Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 239

Thu, 03 Jul 2008

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:57:33 -0400
Re: [Avodah] T'uM

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, July 2, 2008 4:23 pm, Zev Sero wrote:
> :> He isn't dumping the money in good faith, is he?
> : What does that even mean?  He didn't dump money, nobody dumps money.
> : He dumped (i.e. closed down) the business, presumably because it was
> : a losing proposition.  What did you expect him to do, keep on trading
> : anyway?  That *would* be fraud!
> Wouldn't most suppliers like forewarning?

That's precisely why he can't continue trading once he knows for sure
that it's a lost cause.  Until then, do you think he has an obligation
to warn suppliers?  That would be a sure way to destroy the business,
and wouldn't that be defrauding his existing creditors?  Don't they
have a right to expect him to run the business in a responsible fashion
for as long as he can?

> Perhaps work out some kind
> of payment? Especially given the tightness of the old boy network,
> shouldn't he try to pay them before any assets are distributed to
> larger companies that could better afford the loss, or at least
> non-Jewish ones? (If you have to mess up someone's life, why one of
> our own?)

So you're proposing that he engage in fraud, hafka'as chov nochri,
and break DdM.  Now I'm not entirely averse to that idea, but please
realise what you have just said.  Hashma le'oznecha ma she'ata motzi
mipicha.   Now if he *did* something like this, in order to take care
of his Jewish creditors, I wouldn't condemn him, I might even applaud
him; but you're going further and *demanding* it of him, saying that
he has a moral obligation to do it, and condemning him for *not* doing
it, and I'm not sure I'm prepared to go so far.

I suggested in my first post on this subject that perhaps the creditors
thought there was some unspoken agreement "between us yidden" that he
would take care of them at the expense of his other creditors.  But
that involves him taking a risk; if he's caught he could get into
trouble for it.  Can one demand that of him?  Also, are you sure there
are enough non-Jewish creditors for him to pass over in order to pay
his Jewish ones?  Do you know whom else he owes?  I assume the bank
didn't lend to the LLC without adequate security, so he can't take it
out of them.  Who else is there?

> :> It's the wrong question because I asked a moral question, and RJCK
> :> was answering as a lawyer addressing the legal one.
> : In this case the legal *is* the moral....
> Odd thing for a chassid to say. Do you carry this into Yahadus as
> well, and do nothing beyond the letter of the chiyuv?

What more is there?  They lent to a LLC, which went under; what
obligation, moral or legal, did he accept?

> This is the postulate upon which our debate splits. 
> However, we know from the Rubashkin discussion that there are times
> you consider the law to be broader than morality.

Of course.  The law doesn't dictate morality.  When did I suggest
otherwise?  But the law does set out what sort of behaviour one can
expect from a businessman; his creditors had the right to expect him
to behave in that fashion and not more.  If he broke the law to their
detriment, they have a ta'anah against him; but here he didn't do that.
Had he broken the law to their benefit, they wouldn't have a ta'anah,
and indeed in this case it seems that you *want* him to.

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

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:58:06 -0400
Re: [Avodah] T'uM

bdcohen@optimum.net wrote:

>>> Micha's question, it seems to me, is whether he has a moral
>>> obligation to re-pay he debt irrespective of legal obligations.  

>> Why should he? Where would such a moral obligation come from? The
>> whole *point* of setting up a LLC is to avoid such an obligation!

> That is the question. The whole "point" of using a corporate entity is 
> to shield your personal assets from the obligations of the business. It 
> certainly avoids the "legal" obligation to re-pay the debt from personal 
> assets. The question, IMHO, does the creditor'  knowledge that he is 
> loaning money to an LLC also provide the debtor with a pass on any moral 
> obligation to pay the debt besides what the law requires

Why shouldn't it?  What's the hava amina otherwise?

> or is that 
> knowledge irrelevant, since the creditor, from a moral point of view, 
> can rely on the integrity of this ben Torah to pay his debts even if 
> there is no legal obligation to do so.

