Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 53

Wed, 06 Apr 2011

• 1. Re: Something's Not Kosher at the Matzah Bakery (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Something's Not Kosher at the Matzah Bakery (Micha Berger)
• 3. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach: Do You Need To Choose One Rav and Stick To Him? (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: How do Chazal calculate a king's reign? (Daniel M. Israel)
• 5. Re: Chumros (Doron Beckerman)
• 6. Re: How do Chazal calculate a king's reign? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: who is going to Gehenim (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Rav Moshe Shternbuch: Is It A Mitzva To Attend The Funeral Of A Non-Jew? (Micha Berger)
• 9. The Singular Way Of Saying Kaddish ? How To Make Kaddish More Meaningful, Powerful, Effective, And Historically Correct (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Maharsha - There Is No Point For Some People Come To Eretz Yisroel For Yom Tov (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Re: Maharsha - There Is No Point For Some People Come To Eretz Yisroel For Yom Tov (Dov Weinstock)
• 12. Re: Maharsha - There Is No Point For Some People Come To Eretz Yisroel For Yom Tov (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Birkat HaIlanot (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 14. parameters of halacha (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 15. Re: parameters of halacha (Micha Berger)
• 16. Sirus and the life of a dog (Micha Berger)

On 4/04/2011 6:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 05:36:38PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 1/04/2011 5:07 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> As a matter of theory, though, is it an issue of minhag hatagarim? I
>>> thought that [was] a way to have qinyanim that are not of one of the
>>> halachic forms, and therefore wouldn't be related to  lo solin.
>
>> AIUI "minhag hatagorim" is a consequence of "kol tnai shebemomon kayom".
>
> This begs the question, though... Is lo solin defined by contract law,
> or by the employee's expectation of payment date?

Surely by his expectation, which is in turn driven by his understanding
of the prevailing custom.


> By saying that tenai shebemamon applies, you presume what I thought was
> the fundamental part of my question question -- that payment time is an
> issue of implied contract terms and/or business norm. If so, why would
> we need a separate issur of lo solin? And since there is a second issur,
> who said it follows the same rules as masa umatan?

Isn't it clear from the Torah that the extra issur comes from the
hardship commonly imposed by breaking this particular contract condition?
Or am I reading too much into it?

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

On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:05:31PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> This begs the question, though... Is lo solin defined by contract law,
>> or by the employee's expectation of payment date?

> Surely by his expectation, which is in turn driven by his understanding
> of the prevailing custom.

"Surely"? Do you have reason to be so sure?

Besides, who said that the employee is actually expected to be treated as
poorly as prevailing custom? Lo solin is triggered by the worker coming
to pick up his wages. So I would think it's pretty clear he didn't.

In any case, R Yisroel Pinchos Bodner ("Halakhos of Other People's
Money") discusses paying by check. He doesn't say it's mutar because
that's the norm. He allows paying by check in Israel, because endorsing
the check and using it to pay a third party is common enough for checks
to be like cash. However, in the US he requires that the check be given
the employee at a time when he could deposit it that business day. (Why
time of deposit is more relevent than the fact that it clears well after
that date elludes me.)

But paying by check /is/ the norm in the US, even without making sure
the employee can get the check to the bank that day.

I note that when it comes to credit card payment, he requires that the
worker explicitly agree to those terms up front. Which would also be
consistent with RYPB holding that minhag hatagarim doesn't apply.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=2421

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach: Do You Need To Choose One Rav and Stick To Him?

Rav Shlomo Zalman was asked the following question about choosing a 
Rav to answer a question in Halacha.  If you have question in halacha 
that is known to be a Machlokes, may you go to the Rav that will give 
you the answer you want?  Or are you obligated to go to a Rav whose 
opinion you don't know?  Or are you required to choose one Rav whose 
Psak you will always abide by no matter what the question?

Rav Shlomo Zalman answered that you are not required to stick to a 
single Rav and may ask each question to a different Rav.  However you 
are not allowed to ask each question to the Rav who is lenient in 
that case.  With regard to matters of Hashkafa, he says locking in 
one Rav is not feasible.

When choosing a Rav to answer Niddah questions, Rav Shlomo Zalman 
seemed to imply that although it is permissible to choose a Rav with 
a reputation of being lenient, nevertheless it is more praiseworthy 
not to choose such a Rav.  (Aleihu Lo Yibol YD 40)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110405/8b1eaca0/attachment-0001.htm>

Quoting Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>:
> On 1/04/2011 4:48 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 02:17:30PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> : Is it possible that Bavli kings counted their years from Tishri and
>> : Persian ones from Nissan, or vice versa?
>>
>> RH 1:1 tells us to go with RZS's "visa versa": Rosh Chodesh Nissan is RH
>> for our kings, Tishrei is for theirs.
>
> Bavlim and Persians are both "theirs".  I'm suggesting that they didn't
> have the same custom.

But if I understood correctly, the original question was based on  
understanding the chronology as presented in Nach.  So it should be  
counted according to our custom for how to count their kings, which as  
per RH 1:1 is from Tishrei, regardless of what they did themselves.   
OTOH, I'm puzzled by RMB's comment, because as you say, both Bavli and  
Persian kings are non-Jewish kings.

