Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 151

Thu, 26 Nov 2015

• 1. Re: maaseh avot siman lebanim (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: maaseh avot siman lebanim (H Lampel)
• 3. Re: maaseh avot siman lebanim (H Lampel)
• 4. Re: conversion monitoring (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: Ahab (Akiva Miller)
• 6. Re: Ahab (Saul Guberman)
• 7. A Simple Yes or No Question (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: conversion monitoring (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: conversion monitoring (Micha Berger)
• 10. Halachos of Turkey (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Re: conversion monitoring (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Ahab (Zev Sero)

On 11/25/2015 09:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what
> he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't Torah
> either, no eilu va'eilu, and the SA might be wrong in an absolue sense?

Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't have
to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong.  Perhaps
R Yochanan saw one aspect of retzon haborei, and this student saw another
(which was why he thought that was what R Yochanan meant).  And perhaps
R Yochanan was not mechaven to the way the retzon haborei is supposed
to be expressed in the limited world of action, and the student was.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,...

> Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan said doesn't
> have to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong. ...

The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult
to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all
the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them
misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did,
but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation
marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have
talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be
merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone
declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his
interpretation of that person's actions or other statement.

On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore
>>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well.

ZL:
>> This is not an exception...

RMB:
> Nor is it a pasuq.

Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if
Chazal understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow
that attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated
by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more
culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less
equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are
voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did
the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind
of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea
already existed.

To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance
of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that
this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give
us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim.

But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on
Aggadita. And you explained,

> I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are
> perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than
> the gemara did.

So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are
"more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are]
therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"?
Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal
say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal
say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of
Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?)

Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say
peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to
mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel,;' or
he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand
peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself,
or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat
but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he
says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as
a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us
in how to understand Chazal.

RMB:
>>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot

ZL:
>> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective...

RMB:
> So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about
> what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't
> Torah either, no eilu va'eilu,

No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim
explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial objective,
and what I went on to say after that.

RMB:
> ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense?

Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them
is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct
ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the
darkei pesak conclude.

The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who
explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically
absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same
case match Hashem's original intent in that case.

RMB:
> Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa
> is ever debated?

Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point.

RMB:
> And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one
> understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or
> gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on
> a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant.

No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim
are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation?
Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's
discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be
learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest
ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous?

Zvi Lampel

On 11/25/2015 11:13 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>> .. when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about what he meant,...

> Just because he may have misremembered what R Yochanan  said doesn't have
> to mean that the opinion he misattributed to him is wrong.  ...

The Rambam (Hakdama L'Payrush haMishnayos) considers it an insult
to Chazal to suggest that any of the [final] opinions [after all
the shakla vtarya] held by the balaei plugta were due to one of them
misremembering. They agreed as to what the person they quoted said or did,
but disagreed in how to interpret it. By inserting the close-quotation
marks in the right places, the parts of passages that seem to have
talmidim quoting their rebbeim in opposing ways can be seen to be
merely interpretations of the same memra. And sometimes when someone
declares that someone "said" something, he can mean that this was his
interpretation of that person's actions or other statement.

On 11/25/2015 9:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
RMB:
>>> Except WRT pesuqim, where you have pashtanim offering peshatim that ignore
>>> both Chazal's derashos and sometimes their peshatim as well.

ZL:
>> This is not an exception...

RMB:
> Nor is it a pasuq.

Let's review. RnTK (referring to Chushim) submitted that if Chazal
understood someone to be a good guy, it is proper to follow that
attitude. You agreed to this, invoking chiddush vs shinui stated
by halachic mesorah, and writing, "WRT aggadita too... We are more
culturally removed by the authors of the aggadita, and therefore less
equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story...[so] since there are
voices who better hear Chazal's way of thinking who assumed Chushim did
the right thing, the proposal to villainize his action needs some kind
of counter-source, something that implies the momentum behind your idea
already existed.