But why would he expect him to feel such an obligation?  RMB isn't asking
anything, he assumes without question that the borrower *has* such an
obligation, and I'm asking why?  They're not his debts, they're the
corporation's, and he set up the corporation for the explicit purpose
that its debts *wouldn't* be his.  So why should he suddenly feel that
they are his after all?

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

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Yitzhak Grossman <celejar@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 19:44:00 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Taxes

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:55:16 -0400
"Rich, Joel" <JRich@sibson.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:29:08 -0400
> Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> > DDD applies to the law as practiced, not as codified. And while there
> Source?  I've seen this claim, but I know of no authoritative source for
> it.
> > -Micha
> Yitzhak
> --
> IIUC it flows from a philosophical issue of what din means. For example
> if one takes the approach that DMD flows from the divine right of kings
> to rule as they see fit (the torah seems to assume this exists), what
> exactly is their rule - what is on the books or what they choose to
> enforce. If there were a poll tax that the king never collected, would
> you have to pay at the poll even though there was no one to collect it?
> Look at the flip side, what if a king were known to take $100 per head
> from each resident of a flood plain without ever codifying the rule,
> would you say he was a gazlan for taking the money and the town people
> could not pay it when the officers showed up?

Interesting points, but arguments can go both ways.  I wanted to know
about an authoritative source.

> KT
> Joel Rich

Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 06:30:14 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Taxes

On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 07:44:00PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
: Interesting points, but arguments can go both ways.  I wanted to know
: about an authoritative source.

I'm going to leave you frustrated, sorry, but it just hit me...

DDD probably predates the notion that all laws must be codified. I doubt
that in Bavel during the days of the amoraim they bothered to document
every law.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
micha@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 23:11:41 -0400
Re: [Avodah] TIDE and Austritt

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 12:56 AM, Samuel Svarc <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com> wrote:

> As for the "possibility of cooperation on non-Torah matters", this is
> something that needs more detail to be answered intelligently. Oh' and TIDE
> doesn't recognize any "Non-Torah matters", as all of DE is part of the
> rubric on which Torah must be the master of.
> KT,

While the above might be 100% true it does not recognize a BIG ISSUE.

Austritt also did not recognize LOYAL Torah Jews who did not believe in

I met a yekke from Frankfort who only found out about an entire
Torah-Observant Community in his home town by going on vacation.  He saw
them learning Torah and Talmud whilst vacationing  and was surprised - nay
shocked - that these people were Kosher Observant Jews, too.  He told me, he
thought that was wrong plain and simple.

You can also see this in the Bio ofRav Breuer re: the dath of Rav Nobel of
the Gemeinde Orthodox.  No matter how you slicet, Austritt went beyond
simply not co-operating with Jews who did not recognize Torah values, and it
is highly debatable to say that TIDE was married not only to Austritt but
Austritt against other Frum Jews.

Frankly, Frankfort might have needed this kind of strictness at one time.
But Koheles has warned us that there is a time [and place] for everything.
Even Rabbiner Hirsch never compelled other communities to follow his
specific model [see his bio]. He left every decision to every community.

I would guess there is a common denominator. Virtually every Torah-True Jew
will NOT recoginze non-Observant communities as legitimate alternatives.
The issue is, is co-operating on certain matters a form of recognition. In
the USA circa 2009, I highly doubt if Cong. Anshei Austritt were to take a
bus to Washington with Cong. Anshei Reform in order to protest a matter of
common cause that such an arrangement confers "recognition" of an alternatie
Torah lifestyel, It is merely recognizing them as fellow Jews.

Now, it IS true that Rabbiner Hirsch felt that Reform was a new [non=Jewish]
religion but the Agudah in the USA has protested that we are all people no
matter what, which pretty sums it up.

So EVen RYBS subscribed to SOME sort of Austritt, and I would bet that Rav
Breuer made SOME exemptions to Austritt in the USA.  For exmample,the
American Roedlehim Siddur used by KAJ was printed by The Hebrew Publishing
Company.  AISI, we can quibble on details...

