Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 395

Tue, 25 Nov 2008

• 1. Re: a troubling halacha (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 2. RSRH, Sinatra, and Love and Marriage (Yitzchok Levine)
• 3. Re: Sephardi-ism: some food for thought (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: a troubling halacha (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Sephardi-ism: some food for thought (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: RSRH, Sinatra, and Love and Marriage (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 7. Re: RSRH, Sinatra, and Love and Marriage (T6...@aol.com)
• 8. Re: RSRH, Sinatra, and Love and Marriage (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: RSRH, Sinatra, and Love and Marriage (T6...@aol.com)
• 10. Re: RSRH, Sinatra, and Love and Marriage (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: RSRH, Sinatra, and Love and Marriage (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Re: Sephardi-ism: some food for thought (Rich, Joel)

R'n Toby Katz wrote:
> ... throughout the  centuries, Jews were /constantly/ on
> the move, either traveling for  business, or traveling to
> learn in a yeshiva in another city (e.g., Rashi learned
> in Germany), or they were running away from war or from
> pogroms, or they were expelled from here and had to go
> there, but then they were expelled from there and had to
> go somewhere else.  Our whole history is a history of
> moving, moving.  Wherever Jews landed they tried hard to
> achieve stability and permanence, but inevitably after a
> while they had to pull up roots  again.  "A while" could
> be anywhere from a few months to a few years or  even a
> few generations, but nothing was as inevitable as Jews
> moving.

Yes, but I'll note two points:

First, you concede that the time between moves was very variable, and could
have been very long. This makes me suspect that most Jews throughtout
history *did* live close to their family, and *were* in contact with them.

Second, in the situations you describe, I think the community tended to
move en masse, together. This would tend to keep families together even
when the moves were frequent.

She also wrote:
> And speaking of shidduchim, my grandmother and my
> grandfather were cousins who lived in Polish towns a day's
> travel away from each other (before cars, obviously) and
> they never met each other until they were  adults. When
> they met they got married.

And similarly R' Arie Folger wrote:

> ... it seems that shidukhim between shtetls that were at
> least one day solid walking away, or even several days
> walk, was a standard occurence. FWIW, in each successive
> generation, my ancestors on the paternal line (the
> Galicianers) lived in a different city, ostensibly because
> their respective wives were from different cities. My bet
> is that they saw each other rarely.

Okay, I asked for some anecdotal evidence, and you gave it to me.

But still... Do you think that over the course of history, 80-90% of Jewry
was so far out of touch with their parents that a deception would not be
discovered? Even these stories don't claim the figure to be much higher
than 50%, and my guess is that it was far less --- when averaged out over
many centuries.

Let's take another look at the words used by the Mechaber, in YD 402:12 --
"Mi she'mes lo mes, v'lo noda lo... - One whose relative died, and he
doesn't know about it..." Why is the language so straightforward? In this
paragraph of 45 words, how difficult would it have been to add two more
words, to specify that this is only where the relative was "b'eer acheres -
in another city" or "b'mdinas hayam - overseas".

Okay, I give up. I am willing to presume that even if the great majority of
Jews have always lived near their parents, the answer to my question is
that the Mechaber left out the words "in another city" simply because his
audience understood that that is what he meant.

Moving on, I'd like to point out something that I had not noticed before.
This halacha which we are referring to -- YD 402:12 -- is the last se'if of
that siman. ALL ELEVEN of the prior se'ifim concern shmuah kerovah and
shmuah rechokah (timely and delayed news). This would suggest that the
concern here is (as I guessed previously) that people in general prefer
having the lesser restrictions of delayed aveilus, and would prefer not to
have the stronger restrictions of timely aveilus.

I had previously asked how and why this sociological change occurred, given
that most people nowadays would be offended at being denied the full,
normal amount of aveilus.

