Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 2

Sun, 14 Oct 2007

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:33:42 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] heter mechira produce - d'rabanan


On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:51:07PM +0200, saul mashbaum wrote:
: RRWolpoe has posited several times that there are levels of strictness
: of d'rabbanans, based largely, but not exclusively, on closeness to some
: d'oraita, or lack thereof.

We once discussed a taxonomy of dinim deRabbanan. It started with a
shiur I attended by R' Yonasan Sachs (YU and Agudah of Passaic, not the
CR of the UK), which then became part of the scj FAQ, and when posted
here people pointed me to more sources.

The resulting understanding that I reached is at:
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/02/types-of-halachic-rulings.shtml>.
Among the issues is which kind of derabannan is more chamur than which,
and when.

Eg: As RSM writes: din requires a maaseh, a gezeirah can be an issur
against doing nothing. OTOH, ein danin gezeirah al gezeirah has no
parallel for dinim derabbanan.

: For the most part, the g'zeirot are not as stringent as the m'lachot
: d'rabbanan. For example, they are permitted for a chole shein bo sakana,
: while the m'lachot d'rabbanan are forbidden in this case lacking some
: further cause for leniency such as shvut d'shvut.

RYS argued that chazarah is a melakhah derabnnan, but shehiyah is a
gezeirah. However, the Tif'eres Yisrael splits wht he called gezeiros
into cheshahos and siyagos, so it would take some work (and perhaps
chasing the link to my blog entry) to decide where shehiyah falls.

I am thrilled RSM invites us to refine/correct the model.


However, WRT shemitah, the CI doesn't simply use the fact that it's
derabbanan to advocate for otzar BD. Rather, he expresses his concern
that the fact that shemittah is not deOraisa means that the berakhah
guaranteeing parnassah does not apply. I'm not sure how generalizable
that is to how we handle dinim deRabbanan in general.

If you're still in the mood to hit my blog, that's at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/07/safeiq-derabbanan.shtml>.

The Rama allows us to apply safeiq deRabanan lequlah in cases where we
can not be mevareir the din. This is where you will see a shu"t pile up
the senifim lehaqeil showing there is at least a meaningful safeiq.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
micha@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:38:40 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] THE I.R.S.O. AUDIT


On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 07:18:20AM -0400, R Wolberg wrote:
: On April 15th we have an accounting to do for the IRS but cheshbon hanefesh
: is a much more difficult and involved spiritual accounting... The
: final day of any time period is an ideal time to review our progress
: or lack thereof....
: Similarly, the final day of each Hebrew month is called Yom Kippur Katan, in
: which we are enjoined to review the month's activities...

Except that it's difficult to remember every one of the month's
transactions. I find it more useful to maintain a cheshbon nightly.
It provides good excercise in learning how to watch myself, seeing
how I actually respond and make decisions rather than how I like
to think I do. Which in turn makes more "room" between stimulous and
response besha'as ma'aseh to think about what I'm doing and make better
decisions. (Not that I necessarily /use/ that opportunity.)

OTOH, I find the idea of spending time on YKQ reviewing it to be
compelling. Thanks.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
micha@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:45:12 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Bereshis "Begin With A Blessing"


On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 06:12:56AM -0400, R Wolberg wrote:
: The Midrash relates that the Torah begins with the letter bet, rather than
: with the letter alef, because bet connotes beracha, blessing, while alef
: connotes arirah, curse.  The HaKodosh, Baruch Hu, said, "I will begin with a
: bet, with an expression of blessing.  May it be that the creation will be
: able to endure."  Another Kabbalistic Midrash says that the Torah begins
: with the letter Bet because it looks like a box open only towards the front,
: teaching us to not ask about what comes before, or beyond, or beneath this
: creation.

I assume people read this assuming the Bavli's conclusion that "mem
vesamech beneis hayu omedim" - implying that the Torah was originally
given in Kesaf Ashuris. If, as the Y-mi states, it was ayin and
tes that were the closed forms on the luchos, that would imply some
variant of kesav Ivri, and thus a beis along the lines of the one at
<http://www.omniglot.com/writing/aramaic.htm> -which is also only open
on he left, despite being a very different shape.


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
micha@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:00:36 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] rationalism and mysticism


On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 02:25:35PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: I was not the greatest Talmid of Brisk, but the Brisker methodology
: re-inforced in me the concept of  getting precise defintions that are often
: contextually based.

