages as to whether one who
    confessed his sins the previous Yom Kippur should confess the same
    sins again (Yoma 86b). Some say, "Of him, Scripture says, 'As a
    dog returns to his vomit, so a dullard repeats his folly' (Mishlei
    26:11)." In contrast, R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says, "He is certainly
    praiseworthy, as we read, 'For I recognize my transgressions and am
    ever conscious of my sin' (Tehilim 51:5)." Shulan Arukh rules that
    one may confess again for sins to which he confessed the previous year
    (SA 607:4).

Which is certainly must weaker than "flaunting".

But in any case, I didn't limit myself to Vidui. Why coin Ne'iah? Why
did HQBH require finishing the day's fast? Kaparah time is over, why do
we continue acting like we're under the gun.

Continuing, REM has a theory to be meyasheiv the two amoera'im and avoiding
a machloqes:

    Perhaps we can suggest a guideline: If one feels that his repentance
    is incomplete, and that he has not yet managed to erase the sin from
    his heart completely, it is better for him to confess again. But
    if one feels that his repentance is complete and the sin is erased
    from his heart, it is not appropriate to confess, as doing so
    displays a lack of faith in the power of repentance. Sometimes a
    person repents completely and erases a sin from his heart, but a
    few years later suddenly thinks about it again and is distressed by
    it. This happens because his repentance was sufficient for his former
    spiritual stature; no trace of the sin was discernible. However,
    after he attains a greater, more illuminated spiritual stature, his
    previous repentance is no longer sufficient to cleanse him of any
    trace of sin. Therefore, he must confess again to erase the faint
    but lingering impression of his sin (Tzidkat Ha-tzadik 134:67).

...
> He is referring to when there is no SaIr HaMishtaleAch
> with the SaIr he clearly says it atones for Kalos even when the sinners
> have no regret

>  It is unclear if these 'proxy' atonements forgive Chillul HaSHem etc

Chilul hasheim is only toleh by teshuvah and YK, and there isn't
actual kaparah until misah. (Yoma 86a, Hil' Teshuvah 1:4) And every
aveirah lehach'is (or: "lehachas") has some measure of chillul hasheim
involved. See Seifer haMitzvos lav #63, Chinukh #29.

So arguably YK isn't mechaper a lot of cheit. Pewrhaps one could get
kaparah for eating treif, but if they did it lehach'is, they don't get
kaparah for the motive. (Maybe?) See the language in H' Teshuvah 1:4,
"When are these things said? When he didn't chilel es hasheim at the
time of violation..." They may get selichah and/or mechilah though,
depending on the definitions of selichah, mechilah, and toleh.


> It certainly is not a Kapparah for Bein Adam LeChaveiro

It *is* a kapparah from HQBH for any aveirah BALC for which the chaver
already forgave him. One needs kaparah from both the person and the One
Who commanded you not to harm / offend that person.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 We are what we repeatedly do.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   Thus excellence is not an event,
Author: Widen Your Tent      but a habit.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                 - Aristotle

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 11:08:20AM +0300, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> What does the fact that eli mistook chana for a shikora (drunk) because she
> was
> praying with her lips moving but her voice not heard say about how most
> people
> prayed at that time?

I must be missing something. Doesn't it on the face of it mean that anyone
who davened in more than hirhurim do so out loud?

Please further explain your question.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Sun, Jun 01, 2025 at 04:50:52PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> To sum up: If someone can show me a discussion in Chazal about which of
> these 3 shiurim to use for the definition of Reshus Harabim, that
> discussion might shed light on the roundedness of the census of the
> shevatim. But if this question never came up, then perhaps Chazal were
> signaling something to us, perhaps that the distinction between "exact" and
> "rounded" is less important than we are tempted to think.

I think in general, differences that cannot be experienced first-hand
aren't the topic of halakhah.

IOW, *maybe* the difference between 600,000 and 601,730 people is
irrelevent for the same taam hamitzvah as tartigrades in your water
are irrelevent.

It is also possible that the pragmatics rule... Perhaps we cannot be
held accountable for the difference in census any more than we can be
held accountable for the squarness of our tefillin beyond the diagonal
being at least as close to the square root of 2 as 1.4.

