Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 102

Tue, 21 Jul 2015

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: H Lampel
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ)


On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote:
: One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine
: arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure
: on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT
: self evident or even mefursamot

RMB responded:
> Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate
> family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot.

My two cents:

Adultery (eishis ish) should be categorized under issurim mefursomos
simply on the basis that it involves taking lves taking liberties with
another man's wife, an intimacy that belongs to the husband. A form
of theft! So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that
are mefursamos.

The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when 
natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he 
describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be 
abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the 
mefursamos category.

The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and 
commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because 
allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his 
wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to 
excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest 
intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, 
it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is 
bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is 
absolutely forbidden.

Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage:

    MN 3:49
    As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are
    directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling
    disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The
    reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against
    intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is
    natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should
    deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be
    eschewed.

    All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely,
    that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the
    company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access
    for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no
    difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could
    blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the
    status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any
    unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry
    them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to
    their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly
    succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely
    forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents
    making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order
    of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is
    no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from
    seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them.


Zvi Lampel




Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:02:52 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ)


(Sorry for approving both versions of that post! It was a quick typo in
what was until-then going so smoothly! -micha)

On 2015-07-20 5:34 pm, RZ Lampel wrote:
> RMB responded: "Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest 
> within
> the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot."

> Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that 
> which
> belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the 
> category of
> issurim that are mefursamos.

> The Rambam (MN 2:49) ...

Yes. But our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam 
distinguishes
between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire 
that is
in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), and 
other
mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to ol 
mitzvos.

And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos. R/Dr Meir 
Shinnar
writes:
>                                         he specifically applies that 
> to
> arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that 
> deal with
> kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol  mimenu - specifically apply to 
> arayot.
> One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all 
> dine
> arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not 
> sure
> on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are 
> NOT
> self evident or even mefursamot

So regardless of how he categorizes them in the Moreh, the chiluq the 
Rambam
makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not be 
self-evident.

(Which I still don't get.)

-micha
-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507             - Richard Bach



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: via Avodah
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:09:58 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom




 

From: Micha Berger via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
REMT said something that makes me wonder...  He suggested that our
(non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying  qaddish is to make it
condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their  duty. 
 
Micha  Berger              



>>>>
 
You are mainly talking about adults saying kaddish, but I remember one  
tragic year when there were seven yesomim under bar mitzva age saying kaddish,  
from three different families.  Two families had lost their mothers, one  
family their father.  Who was going to tell these children, who came to  shul 
faithfully every day, sometimes getting to school late  or skipping outings 
with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima  or your Abba 
today, someone else has kadima"?  Correct me if I am mistaken  but my impression 
is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim,  i.e., those who 
lose their parents while they are still children.
 
 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150720/a5c632b6/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:56:00 +0300
Subject:
[Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book


I found the most disturbing part of Dr Shapiro's book the last chapter.
This is a halachid discussion of lying.

My conclusion from this is that lying is perfectly permissible if there is
a good reason. Basically the ends justifies the means. We are not talking
about white lies as praising the bride for her beauty.

In particular it is permissible to quote a psak from a gadol even though he
never said it as long as you are sure that it is correct and he probably
would have said it.  There is no problem with making up stories about a
gadol as long as the intention is to either glorify the gadol or else show
why some idea is important. He claims that there are groups that actively
make up stories about CI.

The Chatam Sofer says that in order to prevent sins one can make the
problem appear to be more serious than it really is such as turning a
rabbinic prohibition into a biblical one.

The problem with false attribution (besides the seemingly moral one) is
that the result one cannot believe anything that is not written by the
gadol himself. One never knows if the citation of the gadol was
deliberately changed, However as seen in the rest of the book even the
written words of the author are not always authoritative as in many cases
they are tampered with to protect some "higher interest". Even the SA has
been tampered with for this purpose.

One can lie in order to avoid embarrassment to oneself. R Papa seems to
have issued an incorrect halacha to avoid shame.

