Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 117

Mon, 20 Aug 2012

• 1. Re: Sleeves that Cover the Elbows (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: Sleeves that Cover the Elbows (Prof. Levine)
• 3. is this ok? (saul newman)
• 4. Re: is this ok (Akiva Miller)
• 5. Re: is this ok? (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: The Talmud"s Many Demons (David Riceman)
• 7. Re: Sleeves below the elbows (Isaac Balbin)
• 8. Shimshon -- contemporary evidence (Joe Slater)
• 9. Re: Tzaar Baalei Chayim (Micha Berger)
• 10. Experimental Judaism: Playing with Fire (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Re: The Talmud's Many Demons (Daas Books)
• 12. Re: Shayala of Onaah (Micha Berger)
• 13. Birkat eirusiin (Lisa Liel)
• 14. Re: Birkat eirusiin (Zev Sero)
• 15. Siyum Sources (Rich, Joel)

BTW on one of Avodah and Areivim recently, there was a bit of a discussion
about MO citing more charedi poskim but not vice versa, as if that was some
sort of a lack.  Rather I would have thought we see from the whole incident
with Beis Hillel, Beis Shammai and the Bas Kol, that citing more stringent
opinions that one does not agree with is the derech of Beis Hillel and does
not mean that one ultimately holds that one must or should follow such
positions or such poskim.

Regards

Chana
=====================================================================
Which raises a question that has fascinated me for a long time and to which
I've heard some interesting answers (including it's not a question) - what
led beit Hillel and beit Shamai to their respective approaches (or Hillel
and Shamai)? What leads current day poskim?
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120816/9719fbb3/attachment-0001.htm>

At 09:21 AM 8/16/2012, Chana Luntz wrote:


> >On the other hand, given the Kedusha of EY wouldn't one expect 
> women living there to conduct themselves at least according to 7 above.
>
>There is an assumption here, that chumra equals kedusha.
>
>But there are good reasons to understand that not to be the case.

Perhaps one should classify wearing sleeves that cover the elbow as a 
Hidur rather than a chumra.

The following is from http://tinyurl.com/btzc4vw


Kedusha = Restriction

by 
<http://www.guardyoureyes.com/inspiration/members-chizuk/item/kedusha&g
t;Kedusha

Yesterday, I saw a tremendously important insight from Rav Shlomo 
Zalman Auerbach, ZT"L, which I would like to share:

Source: Chiku Mamtakim, volume II p. 121 (translated from the 
original Hebrew) (emphasis added).

A group of Kollel Avreichim approached Rav Shlomo Zalman with a 
sincere request: "We yearn to rise to great heights in Avodas Hashem, 
to become close to the Ribbono Shel Olam and to perform His Mitzvos 
on the highest level.  However, we don't know where to begin - in 
which Mitzvos should we be extra careful and stringent?"

Rav Shlomo Zalman responded: "Why look for stringencies?  There is no 
need for that.  The main thing is to accept upon yourself to fulfill 
the Halacha on a Lechatchila level."

The Avreichim agreed to take that upon themselves, but were not 
satisfied. They continued to request Rav Shlomo Zalman's guidance as 
to how they can be extra careful in matters of Halacha and create a 
close relationship with the Ribbono Shel Olam.

Since it meant so much to them, Rav Shlomo Zalman acceded to their 
request and gave them the following advice: "All the Chumros and 
Hidurim are not worth a single minor Hidur in matters of Kedusha and 
Tzeniyus.  In matters of Kedusha and Tzeniyus, every small Hidur is 
immeasurable, it raises up, sanctifies, and brings a person close to 
his Creator, as Chazal say: 'Wherever you find safeguards against 
ervah, you find Kedusha.'  For someone whose Neshama is thirsty for 
Ruchniyus, the place to begin and the area that is most important is 
Kedusha and Tzeniyus."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120816/75c27ae3/attachment-0001.htm>

why does an ex-meshumad  toivel ?  is there not an inyan of  removing
tum'ah?

let's assume he were  wearing a crucifix.  could he then put on tfillin ?

what about [assuming he understands the bracha]   his thoughts when he
 says  Hashem's name ?   is it ok  to  be believing an entity other than
Hashem is  part of a godhead?   or  to be thinking  'X  is messiah'
 'messiah is G-d  or  part of G-d'   while he makes the bracha  ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120816/1231dc15/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Saul Newman asked:

> http://collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=21363&;alias=picture-of-the-day
> would there be any reason to say that a functionary of another
> religion is somehow not allowed to be mekayem mitzvot while
> staying in that status?