I think it's misleading to phrase Brisker derekh in terms of
definitions, as tgat makes it sound like a concern for words that I do
not think characterizes Brisk.

Rather, it's the precise deliniation of categories and laws -- at times
DESPITE potentially misleading or ambiguous termonology.

: For example  2 definitions of kavvanah
: 1) awareness that one is davening [reguried for entire amidah]
: 2) understanding what is being said (peirush hamilim)  [required for just
: 1st bracha]

It's not about defining kavanah. It's about differences of how kavanah
is required in various mitzvos into two categories, despite the common
word "kavanah".

Despite, not via, the text.

(Parallel to the need for precise aggadic jargon deleted, since I do not
believe on can use Brisk to make that point. I do agree we need to know
what we mean by terms -- both for clarity of thought, and for clarity
of discussion.)


BTW, I got to RARakeffet's history shiur on RYYWeinberg, the Seridei
Eish. The SE wrote R' Moshe Soloveitchik that in his opinion,

    R' Chaim's Totah is emes from the perspective of sevara,
    but not from the perspective of history.

RAR thinks it is important to note that the letter must have been
written late in the SE's life, when he was out of Litta for a while
and immersed in Hildesheimer's Chokhmas Yisrael for a while.

So how would the SE deal with a sheverer Rambam? First check the girsaos
of both the Rambam and his sources. Perhaps our girsa of the Rambam is
flawed. Perhaps his girsa of the source was different than ours.

Moreso, RYYW brings ra'ayos from shu"t of the Rambam that this is what
the Rambam himself would have you do!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
micha@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:15:03 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Shmini Atzeret - why Sukkah YES and Lulav NO?


On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 02:00:40PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: RYBS has a nice explanation of this (printed in the shiurim on Succah
: 47a). He explains that on Shemini Atzeres chazal had a problem with
: Yom Tov Sheni. On all other YT Sheni's they imposed a higher kedusha
: d'rabbanan of Yom Tov on either Chol Hamoed or on a yom chol. The
: Kedushas hayom of Yom Tov is what is mechayev you in the mitzvos...

Is it barur that qedushas hayom is what causes the chiyuv in the
mitzvos? Maybe it's the fact that the day has the chiyuvim which gives
it the qedushah.

I thought YT sheini shel galiyos is a takanah created to preserve the
minhag necessitated by the days when people were really mesupaqim about
the date. Is that about qedushas hayom? Or about keeping alive the
concept of qiddush hachodesh al pi re'iyah?

Frankly, RYBS's assumption sounds more Chassidish than Brisk.

: Shemini Atzeres however, there is already a kedushas hayom of Yom Tov
: d'oraysa of Shemini Atzeres and therefore the chahamim could not
: impose a lower kedusha d'rabbanan of chol hamoed succos...

YT can be chal on Shabbos. We have precedent for lesser qedushah being
added to greater one.


On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 01:31:30PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: They could have said to skip the sukkah entirely. Or they could have
: said to even say Leshev. But they compromised, and concluded that Yesuvi
: Yasvinan, Bruchi Lo MeVarchinan (we do sit, but we don't bless).

BTW, for those who are wondering what Chassidim do with this gemara:
The Minchas Elazar renders the gemara "Yasvei yasvinan, berukhi lo
mevrkhinan?" (vowelization and transliteration mine) IOW, "Could it
me that we are expected to sit in the Sukkah, given that we can't make
a berakhah?"

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
micha@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:22:18 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Don't Blow Out the Candles and Make a Wish


On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 10:54:26PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Given a cheifetz of Avodah Zoro can be nullified by a goy [bittul]
: lI wonder nowadays that since many of these sueprpsitions that USED TO BE AZ
: have the status of being Batel because they have been secularized -
: therefore no issur is hal anymore.

You assume that a lack of preserving their importance is the same as an
active bitul. Is that true?

: I would speuclate the same MAY be true for Halloween which has pagan/Xtian
: origins but is has really evolved into a secualr Purim style masquerade for
: most people.

Although still a celebration tied to evil -- death themes, ritualized
version of extortion (Trick or Treat). Not quite wholesome either way.


On the question of neo-Paganism... Neo-Paganism is a new religion grown
out of New Age mentality and over-romanticized ideas of what they want to
believe Paganism was. It has no continuity or resemblence to the original.