I now suggest that the change was not so much in our emotions, but in the
definition of "normal amount of aveilus". If the reality was indeed that
most people got the news after thirty days, then that was probably
perceived as "standard", and I can see how the minority, who got their news
quickly, might perceive the full aveilus as burdensome. In contrast, we who
get news quite quickly, have come to see this as the normal -- and expected
-- course of events.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click here for free information on how to reduce your debt by filing for bankruptcy.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/
PnY6rw22U6dlz6lqTZEYgDTGxpFnSr8PsUZPjUDgldiqxABsFokAq/

Some of you may remember Frank Sinatra's song Love and Marriage.

Those of you who were raised in a cloistered environment are probably 
thinking, "Who?" (I, of course,  only know about Frank Sinatra, 
because he was born in Hoboken, NJ, where Stevens Institute of 
Technology is located, and received an Honorary 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Engineering>Doctor of 
Engineering degree from 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens_Institute_of_Technology>Stevens 
Institute of Technology in1985. :-) )


The first part of the song's lyrics are

Love and marriage, love and marriage
Go together like a horse and carriage
This I tell you brother
You can't have one without the other

For those of you who are not familiar with this song, you can listen 
to it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPWE9z5dMa4
 From a Torah standpoint, there is something very wrong with the 
lyrics. See RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 24:67 at

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/rsrh_love.pdf

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081125/602aee4d/attachment-0001.htm>

RZS wrote:

>I hear what you're saying, but I don't see it, either in that Rashi or
in RYK's post. 

RYK's post was, I believe, dealing with slightly different issues, but
he makes the statement, with which I agree that "The term "Koach
di'hetera adifa" is a pedagogic term, not a legal one."  As I have
explained the Rashi, that remains the case, the matter is pedagogic.
But as you are explaining it, the matter is substantive, not merely
pedagogic.

You state:

> All Rashi is saying is that if you want to show that someone really
holds a particular shita, give an example where it leads him to be 
>mekil, because if the only examples you have are chumrot then it
doesn't prove that he really holds that way.  Maybe he's not sure, and 
>that's why he's machmir, or maybe there were other reasons that he
didn't want to give a heter, even though he held that one was possible. 
>But if we find him being mekil then he must really be sure of himself,
because one can't permit something if it's really forbidden.

But one cannot always find a circumstance when a particular shita leads
the person to be mekil in another area.  There are many shitos which are
just machmir.  And, according to this understanding, what is the
sensible thing to do if faced with two shitos, once which is makil and
one which is machmir?  Well, the mekil is clearly a vadai shita, because
he must be really sure of himself to be mekil, and the machmir is a
safek, because maybe he is not for precisely the reasons you have given.
So if choosing between the two, a vadai and a safek, would it not be
correct to follow the vadai?  In such case, the original position
posited by RMM (or even a stronger version of it) would be correct.
Koach d'heter adif would mean that we should indeed seek out every mekil
position from a reputable source in order to follow them, because that
way we are getting close to the emes, and try and veer away from the
machmir, since a machmir position could well be a product of uncertainty
or due to other considerations which we do not fully comprehend and
which may be irrelevant.

I think there are indeed some who want to read the Rashi this way, but
it does mean ignoring what I agree with RYK is very much the thrust of
the gemora, which is about which position to teach, not about which
position to follow.

-- 
>Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this
Court's

Regards

Chana

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:40:44AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: Moving on, I'd like to point out something that I had not noticed
: before. This halacha which we are referring to -- YD 402:12 -- is
: the last se'if of that siman. ALL ELEVEN of the prior se'ifim concern
: shmuah kerovah and shmuah rechokah (timely and delayed news). This would
: suggest that the concern here is (as I guessed previously) that people
: in general prefer having the lesser restrictions of delayed aveilus,
: and would prefer not to have the stronger restrictions of timely aveilus.

: I had previously asked how and why this sociological change occurred,
: given that most people nowadays would be offended at being denied the
: full, normal amount of aveilus.

I suggested an answer earlier -- it is now far more rare to lose someone
before their expected lifespan. People have grown more sensitive to the
concept of death.