This question must be answered in several separate pieces.

First, I don't know why a "functionary of another religion" might be different than a *layman* of another religion.

Second, it should be pointed out that several people commented on that
article, and claimed that the person in the photo actually *is* Jewish,
though apparently a meshumad. One could ask another distinct question,
whether a mushumad who is a functionary of another religion is allowed to
do mitzvos.

Some people's knee-jerk reaction would be that he is certainly allowed, but
it seems to me that -- especially when dealing with "functionaries" -- we
must be wary of those who would pervert the mitzvos for the ideals of the
other religion. For example, see the Wikipedia article titled "Passover
(Christian holiday)", PROVIDED you think your stomach can handle it.

Besides all the above, RSN's question about "mitzvot" is too broad. Not all
mitzvot are treated the same way. The photo in the link was of a man
wearing tefillin, and tefillin in particular is a very unusual mitzvah in
this regard, being that it is testimony to out Jewishness. I have a friend
who had been learning in yeshiva for a good number of years when he learned
Hilchos Gerus and discovered that his conversion was pasul. He went
straight to the rosh yeshiva who told him to continue doing everything as
before, except for Shabbos and Tefillin (and maybe one other thing that
I've forgotten). Going without tefillin for a few days was difficult, and
he was *very* relieved to be able to have a proper conversion before the
next Shabbos arrived.

Those who want more info on how actual poskim hold on this, can go to the archives for a short thread titled "Nonjews and Tefillin" from eight years ago.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/502d27f7eb46427f77ae7st02vuc

On 16/08/2012 11:18 AM, saul newman wrote:
> why does an ex-meshumad  toivel ?  is there not an inyan of  removing tum'ah?

There's a metaphorical tum'ah of AZ, which is compared to a meis.  So
there's a *minhag* to be tovel.  It's not a halacha, and certainly not
me'akev.  It was basically a medieval takana to drive home to people
what a terrible thing shmad is.  But it doesn't apply any more to a
clergyman than to any meshumad, or indeed anyone who served AZ without
formally shmadding himself.  If someone attended a Catholic mass, and
bowed to the bread when the rest of the crowd did, then he has served
AZ.


> let's assume he were  wearing a crucifix.  could he then put on tfillin ?

I don't see why not.  Obviously it's a dovor mechuar, and if possible he
should be asked to remove it, but basically it's the same question as
whether he can put on tefillin while chewing on a piece of chazzer, or
while wearing shatnes.  If the alternative is doing the aveira and *not*
the mitzvah, then it seems to me a no-brainer that he should do the mitzvah.


> what about [assuming he understands the bracha]   his thoughts when he
>  says  Hashem's name ?   is it ok	to  be believing an entity other
> than Hashem is  part of a godhead?   or  to be thinking 'X  is
> messiah' 'messiah is G-d  or  part of G-d'   while he makes the bracha
>  ?

Of course it's not OK, and maybe it would be good to ask him *not* to
have that kavanah.  I can see a problem there, because he thinks that
his god *is* Elokei Avrohom Yitzchok veYaakov.  That's why a sefer torah
sheksavo min is worse than one sheksavo aku"m; a Baal-worshipper understands
that the Sheimos in the Torah refer to the Jewish god, whom he doesn't
worship, but a Xian thinks they refer to his god.  So maybe it would be
better not to say the bracha with him; I don't know.  It would be an
interesting shayla to ask a posek, but you'd need to find a good one.
Maybe R Shochet (R Immanuel if he's up to it, otherwise R Ezra).


-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

Hiding behind the camera bag in a bookcase in a corner of my study I 
found a copy of Rabbi Movshowitz's commentary on the Gaon's commentary 
on the aggadta of Masseches Berachos.  even with the supercommentary 
it's much terser than the Maharal's Hiddushei Aggados, and I don't 
understand the details, but he does comment on two of the topics we've 
been discussing:

1.  God getting angry every day: He seems to treat this as a discussion 
of how Bilam is the anti-Moshe.  I could try to elaborate, but I'm not 
sure my speculations are worthwhile.

