Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 173

Sun, 16 Dec 2012

• 1. Re: Mesora (Meir Shinnar)
• 2. ISHA RA'A (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 3. Re: ISHA RA'A (T6...@aol.com)
• 4. Fasting Every Day Except Shavuos, Purim and Erev YK (cantorwolberg@cox.net)
• 5. Re: ISHA RA'A (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Fasting Every Day Except Shavuos, Purim and Erev YK (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Fasting Every Day Except Shavuos, Purim and Erev YK (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: ISHA RA'A (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Fasting Every Day Except Shavuos, Purim and Erev YK (Ben Waxman)
• 10. The Maccabees and Zealotry (Eliyahu Grossman)
• 11. Re: The Maccabees and Zealotry (Zev Sero)
• 12. The Kashrut of Kingklip: Its Turbulent History and Who Decides (Prof. Levine)

> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:55:03 -0500
> From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
> To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mesora
> Message-ID: <20121211145503.GA50...@aishdas.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 08:32:02AM -0500, Meir Shinnar wrote:
> : One last go round, on a topic that keeps being rehashed
> : 1) RZL is unhappy with my citation of ma'amar techiyat hametim - arguing
> : that the rambam's actual use of allegory is limited by previous use by
> : hazal.  He argues that in the issue discussed in ma'amar techiyat
> hametim...
>
> : (p 360 in the Shelat edition)...
> :> know that these prophecies and similar matters that
> :> we say that they are allegorical - our word in them is not a decree,
> :> that we did not receive a prophecy from hashem that will tell us that
> :> it is an allegory, nor did we have a tradition for one of the sages from
> :> the prophets who will explain that these details are allegorical.
>
> ... Who explain the allegory in all its details.
>
remember some of the rest of the quote
And our efforts our to gather between the torah and the reasonable,
and will manage all things according to a possible natural order,
except what is specifically explained that it is a miracle (mofet)
and it is impossible to explain it otherwise, then we will need to say
that it is a miracle

- rambam allows that a sufficiently strong rabbinic tradition will require
saying somehting is a miracle - but NOT that a rabbinic tradition is
required to reinterprete..

> ...
> : 2) RMB keeps citing the rambam's citation of rav hiyya as proof that he
> : needed authority from hazal...
>
> Not quite. I keep citing a dozen other placed in Moreh cheileq 2 as
> proof. I mention his citing R' Chiya to disspell the notion that parashas
> Vayeira is an example of the Rambam finding a new peshat because the
> existing ones defy his philosophy. I wasn't the one who raised the example
> either time, I just pointed out the mention of R' Chiya.
>

The stated purprose of the moreh nevuchim is to show torah properly
understood is not in conflict with philosophy properly understood, and it
is even claimed that hazal actually were philosophers.  The citations of
chazal are part of that scheme - and there are many such citations..  The
notion, however, that the rambam needs such permission  is foreign to the
entire moreh nevuchim.


> ...
> : 3) RMB thinks there is no significant difference between prophetic vision
> : and vision...
>
> 1- You are still attributing to me the position the Abarbanel takes in
> his commentary.
>
> 2- Of course there is a difference. Things that happen in a prophetic
> vision are interactions between metaphysical entities, in the Rambam's
> worldview that means intellects and forms without substance (hainu hakh),
> not physical entities. But they both occured.
>
> IOW, Lot seeing the angels prophetically doesn't change their being there,
> or even their role in destroying the cities of the plane. It does change
> whether or not he sat down and had a chat with them in the usual, physical,
> sense.
>
Again, this ignores that prophetic vision occurs in a state where physical
actions are not possible - and the notion of them physically being there or
walking with him is not compatible.


> : 4) WRT law versus truth. Again, I think RMB's position is quite radical -
> : and would have been unintelligible to most rishonim...
>
> The whole notion that pesaq is constitutive is how eilu va'eilu is
> possible. Therefore, you should see "Controversy in Halacha" by R Moshe
> Halbertal (the link to it that I posted in the past no longer works). It
> would seem to me you're effectively backing the Rambam's position against
> that of Rashi (Kesuvos 57a, "QM"L"), the Ramban, the Ritva (Eiruvin 13b
> "eilu va'eilu) and the Ran. And among acharonim, the Maharshal and the
> Arukh haShulchan.
>
> There is a difference between being constitutive and being in error.
Being constitutive is the right to determine and choose between different
possible options - and that pesak now has independent value..

