Avodah Mailing List

Volume 20: Number 22

Fri, 27 Oct 2006

• 1. What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim to have HaKafos on Shmini Atzeres night? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: non-kosher and milk (Micha Berger)
• 3. height of Temple (Danny Schoemann)
• 4. establishing mamzerut (Eli Turkel)
• 5. halachah lemoshe misinai (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: establishing mamzerut (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
• 7. Ethical (Halachic?) question (SBA)
• 8. Re: Definition of a Mamzer (Ken Bloom)
• 9. Re: halachah lemoshe misinai (Yzkd@aol.com)
• 10. Re: Gra & importance of rishonim (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 11. Re: tree of knowledge of good and evil (Rabbi Y. H. Henkin)
• 12. Bnei Noach (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Bnei Noach (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Ben Drusai (Gershon Dubin)

In v3n17, RSBA (R Shlomo Abelesz, to help the newbies) wrote two posts on the
subject:
: [Nitei Gavriel] also quotes the Chida being strngly against these hakafos

So they got established by the early to mid-18th century. That gives us a 200
year window, from the Ari to the Chida. But li nir'eh it's toward the latter
part of that window, as the Chida writes as though he's trying to stop the
practice from being canonized as minhag, implying it was new.


In the second post RSBA writes:
: To have even a hava amina that the "basis" of a minhag practised by
: tzadikim and kedoshim and thousands of their followers over centuries
: is "due to a mistake in transcription" is ludicrous and mischievous.

It's not so rare.

For example (learned from RGDubin back in v4, 2000ce), the Torah Temima's
(since disproven) theory about the origin of saying "migdol" in bentching on
Shabbos. He writes that the original note was to contrast the text of
bentching with that in Shemu'el beis, and therefore read "besh"b 'migdol'".
Somone then expanded the rashei teivos to "beShabbos" and so the minhag was
allegedly born.

(WADR to the TT, the theory doesn't work because the Avudraham mentions the
practice, and he didn't know about a future splitting of Shemu'el by people in
another part of the world.)

See the mavo to haAqov leMishor by R' Dovid Cohen for more examples. If RDC
does it, why can't Yaari?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Tue, October 24, 2006 7:17 am, RRGoldmeier wrote:
: If a person would eat non-kosher meat (either pork, for example, or
: neveilah), let's say by accident, would it give him a status of fleishige?
: Would he be allowed to drink a glass of milk afterwards?

A tamei species, no. Lo sevasheil gedi requires that it be ke'ein haperat,
which thus only includes beheimos tehoros. And unlike chayos and ofos, there
was no subsequent gezeirah prohibiting eating temei'os bechalav.

What that means is that despite the best attempts of our "kosher style"
brothers, they are technically better off eating a ham cheeseburger than one
made of beef. Basar bechalav, being assur behanaah, is worse.

This came up lehalakhah, as I know someone who had to have pork daily by
doctor's orders.

But the issur does apply to neveilos, and he would have to wait 6 hours.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

>In daf yomi the mishna states that the lights from simcha bet hashoeva lit
>the whole town. Rashi explains because the temple mount is high and it was
>lit 50 amot high and the eastern was short.

According to my Magid Shiur, this is one of the proofs that the main
part of the City of Jerusalem was located to the East, i.e. on Har
Hazetim.

- Danny

The halacha is explicit (EH 4:29): "Eishes ish she'omeres al
ha'ubar sheino miba'alah einah ne'emenes l'foslo."  Her unsupported
statement is halachically meaningless.  >>

The woman wanted ti use a DNA test. What is the halakhic value
of this as extra to her testimony?

-- 
Eli Turkel

In a class we discussed the Rambam that there are no disagreements in
halacha lemoshe misinai and the questions of the Chavot Yair.

Can anyone point me to answers for the questions of the Chavot Yai?