2. Ground up cat placenta: he cites the gemara in BK (60b) about dogs 
barking when the Malach HaMaves comes to town and says that cats are the 
opposite of dogs.  He says that black is a form of red (a gemara in 
Nidda), and that red and the angel of death correspond to the alafim and 
revavos in the pasuk the gemara cites "yipol mitzidcha elef v'rivvah 
miyminecha".

In general I think he takes the Maharalian attitude that the gemara 
talks "l'fi hatzurah v'lo lfi hahomer".

I also think that we've been too easy on ourselves in this discussion.  
We have many popular attitudes today which Hazal would have instantly 
recognized as nonsense.  A few examples:

Democracies never go to war with each other.

The state of the brain determines human behavior.

College education is the most effective entry to the middle class.

In the long term the stock market must go up.

I can well imagine someone who knows better nonetheless using one of 
these myths as an analogy to persuade his listeners of a true 
conclusion, rather than wasting time and effort on analyzing the fallacy 
of the myth in excruciating detail and thus losing the point he's he's 
trying to make.

David Riceman

On 17/08/2012, at 1:04 AM, Professor Levine wrote:

> Then I guess I have to conclude that what R. Fuchs wrote in Halichos
> Bas Yisroel is either misleading or incorrect or both.  See
>
> http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bas_yisroel.pdf

Why so? Rabbi Fuchs's mode of Psak is clearly not from first
principles so to speak, and is founded on the notion of standing on
the decisions of others. I don't think he paskens in the classical
sense per se. Rather, he seems to be a Melaket of those decisions
which comport with a certain Charedi practice, especially in Israel.
Rav Henkin on the other hand, in the mode of his Zeyda, paskens in a
classical methodology, and is clear and analytical in coming to his
views in his Psokim. Anyone can disagree or provide a differing
analysis. I'm sure he would respond to these in the same way that the
classical Posek would in defending (or indeed changing) their
position.

>
> On the other hand, given the Kedusha of EY wouldn't one expect women
> living there to conduct themselves at least according to 7 above.

I'm not sure the Kedusha is the factor in Tzninus once one moves past
the Shuras HaDin. Rather, it is the Minhag in EY (if there is such a
thing) and the minhag in a particular locale (if there is such a
thing) that provides further guidance.

R' Micha Berger wrote: It realy does look like a long-haired man
fighting some animal that could well have a mane.

It looks to me as though it's a man leading an animal with a bridle,
perhaps with a man on its back. Maybe it represents Avrohom and
Yitzchok! Or perhaps it's an angel facing a donkey - so it must
represent Bilam! Unless it's actually from much later, in which case
it's Haman leading Mordechai ...

Some archeologists have an unfortunate habit of leaping to wild
conclusions about their finds. This is a ring that appears to have a
man and a quadruped, possibly with a rider, and possibly with a
bridle. It doesn't necessarily represent anything at all in Tana"ch;
why would it? Unless the owner happened to be called Avrohom or
Mordechai or whatever it's probably either a reference to the owner's
name (e.g., Susi) or a picture that shows how important he is -
perhaps a chief servant to the man riding the horse, or the owner of
the horse himself.

Joe Slater

I thought the following was relevant to this discussion about whether
a person who is cruel to his animals forfeits his right to own them.
It doesn't answer the question, but see this gemara from Y-mi Yevamos
15:3 daf 88a (near the bottom):

    R' Lazar omeir:
    Ein adam reshai liqach lo beheimah chayah va'of
    ela im kein hiskin lahem mezonos

:-)BBii!
-Micha

  From http://tinyurl.com/98qh7gm

Written by Rabbi Hershel Schachter

Years ago Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik warned, both in his public
addresses as well in his written essay ("Confrontation") against
having any such contact with the church. How shameful it is that
people who claim to be "disciples" of his have "reinterpreted" his
words to mean the exact opposite of what they really say, and have
then added that even if at one time he did prohibit such interaction
with the church, this clearly no longer applies today. To the best of
my understanding, moshiach has not yet arrived and the world is still
full of avodah zarah!

Achronim had a debate whether believing in the trinity constitutes
avodah zarah for a Noachide or not; but for Jews there is no question
that it is avodah zarah! And even for bnai Noach, Rav Soloveichik
quoted in the name of his grandfather Rav Chaim that this
understanding of the Remah and Shach was a shegagah she'yatz'ah
milifnei hashalit and it makes no sense to distinguish between the
definition of avodah zarah for a Jew and for a ben Noach.

