Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 170

Tue, 18 Aug 2009

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:09:43 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Not livid with anger


It seems that Qoheles, Rambam, OTz are all advocating either a "Golden
Mean" or a recipe of spices in an ideal balance - with some noted
exceptions (Ka'as, shesiqa, and Anava)

When I have advocated against too much Humra in Halachah, it is predicated
upon the same machshava. IOW an out-of-balance condition caused by
"extremism" can knock out the equilibrium of the system.

Excessive Humros can trigger qulos, and vice versa. Thus the halachic
ideal is not maximallistic but centristic again with exceptions

The AhS seems to support my intuited notion that with Hametz on Pesah
and Bassar BeHalav, extra Humros are "normal"
The psychology is plain. Hametz is Muttar all year long. Meat and
dairy are muttar when isolated from each other. Thus added precautions
are not extreme in these cases, rather they are desirable.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:20:57 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] inconceivable-- Ben Sorer uMoreh


On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 07:32:23PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: This actually happened to a chaver of mine "Avi"
: It's YT in Wash Heights.
: A Black Man approaches Avi
: Please!  I need money to feed my baby milk!
...
: BM follows up: I'm Jewish from Israel and repeats his request in Modern
: Hebrew!

I think it's open and shut that you give him the money. However, there
are enough honest shnorers to qualify it as a safeiq piquach nefesh, and
on the chance that this person who doesn't look like a Yehudi but knows
Abazi"t isn't a Yehudi, there is still mishum eivah and darkhei Shalom.
("Shalom" capitalized in a nod to RAL's shitah that "darkhei Shalom"
is an instance of vehalakha didrakhav.)

If one thinks that rov nachri panhandlers aren't really in that
kind of need just because they say so, at least a miut dishechichah
of Hebrew-speaking shnorers are.

What would I do? Give the guy milk, even if that means borrowing from a
neighbor. If he meant formula, and he actually knows what kind of formula,
it's even more likely to be honest. Assuming Avi doesn't know who in
the kehillah uses which formula, therefore can't borrow the right kind
of formula, he could give the man money with confidence in the probably
truth of the story.

You don't write: Did this happen to Avi on YT sheini? (Although the above
should be true on YT rishon.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:25:51 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Not livid with anger


On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 09:09:43PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: It seems that Qoheles, Rambam, OTz are all advocating either a "Golden
: Mean" or a recipe of spices in an ideal balance - with some noted
: exceptions (Ka'as, shesiqa, and Anava)

: When I have advocated against too much Humra in Halachah, it is predicated
: upon the same machshava. IOW an out-of-balance condition caused by
: "extremism" can knock out the equilibrium of the system.

Which is the parallel to chumrah -- finding the right balance, or
maintaining conscious control of one's reponses? Neither is the
general promotion of qitzoniyus.

The Rambam at the end of Dei'os pereq 1 writes about knowing when to use
every dei'ah, the middah ha'emtza'is, is imitatio Dei. Every middah we
identify is One we see in His actions.

(BTW, notice the Rambam's lashon: "mah Hu NIQRA Rachum af atah...")

OTOH, I can see saying that always being in conscious control, the
master, enlargiing bechirah beyond a negudah rather than moving the
negudah about, is the greater imitatio Deo.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Simon Montagu <simon.mont...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:40:45 -0700
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] inconceivable-- Ben Sorer uMoreh


On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Michael Makovi<mikewindd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rabbi Aharon
> Lichtenstein and Rabbi Yehuda Amital posed the following question:
> you're on a desert island, and so mishum eiva doesn't apply. What do
> you do?

Why does "lo p'log [plug?] hhachamim" not apply in this case?



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:57:40 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] inconceivable-- Ben Sorer uMoreh


Simon Montagu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Michael Makovi<mikewindd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rabbi Aharon
>> Lichtenstein and Rabbi Yehuda Amital posed the following question:
>> you're on a desert island, and so mishum eiva doesn't apply. What do
>> you do?
> 
> Why does "lo p'log [plug?] hhachamim" not apply in this case?