But I lean toward the first idea. I developed the theory that metzi'us
(literally: that which can be found) is the world-as-experienced,
the world as we should have taken care to experience it (in cases that
require birur) and the world as we ought to experience it to the point
that everything looks like a nail.

After all, if mitzvos were given letzareif behem es hebarios, then
what matters is how we experience our actions, and not some abstract
reality. Like a placebo, or like knowing that chocolate cake or cigarette
is a bad idea -- abstract things we know do little to shape who we are
compared to experiences and emotions.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
http://www.aishdas.org/asp               ... but you're the pilot.
Author: Widen Your Tent                          - R' Zelig Pliskin
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 06:01:07AM +0300, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> The gemara starting in beitza (16b) discusses eruv tavshilin requiring "kol
> shehu" as a czait. Kol shehu is used in many places in the gemara and this
> is one of the few examples where it means a measurable amount. Interesting
> example of lack of consistent terminology complicating (my) understanding
> (or is it a forced interpretation to reconcile conflicting sources?)

A kezayis isn't directly a shiur on the maaseh, it's a shiur on the
cheftza. Less than a kezayis isn't okhel.

So when a speicific din refers to a mashehu of food can't be literally
a crumb.

So fasting, which is avoiding consumption, chatzi shiur assur min
haTorah. But chameitz, less than a kezayis is a derabbanan becuase
asi le'itztarufei. Or basar bechalav -- one may get hana'ah from less
than a kazayis. (Yes, I picked to cases that involve okhel but not
akhilah on purpose.)

Generalize that, and maybe you have a tool to help you think through the
question of "is this mashehu literal?" 

1- Does this issur refer to a specific kind of object?
2- Does that object have a minimal size?

Or maybe not. Maybe it's *only* the noun "okhel" that has a minimum size.
Other cases aren't crossing my mind right now.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The goal isn't to live forever,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   the goal is to create so mething that will.
Author: Widen Your Tent
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 06:33:26AM +0300, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> Adam 1 and adam 2 -- did the rav think that the dialectic was resolvable or
> that one would continually oscillate between the two poles? Sometimes I
> think it may just be an issue of semantics.

I think R YB Soloveitchik made the unresolvable dialectic a central
theme in his hashkafah.

It would be very Neo-Kantian AND very Brisk of him.

Hegel expected thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Kant and his legacy, not so
much.

And what is the chaqira is not an explanation of how both sides of a
dialectic are both valid and distinct?

But he often speaks of how bechirah between right and wrong is important,
butbechirah between which value to pursue, when you have to choose between
right and right, which is really critical.

Going beyond RYBS to the subject as a whole... I am reminded of the
generation, like the Maharal, that pushed back against the Shulchan
Arukh and the whole idea of codification. And the SA really only got
accepted once the standard page included nosei keilim that keep
the dialog going. (I was going to say "discussion", but "dialog" and
"dialectic" share the same shoresh.)

And similarly, we continue to learn Shas after the publication of the Rif.

In his introduction to Aruch HaShulchan, R YM Esptein observes that while
a single melodic line is beautiful, when many instruments play together,
there is a special beauty. Torah is called "divrei hashirah hazos"
(Devarim 31:19) because opinions have the property that eilu va'eilu
divrei Elokim Chaim. The Torah has many voices saying different things,
but they come together with the elegance of a symphony.

Torah is inherently dialectic.

Similarly people are usually experiencing multiple, often conflicting,
emotions. And we can hold conflicting ideas in our heads (Is Hashem
in heaven? Is He everywhere?) even if we are usually only paying attention
to one of them at a time.

People are creatures of contradiction. To use Kant's word, our
perceptions produce "antimonimies". The Torah canot work for us unless
it speaks to both sides of our conflicts.

As I wrote recently in a reply in another thread: Life is about navigating
dialectics. You don't want to be in a hurry to reach their resolution!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   this was a great wonder. But it is much more
Author: Widen Your Tent      wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter


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



_______________________________________________
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.)