The question is what happens if we now KNOW (through artifacts or reliable
manuscripts) that the previous choice was based on what is clearly error....
Find a rishon or early acharon who would argue that if we KNEW that the
gmara specifically held and paskened something - and earlier shittot did
not have that knowledge -  that we would still automatically follow those
shittot..

Meir Shinnar



> Bu
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121212/f75a9483/attachment-0001.htm>

(c) a woman who would prove a negative influence, 

Here's the thing that everyone seems to be missing.
Fine, let's say the prayer is for the reason R' Micha said.
What about a woman concerned with a MAN who "would provide a negative influence."
It's as if we are only concerned with the male being tempted by the female. 
We have this in the Sotah ordeal. The woman has to drink the potion, etc.
What if the woman suspects her husband of infidelity? Why should he also have to drink
and have the same consequences as the woman?
This is what is not being addressed. 
Micha is trying to justify the use of isha ra'a. I'm trying to understand why it is so one sided!

From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>

Pega ra is a  spiritual ill. There is a sequence moving outward from the
core self: G-d,  save me from (a) a flaw of the soul, (b) the yeitzer hara,
(c) a woman who  would prove a negative influence, and (d) all sorts of
evils that come  suddenly upon the world.


-- 
Micha  Berger              
mi...@aishdas.org         
http://www.aishdas.org   



>>>>>
 
I always understood Pega ra to be a bad happening, "please don't let  
anything bad happen to me today."
 
 
 



--Toby Katz
=============





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






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121213/ac990bd9/attachment-0001.htm>

We're talking about someone who fasted every day but Shavu'os, Purim and Erev YK. (Pesachim 68b).

I see no virtue in fasting every day. In fact, there are poskim who would consider that behavior as sinful, or at best, inappropriate.
Secondly, the everyday fast was obviously from sunrise to sunset. I could consume three thousand calories from sunset to sunrise.
What's the big deal?

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:07:50PM -0500, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: What about a woman concerned with a MAN who "would provide a negative influence."

Mar berei deRavina was a man. We are repeating a prayer he personally
said, not one he wrote for public usage. When you look at your siddur,
this line isn't there.

Even if they were in the general usage siddur in some other nusach,
I am not convinced the siddur was written for women. Their obligation
for formalized prayer, if any, is minimal. It could be that in that
hypothetical community that says this line from MBRD's original is one
where women weren't say E-lokai Netzor. Or it could be they chose to
preserve the authenticity of the original coinage over proper gender of
the noun.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:02:54PM -0500, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
:> We're talking about someone who fasted every day but Shavu'os, Purim
:> and Erev YK. (Pesachim 68b).

: I see no virtue in fasting every day. In fact, there are poskim who
: would consider that behavior as sinful, or at best, inappropriate.

Doesn't that depend on who is doing it and what his challenges are?

For example, I mentioned this in order to show that we are dealing with
someone who invested great effort to be in control of his temptations.
And thus understanding the prayer as containing a line asking for Hashem's
help chasing the right things followed by help avoiding a list of things
what could tempt him astray (demons, his yh"r, evil women) is consistent
with what we know of the author.

A throw-away line really, since "consistent with" doesn't /prove/ that
was his intent.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 12/12/2012 11:02 PM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
> I see no virtue in fasting every day. In fact, there are poskim who would consider that behavior as sinful, or at best, inappropriate.

I don't believe there are any such poskim, or even can be, since Chazal
very clearly approved of it.  At most a posek would say that since most
people aren't strong enough to do this without harming their ability to
serve Hashem, they shouldn't, and yatza secharo behefsedo, but one who
is certain that he is strong enough tavo alav bracha.

-- 
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

On 12/12/2012 11:07 PM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
> (c) a woman who would prove a negative influence,
>
> Here's the thing that everyone seems to be missing.
> Fine, let's say the prayer is for the reason R' Micha said.
> What about a woman concerned with a MAN who "would provide a negative influence."
> It's as if we are only concerned with the male being tempted by the female.

Yes.  Women are incapable of the negative consequences of hirhurim,
so I am not convinced they're even prohibited from having them in the
first place, but certainly it's not nearly the issue that it is for men.


> We have this in the Sotah ordeal. The woman has to drink the potion, etc.
> What if the woman suspects her husband of infidelity? Why should he also
> have to drink and have the same consequences as the woman?