Which chachamim?  Bear in mind that the halacha accepted by everybody
until about 1800 was that one may *not* do so, and *not* to worry about
eivah.  About that time the metzius of the nochrim seems to have changed
and the fear of eivah to have become more real, leading the poskim of
that time to rule that one may be mechalel shabbos for this purpose.
When that concern doesn't exist, what possible basis could there be
for a heter?!

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:45:21 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Classical Academia, Deconstruction, and Mesorah


On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 05:09:07PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: The procedure by which the Baalei Mesorah produced our current text was
: Al Pi Rov, by a majority "vote" from among the reliable texts which they
: had available. And if it turned out that the authoritative text thus
: produced had he effect of invalidating all the ones that they started
: with, that is of no consequence. They used a halachic procedure, and
: the halachic results are what matters.

: Yet... The very procedure which they used -- Rov -- is only for use
: in B'dieved situations....

Is counting sifrei Torah an example of birur via a rov, or of pesaq
through azlinan basar ruba, the majority of people (soferim? qehilos?)
behind those various sifrei Torah?

If the latter, then one is talking about overruling precedent, not
just updating pesaq given updated knowledge. Which is different than
techeiles and the other examples we've raised.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:08:48 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] imponderables


R' Eli Turkel referred to R. Reisman's book Pathways of the Prophets.

> 1. He quotes MB 638-24 that one can write verses (not in
> whole Torah) only for education. He then notes that the
> universal minhag is to quote verses on succah decorations.
> ... I would guess that since this is universal MB is not
> accepted - any ideas?

"Universal"? Hardly. I've seen many invitations and decorations which did not have pskuim on them.

Are these conclusions based on what ordinary people do, or on what poskim
pasken? I'd be very slow to conclude that the MB is "not accepted". I'd be
much quicker to guess that people either haven't seen that MB, or they
mistakenly think that since "Everyone does it, it must be okay." 

> 2. If one holds like Rabbenu Tam how can one make early
> shabbat which would be before plag hamincha of R. Tam (ie 75
> minutes before shkia of R. Tam). He tries to answer that even
> according to R. Tam plag hamincha is before physical sunset
> sounds farfetched to me

Sounds far-fetched to me too. Try this idea instead: This whole question is
relevant only for someone who holds that Rabenu Tam's zmanim are the ikar
halacha. I don't know anyone like that personally, although we did once
have a listmember who did hold that way, and tried to convince the rest of
us that he was right. For everyone else, Rabenu Tam is merely a chumra.

My proof is that if this were a real problem, it would be a problem not
only when "making early Shabbos", but for much of the year it would be a
problem simply to light the candles!

For example, let's take January 1 in New York City, when sunrise is at 7:20
AM and sunset is at 4:38 PM. Allowing 72 minutes for twlight gives us a
6:08 AM Alos, a 5:50 PM Tzeis, a Shaah Zmanis of 58.5 minutes, and Plag
Hamincha at 4:36:53 PM. That is long after the published Candle Lighting
time of 4:20 PM (18 minutes before sunset). Anyone who holds by Rabenu Tam
as the Ikar Halacha would be making a bracha l'vatala if they'd light
candles more than one minute (and seven seconds) before sunset.

The same day in Yerushalayim sees sunrise at 6:39 AM and sunset at 4:45 PM.
The above calculations would put Plag Hamincha at 4:38:52 PM, giving you
more than six minutes to satisfy both shitos. But that's not how it is done
in Yerushalayim. The minhag there (AFAIK) is to allow 90 minutes for
twilight, putting Plag Hamincha at 4:53:07 PM, more than 8 minutes AFTER
shkiah, and I haven't mentioned (yet) that candles were already lit *40*
minutes beforehand!

> 4. Why does the chazzan turn to the ark when saying Gadlu?

Because that's what the siddur says to do!!! (ArtScroll does, at least. I'm not sure how many others.)