If implicit bitul counts, then the impact of neo-Pagans on the
permissability of birthday cakes would depend on whether a new adoption
of religious overtones for a practice already commonplace and permissable
could cause it to be prohibited.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
micha@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:36:41 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] "Es Yom HaShmini Ho'Atzeres Hazeh"


On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 09:18:53AM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
: (1) The Torah nowhere refers to Shavuos as "atzeres." It is the Talmud
: which does, and which uses the unmodified term to refer exclusively
: to Shavuos.

Doesn't the relevence of that observation depend on whether tefillos
are written in leshon Tanakh or leshon Chazal?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:52:33 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] How Bitter Can A Month Be? Bittersweet.


R Wolberg wrote:
> The month of Cheshvan is also referred to as "Mar-Cheshvan." Mar means 
> "bitter" ? because there are no holidays this month, we allude to it as 
> ?bitter?.

Unfortunately, that piece of folk etymology has about as much truth as
most such.  Merach-Shevan simply means "eighth month"; the mem and resh
are an integral part of the name, not a prefix, and there is no such
thing as plain "Cheshvan".

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



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: "Michael Kopinsky" <mkopinsky@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:58:05 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reish Lakish


On 10/13/07, Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
>
> Your discussion makes sense only according to the view of Doros Rishonim
> who holds that Reish Lakish was an ignoramous before he became frum. In
> this he specifically rejects the view of Tosfos (Bava Metzia 84a) that
> Reish Lakiesh was a godol before going off the derech and that R'
> Yochonon brought him back by offering him his sister in marriage if he
> came back to his original behavior.
>
> Daniel Eidensohn


At least for R' Micha's second 2 points, I would say that they work just as
well according to Tosfos.  While we think of a baal teshuva as someone who
was not frum initially, teshuva is really returning to the derech.
Someone who left the derech and then returned would know the power of
teshuva much more strongly than someone who was originally a tinok shenishba
(like today's "BTs"), or someone who was always frum (like R' Yochanan).
And Reish Lakish certainly knew what a negative environment was like -
that's what kept him from engaging in the Torah world.  He was not like
today's BTs who did not engage in the Torah world because they didn't know
better.

KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071013/729f1b82/attachment.htm 


Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:02:09 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Abra(ha)m Received An A+


R Wolberg wrote:

> Many different explanations have been advanced for the double /"lamed 
> chof/" to which I?ll add another.  What is the best score one can 
> receive? One hundred percent.

Or ten perdec, or a thousand permil, or twelve perdoz, or any other
divisor one wishes to use.  There's no natural law that implies 100 as
a universal divisor, it's just something people started doing, because
it makes calculations easy given the Indian numeric system that we use
today.  I know of no source in the Torah or TSBP for such a convention,
and I don't believe that one existed in those days, among either Jews
or goyim.

Nor can I think of anywhere where 100 is used to imply completeness.
On the contrary, we have other numbers that are used to mean shleimus,
especially 60.


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



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:06:50 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] How Bitter Can A Month Be? Bittersweet.


Micha Berger wrote:
> So, merach would be yareiach in Hebrew,

Yerach.



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



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:54:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:
[Avodah] Moshiach-tzeiten


Misaskim wrote;

> May Mashiach come very, very soon so that Misaskim and its holy activities
> will no longer be needed among klal Yisroel.

Now there's an interesting theological statement.

Rambam says that Chazal say that there will be no difference between 
Moshiach-tzeiten and today other than that Israel will be independent
and the other nations will cease to bother us.

Moshiach will found a new Davidic dynasty - which means that people
will still need shiva services.

Whose opinion is it that death will cease when Moshiach comes?  

This announcement posits that techias hameisim and/or olam haba (in
its guise as a future world with different reality than ours, rather
than the Maimonidean olam haba, which co-exists with ours and is the
venue for reward after death) will take place coincident with the
advent of Moshiach.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com





Go to top.

Message: 13
From: "Meir Rabi" <meirabi@optusnet.com.au>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 14:03:00 +1000
Subject:
[Avodah] Regarding Anger: What is R' Moshe's Resolution?


R' Moshe's explains an inconsistency in the RaMBaM Hilchos DeOs at the
conclusion of the first part of his Teshuvah, O"Ch 1:54.

The following is an approximation of what R Moshe says and I would be
pleased to receive suggested amendments.

He says:

This dichotomy is also found in the RaMBaM. In Hilchos DeOs 1:4 RaMBaM
observes that one should only become angered over significant issues to
effectively prevent re-occurrences of such matters. At the same time in 2:3
RaMBaM prohibits anger in all circumstances as a terrible evil even where it
is justified.