Wait a minute.  There is no parallel, because there is no such thing as
a married man.  Technically it is none of a woman's business if her husband
dallies with another woman, so long as it doesn't affect her.  It isn't
adultery unless the other woman is married, and even if she is it doesn't
prohibit him to her.  (Of course there are all sorts of indirect ways in
which practically it is her business, including the fact that his spiritual
welfare is her charge, but that is mussar, not halacha.  She's probably
entitled to a get if she demands one, but she can choose not to, and should
probably be counselled not to.  In the opposite situation there is no choice;
if he knows she has committed adultery she is assur to him, and he *must*
divorce her, even if he really doesn't care at all.)

If you're looking for sexual equality in marriage, you can't find it,
because the definition of marriage is not equal.  A woman is married to a
man, a man is not married to a woman.  That's not a law *about* marriage,
it's baked into the definition.



-- 
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

I've seen Muslims do this during Ramadan. It isn't as easy as you make 
it out to be, particularly in the summer.

Ben

On 12/13/2012 6:02 AM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
>
> I see no virtue in fasting every day. In fact, there are poskim who would consider that behavior as sinful, or at best, inappropriate.
> Secondly, the everyday fast was obviously from sunrise to sunset. I could consume three thousand calories from sunset to sunrise.
> What's the big deal?
> __

Several decades before the fall of the second Temple, we read of the
emerging of Zealots, Sicarii, and Biryonim - different extremist groups at
one end of the spectrum, and the Tzadukim and "Friends of Rome" on the other
end with the majority of the Jews in Jerusalem being more moderate in their
approach. You have the former involved in either Religious divisiveness and
zeal, political killings against anyone who might have an affinity with a
Roman, or outright intimidation and extortion for personal gain. Leaders
such as Rabban Gamliel the Elder spoke out against them and tried to stop
them.

 

Skipping backward in time, we have a story of the Maccabees, which may not
be historically accurate, but does emphasize a radical element, that the
Romans brought forth a meal of pig and demanded that the Jews partake of it,
and when a Jew did step forward, a Maccabee came behind him and stabbed him
to death, beginning the war. (There are others that emphasize other divisive
reasons that are equally as interesting).

 

As an aside, I read a book some years ago where the author promoted the idea
that non-Jews are not tamai and therefore the "al haNissim" where we speak
of the pure ones defeating the tamai ones is speaking of the religious Jews
against the Hellenized ones, which is an interesting way to read it, and put
it into the context of the division of the later period. And the religious
Jews won, and we celebrate the purifying of the temple. We unite and, a few
years later, were are no longer under Greek rule.

 

So my two questions are these:

 

Do we hold the Maccabees to a higher standard than the Zealots of the year
6CE (plus) because the Maccabees were successful, or is it because it was
the Kohanic LEADERSHIP (versus the Kingship and authority of the courts of
that time) were the ones pushing for such a war, and therefore killing Jews
to intimidate participation was an acceptable strategy? Remember, the
Zealots in the year 68CE would destroy the food supplies of Jerusalem to get
the moderates to take action.

 

Can we apply the goals of their children and grandchildren, after a mere
generation, whose lust for power included such things as hiring Assyrians to
kill the thousands of Jews who opposed their tyranny (many fled to
Alexandria to save themselves), as also being in the background of Yehudah
the Maccabee and his sons, or do we keep them separate from the desire
seeking to take over the Judean kingship?

 

Happy last day of Hannukah!

 

Eliyahu Grossman

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121216/6ff58809/attachment-0001.htm>

Your assumption is that the Chachamim were against resistance to Rome,
so the Chashmonaim's resistance should be compared to that of the
Biryonim, etc.  But that premise is not true; on the contrary, the
revolt against Rome was originally organised *by* Chazal.  The difference
between them and the Biryonim was merely that when the war was obviously
lost, Chazal decided it was time to surrender and negotiate terms while
something could still be saved, while the Biryonim wanted to fight to an
"honourable" death.

-- 
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

The latest issue of Hakirah 
(http://www.hakirah.org/) contains an article 
with the above title by ARI Z. ZIVOTOFSKY and ARI 
GREENSPAN which is most interesting.  Part of the 
article is at http://www.hakirah.org/Vol14Zivotofsky.pdf

Introduction

A kashrut question that had engaged the halakhik community from
time to time through the twentieth century has once again arisen
during the last decade. A species of fish known in various places as
kingklip has recently appeared in Israel and generated a turbulent
controversy regarding its permissibility. This article will present the
history of its status and examine the issues and the arguments involved
in the debate. We will not arrive at a ruling; that has been
done by many competent poskim. We will discuss the halakhik
questions, the rationales, and the different analyses that have been
employed during the brief 100-year history and thereby illustrate
the halakhik process in an area of Jewish law.
What is a kingklip?