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 00:02:54 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Halachic Texts: More Background

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:04 AM, David Riceman <driceman@att.net> wrote:

> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>> Illustration: Rambam says t'eh bidvar Msihna includes Mishna, Gmara etc.
>> RY Karao adds one word "posqim"  Be'er agolah cites Rambam as his sources
>> but -
>> What changed?
>> Answer:  about 350 years of posqim!  In the Rambam's time few were
>> publsihed.
>> So if the Rambam goes back to the Gmara it is different than if WE do it
>> no matter HOW MUCH oa throwback it is.
> This is just not true.  The Rambam is rejecting the Geonim and the Rif and
> his students (e.g. the Ri MiGash) as necessary precedents.  At least in the
> east (e.g. Bavel) that was a scandalous opinion.
> David Riceman
> ___

For Ga'onic P'sak perpetuated by Rambam

See Hilchos HAemtz uMatza. Count how many Ga'onic decisions are incorporated

Also add the following Ga'onimsms

   1. Bracha on Ner Shabbas
   2. lechem Mishna on  YT

Rambam did NOT necessarily reject Ga'onic p'sak. his position is quite
mixed. But I agree, he kinda made them optional at times.

But I am persisting on  insisting that he made them optional because the
Talmud was STILL new enough to go back to it. After the Rishonim were over,
that was no longer the case.

IOW you could be TRUE to the Rambam in 1205 and say we can still go back to
Talmud and then in 1564 STILL be True to the Rambmaa and lsay this is no
longer a viable option to ignore prominent Posqim

Or to put it another way, you could condemn the Moreh before the Book
Burnings but after those public burnings of the Rambam's works led to
burning of the Talmud itself things changed.

To Cross threads, you can say Austritt was absoltely needed in 19th Century
Frankfort and not needed in post Holocaust USA and STILL be a good Hirschian
- because the times and circumstances are different.

[yes some Maimonideans wil Reject RY karo's addition of Posqim and some
Hirschians will insist upon Austritt here and now, but I am still saying all
that is lav davka..]

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Yitzhak Grossman <celejar@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 19:34:36 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Love of the Imahos [was: Your brother's a Mumar;

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:35:21 EDT
T613K@aol.com wrote:

> Yes, I know that Yakov did love Leah too, but relatively, she felt  unloved.  

It is entirely unclear that Ya'akov loved Leah at all, at least
initially.  The Torah states "And God saw that Leah was hated", which
many commentators apparently understand to mean that, at least at that
point, he hated or disliked her.  Ramban and S'forno explain that his
'sinah' derived from his belief in her complicity in Lavan's fraud, and
Tur suggests that he suspected her (wrongly) of promiscuity.  Or Ha'Haim
maintains that although she believed merely that she was unloved, God
knew the truth, that she was actually hated.

Ramban cites a Medrash:

When Ya'akov saw "Ma'asim" that Leah had cheated her sister, he
determined to divorce her, but when God remembered her with children,
he said 'Shall I divorce the mother of these!'

As to the verse "Va'ye'ehav gam es Rahel mi'Leah", which seems to
indicate that he loved Leah too, just not as much as he loved Rahel,
many commentators interpret the verse, and particularly the word Gam,
so that it is not stating that Leah was loved at all.  See
Rashbam, Ramban and Kli Yakar; the latter rereads the verse expressly
in order to reconcile it with the previously cited verse, which states
unequivocally that she was hated.

All this, of course, does not imply that he did not eventually come to
love her, although the text does not say that he did, leaving it as a
matter of speculation.

Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Yitzhak Grossman <celejar@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 19:35:06 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Did Tziporah say Lashon Hara?