The human desire to be mechadesh (to act as an original thinker) has
misled these rabbis in Eretz Yisroel to play into the hands of avodah
zarah and shemad. The words of this week's parsha stand out clearly
to teach us that in Eretz Yisroel we are required to be even more
careful when dealing with the church. Time and time again the Torah
warns us that in Eretz Yisroel we must not get involved with avodah
zarah. Officially Hakadosh Baruch Hu is the King over Eretz Yisroel
(see Mordechai to Gittin #401), and the midrashim refer to all of
Eretz Yisroel as the "palace of the King". The Ramban (end of Acharei
Mos) explains that the main location for observance of all of the
mitzvos is Eretz Yisroel, and one who sins there is compared to one
who rebels against a king's authority in his palace, which is a more
brazen sin than sinning elsewhere(see Avnei Nezer, Yoreh Deah #454).

Apparently the sanctity of Eretz Yisroel arouses strong feelings of
spirituality that one must take care to channel properly. These
strong feelings can mislead even the wise to get carried away by
their imagination and their desire to be original thinkers, and in
turn to strengthen avodah zarah and shemad. Some rabbis have gained
credibility by claiming to be disciples of Rav Soloveitchik, and then
have proceeded to totally misrepresent his views on these issues of
avodah zarah and shemad.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120817/c644c758/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:04:25 -0400, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> On 14/08/2012 3:32 PM, Rich, Joel quoted some author in Tablet Magazine:
>> Most troubling, perhaps, is the way the rabbis never try to explain how
>> these countless demons fit into a world picture where God is the source of
>> all law and power. Did he create them, and if so, why?

> What is this person talking about?  Chazal were very clear that Hashem
> created the sheidim.   Why did He create them?  That's the same question
> as why He created anything else.  Why panthers, or pinecones, or Pluto?

One of these I can answer.

He created pinecones so we could enjoy pine nuts.

I have to admit, though, that Pluto stumps me presently.

On , 16 Aug 2012 01:42:27 GMT, Akiva Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com> wrote:
> A) As RZS and others wrote, "sheidim" could be just another way of talking
> about germs, radios, and psychological phenomena. We can leave it at that, and
> wonder about the cat-ash recipe another day.

> B) Or, perhaps the cat-ash recipe -- or more specifically, its ability to make
> these sheidim large and visible -- demonstrates a fundamental error in
> understanding the entire subject. The connection between sheidim and germs
> doesn't merely need to be fine-tuned, but it needs to be thrown out
> altogether.

Maybe someone should just try the cat-ash bit and settle this once and for
all. Any volunteers?

Alexander Seinfeld

Someone who used to be active on Avodah (BCC-ed) did the logical
thing, and emailed Business Halacha Institute, asking them what they
thought. Here is their reply.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

PS to the curious newbie: that emoticon was an invention of my son Eli,
back when he was young enough that it indicated (in his father's eyes,
at least) precocious creativity. It adds up to happy + two challos +
2 candles. IOW, it's a [pre-]Shabbos greeting.

--- Forwarded message from Gershon Schaffel <gersh...@businesshalacha.com> ---
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:56:06 -0400
From: Gershon Schaffel <gersh...@businesshalacha.com>
Subject: RE: Sha'ailah

Thank you so much for contacting us and I apologize for the delayed
response. Below is a copy of the response of HaRav Chaim Kohn about
the matter.

Is It Permitted to Use A Mispriced El Al Ticket? 
By Harav Chaim Kohn 

Q.   The recent technical glitch in El Al's network that resulted in
thousands of tickets being sold for the unheard-of bargain price of $338
has resulted in passengers dealing with different emotions. Obviously,
many people were thrilled by their stroke of good fortune, and look
forward to enjoying the "luxury" of a trip to Israel at a cost that
usually covers taxes and surcharges.

Others, however, felt guilty, and called their Rav to ask the important
question: Halachically, do I have the right to fly with this ticket,
when it obviously represents a mistake beyond the control of the company
that was exacerbated by today's hi-tech instantaneous sharing with family
and friends in a close-knit community that is always anxious to go to
Israel ? The momentary pleasure of saving such a bundle of money is
overshadowed by the concern that these gains may not be "kosher." El Al
officials took some time before they made a decision to honor the tickets.