Kingklip (Genypterus capensis, Genypterus blacodes, Genypterus
chilensis and others) is a fish that lives near the ocean floor in the
southern hemisphere at depths of 50?500 meters. It can grow to between
80 and 200 centimeters, weigh 15?25 kg, and live for up to 30
years. It is a nocturnal, carnivorous feeder that is found in the
waters of the southern hemisphere and considered a seafood delicacy.
Because no Jewish community of any magnitude existed in the
Southern hemisphere prior to the previous 100 years, the fish was
unknown to Jews.


This article then discusses in detail the various 
halachic opinions regarding the Kashrus of this 
fish and how they were arrived at.  (One needs to 
purchase the journal to read the rest of the article.)

The article concludes with

Lessons to be learned

The controversy over kingklip kashrut has reached the point that a
South African fish expert, Dr. P.C. Heemstra, 
emailed me (AZZ [Ari Z. Zivotofsky]:
October 2005) that he was so dismayed with the rabbinic approach
towards examining kingklip kashrut that, he cynically wrote, "I
find the arguments about kosher/unkosher kingklip exceedingly
tiresome .... I hope kingklip is declared unkosher as it is getting rare
now, and the fewer people that are eating it the better."

The earliest claim that it is permitted is traced back to the universally
accepted gaon Rav Yitzchak Kossowsky and his son R.
Michel. Since that time no South African kashrut agency or reputable
rav has ever prohibited it, and until today both the Johannesburg
and Cape Town Batei Din treat it as kosher. Kingklip has
macroscopic scales that are not shed upon landing. They are there
for anyone who looks for them to see. While they are thinner and
less rigid than most scales, in structure they are similar to other cycloid
scales. All major kashrut organizations in their native lands
(South Africa and Australia) have accepted it as kosher. It was stated
very clearly in an email from Rabbi Yossi Salzer to the OU on Feb
12, 2004, where he wrote: "Cuskeels or not-the Torah says: with
fins and scales it's Kosher. Kingklip has fins & scales. It's Kosher!"

Despite the above, some of the most prominent poskim of our
time have questioned its kosher status or have advised against eating
it. The reasons for not declaring it kosher have been varied and creative:
thin scales; covered scales; it is eel-like; its scales are eel-like;
the scales do not catch the finger; the scales are not protective; the
fish is a bottom dweller.

Refusing to be intimidated, Rav Moshe Kurtstag, an internationally
recognized talmid hakham, issued a responsum on kingklip
and responded to every point raised. He determined that there is no
question that it is a kosher fish. In addition, following the bulk of
the controversy and fully aware of the supposed position of the Israeli
rabbinic heavy weights, all of the major figures in South Africa
reiterated that they had previously personally examined the fish and
declared it to be kosher and mehadrin.

The standard operating procedure for all of Jewish history has
always been to first go to a local posek. Only in cases of doubt or
conflict did the local rabbinic authorities, not the questioner, turn
elsewhere. And the recognized world experts would usually support
the authority of local rabbis. In the case of kingklip the local poskim
were fully competent and confident in their decision. It is unclear
why there was a need to turn to Israel or the US with this question.

An email from one of the South African rabbis (not to me)
sums up the feeling of the South African rabbis:

I'm sorry to say, but the Rabbis were given TOTALLY INCORRECT
information about the fish by some "frum" trouble-
maker in Johannesburg who wants to discredit the local
Beth Din ... Why these Gedolim didn't first check with us who
know the fish, before giving a p'sak, I don't know ...

Is kingklip kosher? All of the local rabbis in South Africa and
Australia said an unequivocal "yes." Should the question have remained
a Southern hemisphere question? Most definitely. It is difficult
to know why the question was brought to Israel. The Beit Din
itself said it was someone looking to discredit them. An individual
South African rabbi said it was a "trouble maker." We have no way
of knowing or judging, and it is irrelevant - it should have remained
a local question.

----------
In my mind this article raises many fundamental 
questions about how a halachic psak is arrived at 
and reliability of piskei halacha that emerge from such a procedure.

Another article by R. Zivotofsky that also 
highlights some of the same issues regarding 
piskei halacha is Clarifying Why the Muscovy Duck 
is Kosher: A Factually Accurate Response which 
may be read in its entirety at http://tinyurl.com/cc8478g

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20121216/fc57e981/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 173
***************************************

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..."