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

RMB writes:
>> Unless one finds the sevara compelling, such that is helps create a
relationship, an "ownership" of the mitzvah and thus gives the mitzvah
more impact, I'm not sure of the point.

 To case my point into RSWolbe's terms: Rote practice without spirituality
is frumkeit, not the pursuit of qedushah. And perishus from the mutar
is supposed to be all about qedushah. <<

I think we are looking at it from two different vantage points - you are
looking at it in terms "what do I want to get out of it", and I think that
when it comes to Rav Wolbe's frumkeit, the more relevant question is "where
is it coming from."
RSW begins the second paragraph of that piece with the following -
 "Frumkeit is a natural, instinctive urge, to draw close to the Creator."
and later - ".. the approach of frumkeit, is to  constantly feel the
spiritual pulse, is it in a situation of closeness or distance, and to force
himself to closeness."

 It isn't about rote observance, it is an undeveloped, unrefined, natural
urge to draw close to Hashem. The classic frumkeitniks are not the
melumadahniks, but the seven listed in Sotah 22b - the people who bump into
walls because they closes their eyes to avoid looking at women etc., the
people who shuckle really hard in Shemoneh Esrei, the people who measure how
long their own Shemoneh Esrei took - compared to the other bum who finished
30 seconds sooner, the people who grow the thickest payos they can, and so
on. There's no shikkul hadaas, just spiritual wildness. He'll shove to get
on the bus going to do Bircas HaIlanos on two trees, when there is an
Almanah who has one tree right down the block, who loves when people come to
her garden to make the Berachah. The shoving Shoteh thinks the people who
don't go on the bus to the two trees are feinschmeckers who don't really
understand what it means to be "frum."

A person can, must,  develop a sense of caring about the will of Hashem and
drawing close by fulfilling it - Mitoch Daas. When the Mesilas Yesharim
(chapter 13) talks about Perishus, he writes that it is for "Hachafeitzim
Lizkos Lekirvaso Yisbarach." IOW, it is the same basic instinct as frumkeit,
but it has to be guided by Daas, taken beyond the base, instinctive, selfish
ground-level. What Daas dictates as to "what do I want to achieve here" is
an important question in terms of application of Daas, but not the
definitional (though it may be a Simman, it isn't the Sibbah) demarcation
point between "frumkeit" and true striving for Kirvas Hashem.

My point was:
a) That one can sublimate or ignore even that basic instinct, and not
channel it at all. Kirvas Elokim is just not a significant part of the
calculus. For example, one who does not seek to improve his Shemoneh Esrei
concentration in any serious way is not utilizing that natural instinct.
Most people would probably occasionally stumble over the frumkeit michshol
if they were serious about their Avodah, just as most people occasionally
fail to apply their Daas in other areas of life. Complaining about
"frumkeit" can sometimes come from being a step behind it, not ahead of it.

b) In other instances, calling people on their "frumkeit" is simply another
manifestation of the same "frumkeit". It's a unbridled expression of a
feeling of being close to Hashem because he is beyond all that "frumkeit",
because he is very machmir on not being too "frum" (or frum). Using your
Simman - why are you really criticizing it?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110405/af505f34/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 11:30:47AM -0700, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
> But if I understood correctly, the original question was based on  
> understanding the chronology as presented in Nach.  So it should be  
> counted according to our custom for how to count their kings, which as  
> per RH 1:1 is from Tishrei, regardless of what they did themselves.   
> OTOH, I'm puzzled by RMB's comment, because as you say, both Bavli and  
> Persian kings are non-Jewish kings.

Your first post on the topic (27 Feb) said:
: So: If Evil Merodach became king in the 37th year of Yehoyachin's exile,
: that was the 44th year of Nevuchadnetzar, *not* the 45th.

This was the point I was trying to open a wedge at.

But Evil-Merodach's years are a half-year off from Yehoyachin's. And he
took over on 27 Adar -- so that Yehoyachin was just finishing his year,
but N had already a chunk of his before kickin' the bucket.

Another question along these lines... Is the RH for malkhus Yehoyachin
the same as the RH for galus Yehoyachin?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 08:41:15AM +0200, Eliyahu Grossman wrote:
: Actually, Berashit 11:1 does says that "kol". That the entire (kol) earth
: was of a single purpose (united in a common goal) and that THEY migrated and
: THEY found and THEY settled and THEY said. So it's like a mass migration
: before they get wacked. Ok, one could separate "kol", but one can also
: retain it. 

"Kol" could be used even with a small exception. There are many examples,
but one from the same parashah, when Chazal say that EY wasn't flooded,
they aren't bothered by the "kol".

: And so, I suppose, those that interpret this as an evil act would certainly
: want to exclude Avraham (and Noach and his sons too!), while those who do
: not see it as anything but a righteous act, a people united in one purpose,
: don't have that kind of problem with it...

Who are they? I was taught as a kid that they were united in sin, and
never encountered someone saying otherwise since.