In my humble opinion the RaMBaM is only discussing matters where anger is
justified and appropriate. Nevertheless when the evil is not obvious, one
should first pursue other methods of protest before remonstrating with
anger, 2:3. But when faced with a wrong which is clear and obvious it is
vital that after evaluating that his anger will not on the whole, be
misinterpreted he must display anger otherwise people will misinterpret his
silence and believe that it is not necessary to protest, 1:4.

This is the conclusion of this part of the discussion.

 

Would someone help me understand this? Because this appears to be a
surprising reading of the RaMBaM who at first glance is proposing that in
some circumstances one should NEVER get angry. Could R' Moshe understand
that this means NEVER get angry to correct that evil? But to prevent others
from concluding that this does not require a strong protest one MUST express
anger?

 

 

Here is the first part of the Teshuvah; again, the following is an
approximation of what R Moshe says and I would be pleased to receive
suggested amendments.

.

Rabbenu Gershon MeOr HaGolah explains the Gemara of TaAnis 4; "Any Torah
Sage who is not as tough as iron is not a [true] Sage", in the following
way. A Torah Sage must be unrelenting and not readily appeased. This appears
to contradict the Mishnah of Pikey Avos 5:11; a Chassid is one who is
difficult to anger and easy to appease.

It appears to me that these are two distinct and separate considerations. A
Torah Sage who believes he is correct in matters of Din and Halacha and is
angry with those who do not heed his opinion and then relents from his
anger, will be misunderstood.

Observers will say that in truth he erred in his Halachic ruling and should
not have been angry in the first place at those who disagreed with him.
However he does not have the fortitude to openly admit his Halachic error.
He is being duplicitous, hiding his incompetence behind a mask of false
honour and righteousness.

This will cause two problems: people will think that in this matter the
Halacha is not as he first ruled and additionally, people will not have
confidence in his future rulings and will not consider him a Torah Sage
capable of providing authoritative rulings and guidance.

According to this explanation we can better understand the Gemara's
conclusion ". is not a [true] Torah Sage". After all his wisdom is no less
just because he has relented when he should not have. But the meaning is as
I have said; he will not be perceived as a Torah Sage by those who should be
looking to him for advice and guidance and he will therefore not be able to
wield the influence and provide assistance for those who require it.

On the other hand, the Mishnah of Pikey Avos is describing an error which is
universally recognised as an error by all. In these circumstances a Torah
Sage who is easily mollified will be recognised and lauded for displaying
admirable and honourable character traits.

This is supported by the commentary of Rabbenu Yona who explains this
Mishnah by referring to Pinchas [Numbers 25:6-15]. Rabbenu Yona notes that
anger does have its place and purpose as is illustrated with Pinchas. He was
angry and reacted with violence thus saving the Jews. By avenging the
outrage against G-d he quelled G-d's anger. At the same time he should be
easily calmed even whilst still overwhelmed by his anger.

Rabbenu Yona chooses to illustrate this Mishnah with this episode since in
that case it was apparent to all that his anger was justified and correct.
In such circumstances he can be directed to be quickly and easily calmed
since there will be no suspicion of duplicity. It is evident that his anger
was warranted and his calm is prompted only by his honourable character. 

The continuation of the Gemara, "Nevertheless it is best that one direct
themselves in a calm manner", which is not presented as being in
disagreement with the previous statement, is now understood. The first
response of a Torah Sage should be without anger, even where anger is
appropriate and effective. Nevertheless, since it is a situation in which he
is not permitted to relent, it is not to be used as a first option. However
in circumstances where his anger will be understood by all to be justified
and his later concession not misinterpreted, he should become angry
immediately to display a proper outrage at the violation to G-d's honour.

This dichotomy is also found in the RaMBaM. In Hilchos DeOs 1:4 RaMBaM
observes that one should only become angered over significant issues to
effectively prevent re-occurrences of such matters. At the same time in 2:3
RaMBaM prohibits anger in all circumstances as a terrible evil even where it
is justified.

In my humble opinion the RaMBaM is only discussing matters where anger is
justified and appropriate. Nevertheless when the evil is not obvious, one
should first pursue other methods of protest before remonstrating with
anger, 2:3. But when faced with a wrong which is clear and obvious it is
vital that after evaluating that his anger will not on the whole, be
misinterpreted he must display anger otherwise people will misinterpret his
silence and believe that it is not necessary to protest, 1:4.

 

Meir

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071014/bdf7c7e3/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 2
*************************************

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..."


< Previous Next >