I think that our current "cushy" post-industrial lifestyle is also why
we can't relate as well to advice about remembering yom hamisah. Any
why in general we motivate using "carrots" and don't respond as well to
"sticks". To the extent that RSW points out that Shelomo haMelekh's rod
(chosheikh shivto, sonei veno" Mishlei 13:24) is a sheivet, a staff of
leadership, not something to hit someone with.

I reiterate RAM's question, though, about how someone (like RYBS) who
explains aveilus in terms of catharsis would explain this SA. It would
seem that regardless of what a person would prefer, you would be doing
them a favor by letting them have a means of letting the pain out.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

Chana Luntz wrote:

> But one cannot always find a circumstance when a particular shita leads
> the person to be mekil in another area.  There are many shitos which are
> just machmir.  And, according to this understanding, what is the
> sensible thing to do if faced with two shitos, once which is makil and
> one which is machmir?  Well, the mekil is clearly a vadai shita, because
> he must be really sure of himself to be mekil, and the machmir is a
> safek, because maybe he is not for precisely the reasons you have given.
> So if choosing between the two, a vadai and a safek, would it not be
> correct to follow the vadai?

No, this is not bari veshema.  It's not a personal financial dispute
between R Reuven and R Shimon.  R Reuven has paskened that what you
want to do is forbidden; but you speculate that perhaps he did so
because he wasn't sure.  Even if your speculation is correct, he was
presumably aware of R Shimon's reasons for permitting, and nonetheless
decided not to.  So if you have a rule to follow his psakim then you
must be machmir.  At most, what you have is not a safek but a sfek
sfeka.

Where kocha dehetera adif *does* come in to substantive halacha is
if you have a new case, and you want to apply R Reuven's underlying
shita from the first case and deduce how he would pasken here.  In
that case you have to be careful, because you can't be sure that he
really holds that shita.  Particularly if his shita there leads to a
kula here, you can't be sure that he really would be mekil.  Or if
the case in which he paskened was d'oraita, and you now have a
d'rabanan, then you can't be confident that he'd be machmir here too;
if he was sure of his shita then he would, but if he wasn't then maybe
he would be mekil here.

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

R' Yitzchok Levine wrote:
> *Love and marriage, love and marriage
> Go together like a horse and carriage
> This I tell you brother
> You can't have one without the other
> *
> From a Torah standpoint, there is something very wrong with the 
> lyrics. See RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 24:67 at
There is a problem making broad statement like this -  that "love and 
marriage" is not a Torah concept based on a single case that Yitzchok 
came to love Rifka. That presumes that Hirsch's essay fully describes 
**the Torah understanding** of marriage or even that the Torah has an 
official position of the relationship between love and marriage.

In contrast if you look at the case of Yaakov and Rochel you find. 
Bereishis (19:18). "And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve you 
seven years for Rachel your younger daughter."

It is not helpful to present a statement out of context or even give an 
interpretation which is not supported by the text. While there are 
marriages that follow the Yitzchok Rivka model there are others that are 
successful because they are the Yaakov - Rochel model. Especially since 
the society has changed considerably since Biblical times. For many 
couples if there is no attraction initially - the marriage will not 
succeed. It is also equivalent to saying that since Avraham apparently 
wasn't aware that his wife was beautiful - we should discourage men's 
interest in their wife's attractiveness. While this will work for some - 
there are many marriages that  won't work without physical attraction 
between the husband and wife - as certified by the view of Rabbi Akiva 
and others. Torah's complexity and dynamic nature transcends Rav 
Hirsch's viewpoint which are often polemics against a certain viewpoint 
in his society.