(I will spare you my repeated ranting on this topic. Anyone who wants more
details about my views on Halachos And Siddurim, please see my post in
Avodah 4:194 at http://tinyurl.com/n8azhn)

Akkiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Handyman Franchises. Click Here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsM2OIPmR3fcgcxOr1jFrW3XfqrqZwiTOagOcE38uui982OErf0YC0/



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Daniel Israel <d...@hushmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:29:24 -0600
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Inconceivable!


Jonathan Baker wrote:
> From: Daniel Israel <d...@hushmail.com>
>> I understand R' Yonason's response as meaning, not only is it possible 
>> in theory, but I can prove it can happen, because it did happen.
> 
> Therefore, the other man d'amar may be wrong, and we can try to figure out
> if the history really is R' Yonason's version, or the other version, or 
> what.   The historian has a different task and a different outlook from
> the posek.
> 
> But it seems a bit anachronistic to say, 1500 years after the fact, 
> "I was speaking entirely in the other man d'amar."

Assuming we are reading sides at face value (because there are more 
complex readings, as some posters have proposed), it is an interesting 
question as to whether we have to hold like R' Yonason, because he had 
eidus.  I think this is largely comes down to whether the Rabbanan would 
have to be modeh once R' Yonason makes his statement.  Arguably the 
answer would be yes, although that might depend on what exactly he was 
testifying to.  (I.e., how did he know the kever was that of a ben sorer 
u'moreh.)

But all that aside, I think you may have lost track of the origin of the 
discussion.  I was commenting on a comparison between the first man 
d'amar's statement that this case is impossible and the case of kohen 
gadol encountering a meis mitzvah.  I made the claim that they are 
different: the latter is not impossible in the sense that the amora 
meant about the former when he said, "lo hayah, v'lo asid lahiyos."  So 
yes, I was specifically speaking in the (possibly) historically 
disproved man d'amar.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu




Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Michael Makovi <mikewindd...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:44:37 +0300
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Classical Academia, Deconstruction, and Mesorah


> The procedure by which the Baalei Mesorah produced our
> current text was Al Pi Rov, by a majority "vote" from among the reliable
> texts which they had available. ... Yet, the very procedure which they
> used -- Rov -- is only for use in B'dieved situations.
> R' Akiva Miller

Indeed. I forgot to mention that Professor*** Leiman brings a sevara
as well: if an incompetent sofer today produced thousands of treif
Torah scrolls and glutted the market, would we change our kosher text
to match the new majority? Of course not. We follow rov only when
there is a safeiq, but with an incompetent scribe, there's no safeiq
that his scrolls are treif, and so we don't go by the rov.  Similarly,
if we found Moshe Rabbenu's scroll - and assuming we truly were sure
that it was authentic - then there'd be no safeiq, and we wouldn't go
by rov, just as Rambam didn't go by rov, but instead went with the
Aleppo Codex.

My own thoughts: In the Temple, they found three scrolls and took a
majority of each textual reading; the reason, as it seems to me, is
that they had nothing else to go by, and this was the best they could
do. It seems to me that contra R' Zvi Yehuda's version of Hazon Ish,
this is *precisely* the same as an academic historical attempt! Now,
perhaps their method was crude by modern academic standards, but the
point is that they used historical evidence - these three Torah
scrolls - to reconstruct as best they could what they thought was the
best textual version. (Today they'd also use whatever it is that
modern academic scholars do.) Presumably, in the Temple, had they
found the three scrolls AND Moshe Rabbenu's scroll, they would have
ignored the three scrolls and gone with Moshe's alone. In short: they
went by a majority of the three scrolls, not because of any sort of
halakhic al-pi-rov lo ba-shamaim hi, but rather, because
scientifically, when you don't know what the best reading is, your
best bet, pragmatically, is to go by majority. But if there's no
safeiq, then you don't go by majority. And thus, Rambam followed the
Aleppo Codex, and not the rov.