I thought this was a fundmental contrast to the chamas of the pre-mabul
community. Here, because there was unity, the aveirah was barely
punished. (Their project was made ineffective, but life went on.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:59:16AM -0400, Dov Weinstock wrote:
: Something that has puzzled me for some time is the labeling of ordinary
: midot as somehow constituting a Kiddush Hashem...

If a community of people consistently acted in accordance with "ordinary
middos", that in itself would be impressive. And if that community are
the carriers of devar H', would that positive impression made not be a
qiddush Hashem?

IOW, why do you assume there is a setirah between simply doing what
you're supposed to and making a qiddush Hashem?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I have often been bothered by way kaddish is said in some 
places.  Different people are in different points of the kaddish when 
they say it, and at times one does not know when to answer what.  I 
remember that when I lived in Elizabeth, NJ, Rav Teitz, Z"L, 
instituted that all those saying kaddish had to come to the front of 
the shul and say it in unison.  The post at

http://tinyurl.com/4yceq9x

deals with this issue and calls for a return to having just one 
person say kaddish at a time.  Personally, I am all for this.  YL

From  http://revach.net/article.php?id=5026

Maharsha - There Is No Point For Some People Come To Eretz Yisroel For Yom Tov

The gemara (Pesachim 8b) says that a person who does not own land has 
no mitzva to be Oleh Regel, and he may stay home. Why is this? The 
Maharsha explains that the main mitzva of Oleh Regel is to be happy 
with your produce that your are obligated eat in Yerushalayim like 
Bikurim and Maaser Sheini and to gladden the hearts of the poor, the 
Geirim, and the Levi'im by sharing with them. Only then is your 
mitzva L'Sheim Shamayim. If you don't own land and cannot make others 
happy with your produce, there is no point to come for Yom Tov and 
your presence is not needed.

The gemara continues this idea, says the Maharsha, and explains that 
this is the reason that Yerushalyim lacks the natural attractions 
like the sweet Ginosar fruits and the healing hot springs, that can 
be found in the north of Eretz Yisroel. Coming for Yom Tov to Eretz 
Yisroel is about being happy with Hashem and gladdening the hearts of 
the downtrodden. It is not to indulge yourself and to mingle with 
those who do not need your help!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110406/1fbe7af3/attachment-0001.htm>

From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 09:35:40
> From  http://revach.net/article.php?id=5026

There seems to be a problem with this line of reasoning - why not just
have a mitzva to share with your local poor/ger/levi? There does seem
to be some importance attached to a central place and maintaining a
connection to it (in addition to the primary importance of sharing).

Dov Weinstock
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

At 11:31 AM 4/6/2011, Dov Weinstock wrote:
>There seems to be a problem with this line of reasoning - why not 
>just have a mitzva to share with your local poor/ger/levi? There 
>does seem to be some importance attached to a central place and 
>maintaining a connection to it (in addition to the primary 
>importance of sharing). Dov Weinstock

I must say that I do not understand what you are saying.

During a lecture on Judaism and sustainability, the teacher made a
fascinating claim:

 

The reason we say Birkat HaIllanot in Nissan is b/c - in Nissan the trees of
Shiv'at HaMinim are in flower.

 

So, I did some research (using the internet) and apparently it is true.

 

All the trees of shiv'at HaMinim: olive, date, pomegranate, grape, figs,
they all blossom in Nissan.

 

So, if anyone can send me a picture of one of these trees  in flower,  I
would greatly appreciate it.

 

Shoshana L. Boublil

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110406/9f52c063/attachment-0001.htm>

http://rechovot.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-rabbis-cannot-agree-on-h
alachah.html 

r micha already weighed in on this idea.....

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110406/4a66c835/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 08:08:07AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: http://rechovot.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-rabbis-cannot-agree-
: on-halachah.html 
: r micha already weighed in on this idea.....

In it, I touch on an answer to a question asked here.

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 04:31:16PM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2011/03/torah-always-right-in
: -conflicts-with.html
: r  schwadron says it's tora , even if it conflicts with 'reality'

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:17:00PM +0200, R Eli Turkel replied:
: I get the impression that Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim would not agree

I commented, in part:
    2- Halakhah is a legal process, not a system of determining
    truth. Therefore, I would answer RBM's question by suggestion that
    as long as the process was correctly followed, both life and death
    decisions are authoritative. Neither is more "correct" (eilu va'eilu
    divrei Elokim Chaim"), and neither is wrong, as long as both have
    legal authority.

I'm not sure the Rambam would agree with this perspective, although I
believe he is a daas yachid in that regard. We have discussed my belief
that halakhah is generally viewed as a progressive legal process, whereas
(I believe) the Rambam views it as a search for HQBH's or the enacting
Sanhedrin's original intent.

But R' Sholom Schwadron's point is consistent with the notion that the
Torah's "Truth" is really a question of legal authority not determination
of reality.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 08:04:42AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote to
Areivim:
: http://tzedek-tzedek.blogspot.com/2011/04/sheleg-and-me.html of the kelev 
: via  sirus....

I would think sirus to save one's pet isn't a factor simply because a
dead dog won't sire puppies either.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 53
**************************************

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..."