To which I agreed, adding that this attitude extends to our acceptance
of how rishonim understand Chazal. Parenthetically, I also added that
this attitude extends to how rishonim understood pesukim. I.e. they give
us the general attitude in which to understand both Chazal and pesukim.

But you want to distinguish between rishonim on pesukim and Chazal on
Aggadita. And you explained,

> I mean that a number of the rishonim who give peshat in Tanakh are
> perfectly willing to translate and/or explain the pasuq differently than
> the gemara did.

So what happened to the sevara behind the sevara that those who are
"more culturally removed by [from] the authors of the aggadita... [are]
therefore less equipped to unpack the lesson out of the story"?
Why should we and the rishonim apply this attitude only to what Chazal
say about things not written in the Torah, and not to things Chazal
say about what is written in the Torah? (And anyway, is the matter of
Chushim not something to do with what is written in the Torah?)

Yes, there is a number (one and two are also numbers) of rishonim who say
peshat is other than what a given memra Chazal says. Ibn Ezra comes to
mind. But when he does so, he either says "im kaballa hu, nekabel," or
he holds the memra is a daas yachid, whereas the rabbim would understand
peshat his way, or he has a alternate memra Chazal to support himself,
or he holds that despite appearances, the memra was not meant as peshat
but as drash, and Chazal must have actually held peshat to be as he
says. Point being, the rishonim are not disagreeing with what Chazal as
a body actually held. And more to my point, the rishonim are guiding us
in how to understand Chazal.

RMB:
>>> how the TSBP is flowing down the generations, not a snapshot

ZL:
>> Deciphering original intent is the initial objective...

RMB:
> So do you believe that when two talmidim of Rav Yochanan argue about
> what he meant, not only is one historically wrong, his position isn't
> Torah either, no eilu va'eilu,

No, it is Torah, and it is eilu v'eilu in the sense that the rishonim
explain that concept. Please note that I referred to the initial
objective, and what I went on to say after that.

RMB:
> ...and the SA might be wrong in an absolute sense?

Depends what you mean by "absolute sense." You agree one of them
is wrong is the historic sense. In what matters for how we conduct
ourselves, what Hashem wants us to do, of course we follow what the
darkei pesak conclude.

The rishonim offer several explanations of "eilu v'eilu," but those who
explain what the phrase means are unanimous in rejecting the logically
absurd idea that contradicting shittos about the law in the exact same
case match Hashem's original intent in that case.

RMB:
> Do the dynamics of dispute only apply to the first time any din deOraisa
> is ever debated?

Thanks for the plug, but I don't understand your point.

RMB:
> And what about cases where the intent isn't specific enough to cover one
> understanding over the other? How we apply a gemara about nitzotzos or
> gacheles shel mateches to electrical appliances is unlikely to depend on
> a detail of Shemu'el's intent -- he likely had nothing in minde relevant.

No? Don't the poskim decide the law by analyzing what the Talmud's gedarim
are, and equating to it the essential properties of the modern situation?
Do you hold that all such discussions by the poskim, and the Amoraim's
discussions about new situations, in which they are claiming to be
learning from their predecessors' statements going back to the aerliest
ones and avoiding kushyas from them, are disingenuous?

Zvi Lampel

From the press articles I gather that there wasn't a very long break
between the mother's conversion and the daughter's birth. Could it be that
the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is thus considered an
independent convert, so that at issue are
a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in establishing
that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a family to convert;
b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who converted
is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism upon reaching
majority.

These are extremely weighty issues and I wish the Beit Din haGadol would
submit the question to many gedolim and deal with the question on both a
practical and theoretical level, to clarify the halakha. Right now it
unfortunately looks murky and gives the Chief Rabbinate a bad name, as it
seems arbitrary. This is probably not about monitoring continued
observance, but about setting minimal expectations for the bat mitzvah of a
minor convert.

--
Yours sincerely,
Mit freundlichen Gr??en,

Arie Folger
blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151126/e456e370/attachment-0001.htm>

R'Zev Sero wrote:

> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her
> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her
> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of
> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda
> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she
> could be executed, but either she intended to break
> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she
> originally intended to abandon her gods but later
> backslid.