So as far as I can tell, I think it is clear that we'd go by the text
of Moshe Rabbenu's scroll. On the other hand, Moshe's own scroll
itself might be treif. First, it'd probably be smudged, have some
fading letters, etc. Second, it'd be in ketav ivrit, but our scrolls
must be in ketav ashurit. But even though the scroll itself would be
treif, the textual reading found therein, once transcribed into fresh
clean writing in ketav ashurit, would be kosher. (Professor Leiman,
ibid., notes that one can write a kosher sefer torah from an unkosher
source text, such as a humash. I don't know the laws of this, so I'll
take his word for it.)

*** I am only referring to him as I have seen him most commonly
referred to in literature; R' Micha points out that Professor Leiman
does have smiha. I'd note that similarly, Professor Marc Shapiro also
has smiha, even though he is *never* referred to as R' Marc Shapiro.

Michael Makovi



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:04:00 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Qaddish and Women


From: <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com>
> I am researching "qaddish" stuff for a series of postings and I'm looking
> for sources:

IIRC (and it has been a long time since I saw this) Rav Henkin writes about
qaddish in Bnei Banim. There he quotes his grandfather as allowing women to
say qaddish.

[See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n072.shtml>, RYHHenkin's
"The Principle of Habituation" and a reply to a review of that article
by R' Emanuel Feldman.   -mi

[The following was sent in a 2nd email. -mi]

When a friend of mine did some research into the subject he came to the
following conclusion.

Those opinions which forbid women from saying Qaddish are based on an
incorrect assumption. The earliest pskei halakha dealing with the question
(of women saying Qaddish) were actually dealing with a different question.
Namely, where do women fit in, if at all, into the list of those who want to
say Qaddish. Qaddish used to be said by one person only (still that way in a
few shuls). There were detailed lists of who had the higher priority. Within
that list, where do women fit in? Answer - they don't, they are off the list
entirely. But it wasn't because it was forbidden for them to say it, just
that they simply don't get listed. After some time that not being on the
list got translated into "assur".

Ben




Go to top.

Message: 11
From: David Riceman <drice...@att.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:00:27 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] inconceivable-- Ben Sorer uMoreh


Zev Sero wrote:
> Which chachamim?  Bear in mind that the halacha accepted by everybody
> until about 1800 was that one may *not* do so, and *not* to worry about
> eivah.
I think you mean "at 1800", not "until 1800".  Certainly there were 
lenient opinions earlier.  Try reading Jacob Katz's book "Exclusiveness 
and Tolerance".

David Riceman



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:23:12 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Qaddish and Women


Ben:
> When a friend of mine did some research into the subject he came to the
> following conclusion.
>                   ... The earliest pskei halakha dealing with the question
> (of women saying Qaddish) were actually dealing with a different question.
> Namely, where do women fit in, if at all, into the list of those who want to
> say Qaddish. Qaddish used to be said by one person only (still that way in a
> few shuls). There were detailed lists of who had the higher priority. Within
> that list, where do women fit in? Answer - they don't... But it wasn't
> because it was forbidden for them to say it, just that they simply don't
> get listed...

I understand the one only model well. Breuer's still employs it as did
my old shul in Wash. Heights - albeit intermittently.

The question is what if the ONLY hiyyuv is a woman? Can she say qaddish
for a tzibbur?

The implications can be staggering!

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:30:49 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Kashrus of a Restaurant Under the Supervision of


Were the Orthodox world to go by the guidelines that the AhS gives in this
siman, many if not most of the questions of "can I eat that person's food"
would disappear. Of course it would all depend on how one defines a khashud
b'zman hazeh. Is someone who eats heter mikhira a khasud for someone who
holds that the heter is invalid? Same question for someone who uses khalav
akum, and no doubt there are plenty of other points like these.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
>
> According to my notes, about five years ago we had a discussion about how
to apply "eid echad ne'eman" to modern real-world kashrus situations. R'
Josh Backon suggested looking at the Aruch Hashulchan Yoreh Deah 119,
specifically paragraphs #3, 9, and 11 there.




Go to top.