Daniel Eidensohn


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yadmoshe.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081125/d106c3ab/attachment-0001.vcf>

 
 
In a message dated 11/25/2008, Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu writes:

The  first part of the song's lyrics are 

Love and marriage,  love and marriage
Go together like a horse and carriage
This I tell you  brother
You can't have one without the other


....From a  Torah standpoint, there is something very wrong with the lyrics. 
See RSRH's  commentary on Bereishis 24:67 at

_http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/rsrh_love.pdf_ 
(http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/rsrh_love.pdf) 
Yitzchok Levine 

>>>>>
There is nothing wrong with the lyrics, it's just a  matter of whether you 
put the cart before the horse or the other way  around.  Either way there's a 
horse and a carriage.   Copacetic.

 


--Toby Katz
=============
"If you don't  read the newspaper you are uninformed; 
if you do read the newspaper you are  misinformed."
--Mark Twain
Read *Jewish World Review* at _http://jewishworldreview.com/_ 
(http://jewishworldreview.com/) 
**************One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, 
and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com 
today!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212962939x1200825291/aol?
redir=http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp
%26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081125/feab99a1/attachment-0001.htm>

At 12:13 PM 11/25/2008, T6...@aol.com wrote:
>There is nothing wrong with the lyrics, it's just a matter of 
>whether you put the cart before the horse or the other way 
>around.  Either way there's a horse and a carriage.  Copacetic.
>

You will not get very far if you put the cart before the horse. This 
is the point of RSRH's commentary.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081125/012402f0/attachment-0001.htm>

 
 
In a message dated 11/25/2008 12:17:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
llev...@stevens.edu writes:


>>There is nothing wrong  with the lyrics, it's just a matter of whether you 
>>put the cart  before the horse or the other way around.  Either way 
>>there's a  horse and a carriage.  Copacetic.


You will not  get very far if you put the cart before the horse. This is the 
point of RSRH's  commentary.

YL 



>>>>
The lyrics only say that "love and marriage go  together" -- they don't 
specify the order.  
 

--Toby Katz
=============
"If you  don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; 
if you do read the newspaper  you are misinformed."
--Mark Twain
Read *Jewish World Review* at _http://jewishworldreview.com/_ 
(http://jewishworldreview.com/) 
**************One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, 
and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com 
today!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212962939x1200825291/aol?
redir=http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp
%26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081125/6511b03b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:13:18PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: There is nothing wrong with the lyrics, it's just a matter of
: whether you put the cart before the horse or the other way around.
: Either way there's a horse and a carriage.   Copacetic.

I'm not sure Reb Frank's words deserve such diyuqim, but as a
springboard for discussion...

As RYL pointed out to me in private email, "horse and carriage" implies
not just togetherness, but a kind of relationship between the two
entities.

Love between the genders exists to "pull" marriage.
Marriage exists in order to create love. Among other reasons, the love
for one's spouse is an important thing to develop for the sake of
sheleimus; it has value in its own right.

I am reminded of something RDLifshitz often said about the unity of
shalom and sheleimus. People are designed so that we can not objectively
see ourselves. Therefore, without shalom, we lack the people who could
help us acheive sheleimus. And clearly people who are not shaleim are
unable to acheive shalom with others.

True shalom is not a cessation of violence, but working together for a
greater whole.

To add my own 2 cents: And that's shalom bayis.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

 
 It is also equivalent to saying that since Avraham apparently wasn't
aware that his wife was beautiful - we should discourage men's interest
in their wife's attractiveness.
Daniel Eidensohn
========================================
I've always wondered why this medrash gets so much play - iirc Rashi
mentions it but says the simple pshat is elsewise.
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.

 

No, this is not bari veshema.  It's not a personal financial dispute
between R Reuven and R Shimon.  R Reuven has paskened that what you want
to do is forbidden; but you speculate that perhaps he did so because he
wasn't sure.  Even if your speculation is correct, he was presumably
aware of R Shimon's reasons for permitting, and nonetheless decided not
to.  So if you have a rule to follow his psakim then you must be
machmir.  At most, what you have is not a safek but a sfek sfeka.


-- 
Zev Sero        
=========================
What if your rule is to follow his psak when he is sure but not when he
is msupak?
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.



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 395
***************************************

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..."