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:30:30 -0400
David Riceman <driceman@attibi.net> wrote:

> SBA wrote:
> > Secondly, I see that the Shaarei Ahraon quotes "Eimek Hanetziv" saying that
> > Tzipporah was definitely not complaining about MR being away from her. Had
> > she been upset about it, MR would've divorced her to allow her to remarry.
> >   
> Would this have worked? Moshe Rabbeinu haya melech (see Tanhuma 
> Beha'alothcha 9, cited by the Rambam but I don't recall where).  A 
> king's wife may not remarry (H. Melachim 2:2).
> OTOH Tzippora could have prevented him from taking the job of 24/7 navi 
> if she objected.  See EH 76:5.

Well, the Halachah there is that while a woman may object to her husband
taking a job that would result in the diminution of her Onah, there's
an explicit exception for a Tayal becoming a Talmid Hacham, so one
could argue that a would be prophet has a similar dispensation.  On the
other hand, see Pis'hei Teshuvah (75:2 - 3).

> David Riceman

Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Ben Waxman <ben1456@zahav.net.il>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:38:28 +0300
Re: [Avodah] the cohen gadol and marriage to a pubescent girl

> From: T613K@aol.com:

>  If,  for example, you are a
> vegetarian and find the very thought of meat repulsive --  are you 
> obligated to
> work on yourself and change your personal tastes, knowing  that when the 
> Bais
> Hamikdash is rebuilt, you will have to eat the Korban  Pesach?  I don't 
> think so
> -- I think you are still allowed to say, "I don't  like meat" -- but must
> admit I have no sources.  (You'll still have to eat  the Korban Pesach, 
> but you
> won't have to enjoy it.)

No, you can go out of it. Go to a funeral a  few days before Pesach and help 
with the burial. You just did a mitzva and won't have to eat something you 
consider disgusting.

> In the case of marriage, the halacha is clear that a woman is never 
> married
> against her will, so any 12-year-old girl who does not want to marry the 
> Kohen
> Gadol -- does not have to.  She is under no compulsion to change her
> feelings.

Maybe a woman isn't married against her will but a girl can be. Her father 
can marry her off (doreitta) or her brother and/or mother (d'rabbanan). In 
the latter case she can get out of it without a get, but married she most 
certainly is. And this was done in Jewish communities all around the world.


Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolberg@cox.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:09:32 -0400
[Avodah] V'ahavta l'rayecha kamocha

> :>Rav Kook zt"l wrote another multi-part article in Hapeles in
> :>1902 about vegetarianism - that [...] in the
> :>future there will be no Korbanos except grain - based on Vayikra  
> Rabbah,
> :>when the world is at its morally refined peak.

> : I don't believe you.  This is outright kefirah.

> More than Mishlei Rabba 9, which deduces from Esther 9:28 that all the
> other yamim tovim but Purim will cease?

And *nobody* takes that literally, because doing so would be kefirah.

IMHO to label something someone says as kefirah is disrespectful at  
best and
is a violation of v'ahavta l'rayecha komocho.

There are better ways of disagreeing.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai

Go to top.

Message: 11
From: "Marty Bluke" <marty.bluke@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:37:45 +0300
Re: [Avodah] the cohen gadol and marriage to a pubescent girl

The Rambam clearly states in Hilchos Ishus 2:1-3 that it is a
combination of simanim and shanim together that make a girl legally an
adult, with the simanim being the main one. One without the other does
not work.

In halacha 13 the Rambam brings the parallel halacha regarding boys.
Hair until 13 is not considered and if he is 13 without 2 hairs he is
still considered a minor.

The Teshovos Harosh (Siman 16) states that 13 is a halacha l'moshe m'sinai.

However, there is another wrinkle here as well.

Both by a girl and by a boy if they reach the age of 20 without
simanim they are considered adults (eilanus or saris). The Gemara in
Yevamos 80a has a machlokes Rav and Shmuel whether he becomes a saris
retroactively. They argue over whether a boy over 13 eats cheilev and
it turns out he is a saris. Shmuel says he is patur because he was a
minor and Rav says once we know that he is a saris he is an adult
retroactively from the age of 13. The simple understanding according
to Rav is that by a saris or eilanus the only criterion is age.


Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 239

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

< Previous Next >