Message: 14
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:46:51 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Classical Academia, Deconstruction, and Mesorah


RMM: 
> In short: they
> went by a majority of the three scrolls, not because of any
> sort of halakhic al-pi-rov lo ba-shamaim hi, but rather, because
> scientifically, when you don't know what the best reading is, your best
> bet, pragmatically, is to go by majority. But if there's no safeiq,
> then you don't go by majority

Tangentially:
That's my teirutz for BY

Given: BY declares BD of Rif-Rmabam-Rosh

Given: BY ignores his BD at times

Q: What gives?
A: BD is only consulted When BY has a safeiq how to pasqen. Whwn he is
certain, he does not even consult it

This is like most Jews who only consult Rav when in doubt

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile




Go to top.

Message: 15
From: Michael Makovi <mikewindd...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:10:00 +0300
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] saves a life, or a Jewish life?


Regarding Sanhedrin 4:5, about saving a life saving the world: does it
read nefesh ahat mibnei adam or miyisrael?

I have collected some sources on this at
http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/08/save-jewish-life-sav
e-whole-world.html

Teaser: One of my sources about the Mishna's correct reading, is the KORAN!

Michael Makovi



Go to top.

Message: 16
From: Saul Guberman <saulguber...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:40:58 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Qaddish and Women


On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 15:46, <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> DMS:
> > allowing women to say kaddish
> > (either by themselves, as permitted by RYBS, or with a man, as
> > permitted by RYE Henkin), etc - but it is still a very limited amount.
>
> I am researching "qaddish" stuff for a series of postings and I'm looking
> for sources:
>
> Where are these 2 opnions found


I gave a dvar torah a few years back on this subject.  My main sources were.

Joel B. Wolowelsky ? Women, Jewish Law & Modernity ? new opportunities in a
post feminist age

Rabbi Reuven Fink ? Journal of Halacha  The recital of kaddish by women

Rabbi Dr. Aryeh A.& Rabbi Dov I. Frimer *Tradition*, 32:2* (*Winter
1998*).*WOMEN'S PRAYER SERVICES - THEORY AND PRACTICE

Here is info that I copied over for use in my dvar torah.*
*

Rav Yosef Henkin - *Ha-Pardes * Adar 1963 - a girl may say kaddish in front
of the women when kaddish is being said in the men?s shul,

*Teshuvot lbrah,* written in 1947 and first published in 1989 He says that
although the latter rabbis have discussed this matter (and frowned upon a
girl?s saying kaddish) he recalls in his youth that a girl said kaddish in a
congregation of saintly and pious men, He stipulates, however, that the girl
must stand behind the *mechitzah. *Unlike earlier times when only one person
recited the kaddish, we now have the custom that many people say the
kaddish, and therefore if a girl says the kaddish together with the men,
there is no reason to object.

1970?s -  Yavneh, National Religious Jewish Students Association, Joel
Wolowelsky  asked one of the Yavneh student leaders (Rabbi Ezra Bick,now at
Yeshivat Har Etzion) who was then learning with the Rav to ask the Rav about
women saying kaddish.

I spoke to the Rav about the question you asked concerning a girl saying
Kaddish. He told me that he remembered being in Vilna at the "Gaon's
Kloiz"-- which wasn't one of your modem Orthodox shuls -- and
a woman came into the back (there was no ezrat nashim ) and said Kaddish
after ma'ariv.

I asked him whether it would make a difference if someone was saying Kaddish
along with her or not, and he replied that he could see no objections in
either case -- it's perfectly all right."
Rabbi Gerald J. Blidstein (then a faculty advisor to Yavneh) I was asked
about the question last year, and looking into it, could find no reason
beyond general policy, for forbidding it. I spoke to Rav Aharon Lichtenstein,
who had the same reaction and said he would ask the Rav, which he did when I
was on the other end of the phone. [Rav Lichtenstein] put the question to
him, and then was directed to ask me whether the girl was stationed in the
ezrat nashim. I, of course, answered in the affirmative, and the Rav then
said that of course she could say Kaddish.

Saul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090818/1609f471/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 170
***************************************

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 >