Thanks

-- 
Eli Turkel

> The halacha is explicit (EH 4:29): "Eishes ish she'omeres al
> ha'ubar sheino miba'alah einah ne'emenes l'foslo."  Her unsupported
> statement is halachically meaningless.  >>
R' Eli Turkel:
> The woman wanted ti use a DNA test. What is the halakhic value
> of this as extra to her testimony?

Last night, I spoke with someone who was involved with the Agunah situations
after Sept. 11. He told me that R' Wosner takes the position that DNA is
only good as a Siman, and can't be used to be Motzi Mamon (e.g. for
Yerushah) or for Yichus. He said that he heard from RYSE's Talmidim, that
RYSE takes a stronger position regarding DNA, and considers it worth more
than R' Wosner does, but that RYSE doesn't say publicly what his position
is. He referred me to Yeshurun (IIRC, vol. 11) that has a few pieces
regarding DNA in the context of 9/11.

KT,
MYG

What would you do?

I have a friend who has a small business - let's say, producing
quality chocolates.

Although he mainly supplies stores and wholesalers, he also will 
(happily) sell privately to anyone who drops in.

Being a small operation, he is often out doing other things, leaving the
private selling to an (obviously) trusted non-Jewish factory worker.
I have found that often she the only person there.

She seems to be a nice lady, and me being a friendly chap
we get along fine. Whenever I buy from her, she allows me a small 
discount (which, I presume, her boss would  as well).

But lately she has also dropped in a few free samples of their wares.
These samples may be worth $2-3. This - after I have spent a
nett $45/50 with her.

My questions:

1) Should/Must I report this back to her boss?

     It is, after all, very possible that this is done with his approval, 
(and, in any case, seeing that he leaves the whole place under her 
management, should she indeed be a crook, my $3 free chocs would 
be the smallest of his problems).

2) But if he does not know and/or approve of her generosity, and
because of my reporting this back to him, he gives her a rap over 
the knuckles (or even worse, fires her), am I being a kafui tovah to her?

3) If so, is there a shaaloh of Chillul Hashem?

4) And even if she is doing this with his approval, the fact that the boss
may casually mention to her that someone 'dobbed her in', would
that make it any lighter?

5) OTOH, is there a chashash gezeileh by my accepting her gift?

6) And if I refuse to accept it next time, it could be quite unpleasant -
    and possibly have the problems of 2) and 3).

(I suppose I could speak to the boss and discretely mention all this to
him. But I have no guarantee that he will not pass it on to her 
(especially  if I am being given exclusive preferential treatment),
which will allow her to work out that it was I would was 'holech rochil'.

SBA

(PS 7) Should I send this in to the NY Times 'Ethicist'...? )

On Tuesday 24 October 2006 02:18, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:12:24 +0200
> > From: "Yaakov Ellis" <yellis@gmail.com>
> > Subject: [Avodah] Definition of a Mamzer
>
> Does the name printed on the birth certificate actually have
>
> > significance in this case in determining whether or not the child
> > is a mamzer?
>
> It's not the registration per se -- it's that she is going to court
> and demanding DNA testing to prove it.

If she really wants to prove her case (and screw up her son's life in 
the process), she should go ahead and get DNA testing without the 
approval of the court, and present the DNA testing to the court. At 
that point, clearly he's a mamzer, and there's no reason for the court 
not to change the birth certificate.

So as long as she doesn't realize this, I'm glad the courts are watching 
out for him.

--Ken

-- 
Ken Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
I've added a signing subkey to my GPG key. Please update your keyring.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061024/cb67a998/attachment-0001.pgp

In a message dated 10/24/2006 7:23:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  
eliturkel@gmail.com writes:

In a  class we discussed the Rambam that there are no disagreements in
halacha  lemoshe misinai and the questions of the Chavot Yair.

Can anyone point  me to answers for the questions of the Chavot Yai?
Maharatz Chayos in Mammar Torah Sheb'al Peh (page 115) brought only  
partially in Encyclopedia Taalmudis Vol. 9 page 370. 
 
Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061024/9196e612/attachment.htm

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> . From his quote, I would have
> concluded that RMM's thesis is that he gave primacy to understanding the
> texcual mesorah as a whole.
>   
The critical question is what did R' Meiselman mean
> : * He then established the method of using rishonim as the benchmark of
> :   proper text analysis.
>   
I understand the above to mean that his use of the rishonim as a 
benchmarch was an innovation. If it was already common practice there 
would have been no need to "establish the method". Problem is that thre 
is apparently no support for such a thesis. If his point was only that 
the Gra went back to texts - that is not a chidush. I am now am trying 
to get clarification from R' Meiselman as to what he meant.

According to Hebrew grammar (semichut), the verse should properly read :
"etz da'at tov vera" without a "heh" (and not : "etz hadaat...").

One possibility is that there is a missing word implied, as follows:
"etz hada'at -- (da'at) tov vera." A parallel can be found in Bamidbar
(34:2) "baim el haaretz -- (eretz) Canaan," and elsewhere. The author
of Torah Temimah discusses this in his Tosefet Berachah.

Another possibility is to vocalize it differently: "etz hoda'at tov
vera." In fact, even without changing the vowels, "lada'at", to know,
often is transitive and means "lehodi'a," to make known or promulgate;
see Shemot (31:13) and Bamidbar (10:31) and frequently in Tanach. This
is the meaning of the Serpent's statement "You shall be like elohim
(judges) yode'ei tov vera." Judges determine what is good and bad for
others. So, too, eating from the tree enabled man to establish his own
standards of good and evil. Before eating, man might sin but know he
sinned; after eating he would sin and call it a mitzvah.

Those who have access to Bnei Banim vol.2 are invited to see in greater
detail in my peirush on the Torah "Chibah Yeteirah" appended at the
back and at the back of vol. 3..

I opined on Areivim that I thought the 7MbN were not intended to be a
religion, but a criterion by which we assess adherents of respective
religions. For example, the assessment that a Moslem (barring the set who are
violent in non-7MbN ways) is not violating the 7MbN, but a trinitarian Xian,
may or may not (depending upon whether the trinity is shituf).

I therefore expressed surprise at someone posting a recollection that Rav
Moshe in IM prohibited Benei Noach from forming their own rites.

On Thu, October 26, 2006 2:34 pm, R Zev Sero replied on Areivim:
: No.  "The rule is: we do not allow them to invent a religion, or to
: make up their own mitzvot.  Either he becomes a ger tzedek and accepts
: all the mitzvot, or stay with his law and neither add nor subtract.
: If he worked in the Torah, or kept Shabbat, or invented something,
: we beat him and punish him and let him know that he deserves to die
: for this, but we do not kill him."
: Hil' Melachim 10:12 (10:9 in the standard editions)
: http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/i/e510.htm

: In other words, Islam is *NOT* permitted... the difference is merely that
: Xians (at least pre-Reformation ones, at least those who are knowledgeable
: and devout) are chayavei mita mamash, while Moslems are not.

I'm not as sure what to make of the Rambam. Note his two examples are from the
Torah mamash. Mitzvos, not made up mitzvos. I therefore do not think "vela'aso
mitzvos le'atzmam mida'atam" refers to making up "mitzvos", but picking and
choosing amongst the real mitzvos.