My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention to
break it, that does not count as accepting it at all.

This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I don't
think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count as
acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is human, and
no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some failures, and that
doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance.

The problem is when one *plans* on a violation from the beginning. I can
easily imagine the scenario in which one realizes they might get caught and
be held responsible, but I can't see why that would render the "acceptance"
valid. It is only a description of how things will play out in practice,
and says nothing about the person's da'as and acceptance.

Thus, according to RZS's post, it must be that "she originally intended to
abandon her gods but later backslid."

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151126/2830bec3/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of marrying
> nonJewish women.
> see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism
>
> Eli
>
> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151126/e0e73d88/attachment-0001.htm>

Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass without sinning (in the objective sense)?
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/20151126/f66e345c/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote:
> Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is
> thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are
> a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in
> establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a
> family to convert;
> b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who
> converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism
> upon reaching majority.

Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion?
Who holds such a thing?

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion?
: Who holds such a thing?

For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is
qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a
io

So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether
you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am:
: >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is
: >thus considered an independent convert...

The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether
the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew. See the Pischei
Teshuvah 268:6.

So, one could argue this either way. I do not know if lemaaseh we pasqen
lemaaseh one way or the other, or treat the case as a safeiq.

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

See http://tinyurl.com/nlpxjxd

Thanksgiving an d Eating Turkey
Much has been discussed over the years regarding Thanksgiving dinner. We will
discuss whether such a party is allowed, and if turkey may be served. The
underlying point of the debate is whether Thanksgiving is considered 
a religious
or secular holiday. In order to determine this, we need to know the 
history of the
Thanksgiving holiday (see footnote). In addition, we will discuss the 
kashrus of
birds in general and turkey specifically.

<Snip>

There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be avoided. However,
the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel  is to eat turkey on 
Thanksgiving.  As mentioned above, one should not
have a party.

<Snip>

Attending a Thanksgiving Parade

The question of observing or attending a Thanksgiving Day parade is an
interesting one. It depends on the following definition: If 
Thanksgiving is a non-
Jewish holiday, it would be prohibited to participate or benefit in 
any way from
the parade honoring the day. If one concludes that Thanksgiving is a secular
holiday, there would seem to be no problem in attending a parade, as a
Thanksgiving Day parade is no different from an Independence Day parade.
Although it may be permitted to go to a Thanksgiving parade it is not with the
spirit of a Jew to attend such parades. One who has young children who insist
on going to the parade do not have to refuse.

Kashrus of Turkey
As mentioned above, many people have the custom to eat turkey on
Thanksgiving. However, the kashrus of turkey is a complicated issue.

See the article at the above URL for a detailed discussion of this issue.

YL






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151126/4132d038/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion?
> : Who holds such a thing?

> For a geir qatan, non-rejection of mitzvos about becoming a gadol/ah is
> qabbalas ol mitzvos. Kesuvos 11a

Only if converting without his parents, and al daas beis din rather
than al daas his father.


> So that's not really the question. Perhaps it's one of whether
> you aree with RAD whe he wrote on 11/26/2015 9:17 am:
> : >Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is
> : >thus considered an independent convert...
>
> The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether
> the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew.

I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question.


> See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6.

Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such
a child is able to object.


-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> R'Zev Sero wrote:
>> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her
>> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her
>> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of
>> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda
>> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she
>> could be executed, but either she intended to break
>> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she
>> originally intended to abandon her gods but later
>> backslid.

> My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention
> to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all.

> This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I
> don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count
> as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is
> human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some
> failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance.

Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a
case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in
the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because
she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that
matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do
this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong.

As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited
verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we
*expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and
break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to";
rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if
you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this
then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you
skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely.


On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote:
> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before?

There was no switch.  It's de'oraisa.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name


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



_______________________________________________
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.)