A.   Had such a glitch occurred in any unregulated industry, it would be a
classic case of Onaa'h and Mekach Ta'us. Besides for the fact that the
quoted price does not reflect the correct market value of the merchandise,
it is also clear that the seller never intended to sell for this price
and the merchant could render the sale null and void. On the other hand,
if the merchant wishes to honor the sale, he may obviously do so. As
such, in the case of a sale where the merchant will find out his error
before the execution of the sale and the buyer took advantage of the
mistake hoping that the merchant would honor the sale -- although he is
not obligated to -- he may halachically do so, since his action has no
legal bearing on the merchant.

Similarly, had El Al decided to honor the sale for charitable or
public-relations motives, the whole matter would be a non-issue. However,
the airline industry is tightly regulated in all areas of operation,
including sales. It is for this reason that El Al didn't have much of
an option and did not revoke the sales. This raises the question from a
halachic perspective. If the validation of the sale is forced upon the
airline by the authorities, the above arguments do not apply and the
sale would seem to be halachically void.

However, the sale is in fact halachically valid. The airline has agreed
to operate all areas of its business in accordance with the regulations
set by the authorities, including the conditions regulating sales and
sale prices. As such, the sale is halachically valid.

Even if the sale is valid, was it incorrect to purchase a ticket that
forced the airline to honor the sale? In reality, as explained earlier,
the issue in question is not about a forced regulation but the result of a
voluntary acceptance to do business in accordance with those regulations.
As such, there was no halachic prohibition against taking advantage of
this glitch and purchasing tickets for a cheaper price.

Have a good Shabbos and a good Chodesh

--


Business Halacha Institute

Thank you for contacting the Business Halacha Institute Hotline. We
would appreciate any feedback you can offer, as we constantly strive to
improve the quality of our hotline service.

In addition, first-person testimonials are very powerful in encouraging
others to reach out to rabbonim with business halacha shailos. If you
would be kind enough to provide us with a few lines, we would be very
grateful.

There is a possibility that we may publish your testimonial. If you
prefer that we do not use your name, please let us know. We will make
sure to only print your thoughts anonymously.

My partner is learning from the Artscroll Brachos book with a friend, 
and they just came across something in one of the footnotes.  And it got 
me wondering.  Given that we say that someone who isn't obligated in a 
mitzvah can't be motzi someone who is, how is it that the mesader 
kedushin can say the birkat eirusin instead of the chatan?  Does anyone 
know how that works?

Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120819/2eb9d138/attachment-0001.htm>

On 19/08/2012 11:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> My partner is learning from the Artscroll Brachos book with a friend,
> and they just came across something in one of the footnotes.  And it
> got me wondering.  Given that we say that someone who isn't obligated
> in a mitzvah can't be motzi someone who is, how is it that the mesader
> kedushin can say the birkat eirusin instead of the chatan?  Does anyone
> know how that works?

1. It's not necessary that he's obligated at this moment.  E.g. someone
who has already heard kiddush may make it for those who haven't; but
someone who is not obligated in kiddush may not make it for those who are.
The mesader kidushin is obligated in kidushin.

2. Indeed his obligation is the same as the chatan's, so we don't even have
to reach the issue in the previous paragraph.  Assuming the kalah is not
a close relative of his (and he's not a kohen or she's kosher for a kohen)
he could even be mekadesh her, if she were willing.  So his chiyuv is equal
to the chatan's.

3. Despite its language, there are apparently those who say that birkat
erusin is not birkat hamitzvot but birkat hoda'ah.  We got into this a
while ago,  when we were discussing standing vs sitting.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

In the booklet from the siyum hashas R' A Z Ginzberg states: "Throughout
the Talmud and Midrash are numerous references to the timeless custom of
making a siyum when completing the Talmud or even just a talmud tractate"

He then goes on to quote Shabbat 118b -"bring me a young scholar who
completed a tractate, and I will make a festive holiday for all the
Rabbis".    He then quotes various rishonim who seek a source (page 50 of
the booklet)

Questions:
1. I found the "numerous surprisin since the Abaye one is the only one I know of and even there it is in the "teiti li" category - i.e. it was beyond the norm?
2. chazinah is usually translated as I see, is the "bring me" a usual translation as well?

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120820/dfa094f4/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 117
***************************************

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..."