Note also the two examples are mentioned in the gemara as special cases,
possibly geneivah, possibly akin to eishes ish. Which leaves me really
confused as to the Rambam's point, since the general rule as it appears to
either RZS or myself is different in kind than his two examples.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Micha Berger wrote:
> I opined on Areivim that I thought the 7MbN were not intended to be a
> religion, but a criterion by which we assess adherents of respective
> religions. For example, the assessment that a Moslem (barring the set who are
> violent in non-7MbN ways) is not violating the 7MbN, but a trinitarian Xian,
> may or may not (depending upon whether the trinity is shituf).
> 
> I therefore expressed surprise at someone posting a recollection that Rav
> Moshe in IM prohibited Benei Noach from forming their own rites.
> 
> On Thu, October 26, 2006 2:34 pm, R Zev Sero replied on Areivim:
> : No.  "The rule is: we do not allow them to invent a religion, or to
> : make up their own mitzvot.  Either he becomes a ger tzedek and accepts
> : all the mitzvot, or stay with his law and neither add nor subtract.
> : If he worked in the Torah, or kept Shabbat, or invented something,
> : we beat him and punish him and let him know that he deserves to die
> : for this, but we do not kill him."
> : Hil' Melachim 10:12 (10:9 in the standard editions)
> : http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/i/e510.htm
> 
> : In other words, Islam is *NOT* permitted... the difference is merely that
> : Xians (at least pre-Reformation ones, at least those who are knowledgeable
> : and devout) are chayavei mita mamash, while Moslems are not.

> I'm not as sure what to make of the Rambam. Note his two examples are from the
> Torah mamash. Mitzvos, not made up mitzvos.

He lists three things that they are not permitted to do: Esek batorah,
keeping Shabbat, and inventing their own religion.  The first two are
certainly not intended as examples of the third.

> I therefore do not think "vela'aso mitzvos le'atzmam mida'atam"
> refers to making up "mitzvos", but picking and choosing amongst
> the real mitzvos.

On the contrary, as he says in the next halacha, they *are* allowed
to choose as many or as few of the other 604 mitzvot, and keep them
voluntarily, and they receive reward for doing so.  Hence the navi
says that in the future they will keep Sukkot (and therefore if a
BN were to ask me about taking on extra mizvot, Sukkot would be
the first one I would recommend).  And the Torah itself refers to
BN bringing korbanot.


> Note also the two examples are mentioned in the gemara as special
> cases, possibly geneivah, possibly akin to eishes ish.

Precisely, which is why these two are exceptions to the rule that
they can pick any mitzvot they like.


> Which leaves me really confused as to the Rambam's point, since
> the general rule as it appears to either RZS or myself is different
> in kind than his two examples.

It seems to me that what they are expected to do is live as Jews
who happen to be peturim from most mitzvot.  I see it by analogy to
women.  Jewish women are peturot from some mitzvot; they can choose
to do them anyway, or they can skip them.  I see a BN as in much
the same situation, except that the petur extends to almost all
the mitzvot.  Just as I am patur from birkat kohanim but may bless
whom I like, and my sister is peturah from tzitzit but may wear
them, my neighbour is patur from most lavin but may keep them.

And just as I am not only patur from eating terumah but actually
assur from doing so, and my sister is not only peturah from limud
hatorah but is also under some ill-defined issur in that regard,
so also my neighbour is not only patur from Shabbat and from Esek
Batorah, but assur in them.

Inventing a new religion, it seems to me, is assur to a BN for the
same reason that it's assur to us; it is a denial of the Torah, and
therefore against the things all humans are required to believe.
This fits in with the fact that BN not only have to actually keep
the 7M, but must do so because Hashem told Moshe Rabbenu that they
must.  This means that they must believe in the truth of Mattan
Torah and of the Torah itself, just as we must.  It therefore
follows that they must believe everything that the Torah says is
true, i.e. all the dinim of emunot vede'ot apply equally to them.
(And therefore they must be allowed to study those parts of Torah,
so that they know what they should believe, just as women are
allowed to study those parts for a similar reason.)

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Couldn't read it;  can you summarize?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

-- "SBA" <sba@sba2.com> wrote:
From: "Gershon Dubin" <>
Other than his predilection for partially cooked repasts, does anyone
have any sources on this person, or if in he fact was a real person or not?
>>

It seems to be a generic description of a certain type of thief.
Ayin : http://www.kipa.co.il/hibbur/show.asp?n=5901

SBA




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


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 22
*************************************

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..."