A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more
charity. One can claim that the monet is going for a poor bride when in
fact it will be used for some other charity.

Finally there is the heter of mental reservation or reinterpreting ones
words made famous by the story of Yaakov "lying" To Isaac that he is Esav.
Shapiro gives the example of Clinton making all sorts of "false" statements
about Lewinsky and later justified it by saying that his words had another
meaning than what people thought. Note this is sometimes permitted even in
monetary cases.

As stated about one can lie for educational purposes "Noble Lie" of Plato.
Rav Dessler defines "truth" as the value that gives a positive result and
is independent of observation and evidence.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150721/14721b0b/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Lisa Liel
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:10:11 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ)


On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
> Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage:
>     MN 3:49
>     As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are
>     directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling
>     disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The
>     reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against
>     intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is
>     natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more
>     should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure
>     alone be eschewed.

So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and
should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out
of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what
possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude?

Lisa



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Isaac Balbin
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:55:23 +1000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian


This is tangentially related only, but may be of interest in the
context. I asked Rav Hershel Schachter, Shlita, what to do if someone
who acts as a functionary at a Shira Chadasha (partnership) style
service wants to do likewise in a mainstream Orthodox Congregation. His
answer was, that such a person can be counted towards a Minyan, but no
Kibbudim should be afforded to them. We have one here in Melbourne,
which isn't like the one in Israel, but the strong word is that one
of Rabbi Avi Weiss's Maharatos (Rabba/Rabbis) will be hired to lead
that congregation. She was recently interviewed and claimed she was non
denominational because she wanted to break down boundaries.




Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:08:19 +0300
Subject:
[Avodah] thick matza


For those interested a thorough discussion on thick matazot see the article
of Ari Zivotofsky in Hakirah

www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150721/cbc9cd3a/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 8
From: H Lampel
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:54:49 -- 0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ)


On 7/20/2015 7:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> ... our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes
> between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire
> that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur),
> and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to
> ol mitzvos.

> And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos....the chiluq
> the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not
> be self-evident.

And that's precisely what I addressed in my 3rd paragraph. After citing
the Moreh Nevuchim's description of homosexuality and bestiality as
obviously deviant practices (i.e. mefursamos), I cited its description
of arayos (outside of eishis ish) as being not mefursomos, but issurim
Hashem instituted as a preventative, a gedder, against unrestrained
licentiousness in a situation (viz. family) where the temptation for it
would otherwise be too hard to control.

To repeat what I wrote:
>> The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and
>> commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because
>> allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than
>> his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would
>> lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest
>> intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited,
>> it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound
>> to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely
>> forbidden." Perhaps the mention of "commanded that it, too, be considered
>> abhorrent" causes confusion. This would seem to put incest back into
>> the category of mefursomos, along with murder and stealing, etc., about
>> which a normal person is expected to harbor revulsion. So Rambam would be
>> self-contradicting. But the elephant in the room is that the Torah itself
>> commands us to treat eating non-kosher creatures with disgust. So how
>> can Chazal tell us the right attitude is "efshi"? Evidently, Chazal and,
>> naturally, Rambam, do not consider "efshi" to be at odds with "shekketz
>> yih'yu lachem/teshak'tsu."My surmise is that they understand the Torah's
>> command to treat with disgust the eating of non-kosher creatures and
>> other acts that are not intrinsically objectionable (such as, per Rambam,
>> incest, vs. murder, stealing, homosexuality and bestiality), as an imposed
>> artificial behavior/attitude for these non-mefusamos issurim. Regarding
>> your definition of issurim mefursamim, the Shemoneh Perakim does not
>> say a tsaddik should /develop/ a revulsion, but that such revulsion is
>> natural in born in all people. The tsaddik retains these feelings and
>> does not allow them to be tainted.


[Email #2.]

On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
>> MN 3:49
>> As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are
>> directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling
>> disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom...

On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and
> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of
> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what
> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude?

It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah
attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress
during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan
Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to
a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban.

Zvi Lampel


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



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


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


***************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)


< Previous Next >