Avodah Mailing List

Volume 43: Number 1

Wed, 01 Jan 2025

• 1. Re: Concordance of Onkelos (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Kalah NaAh VeChasudah - Midvar Sheker (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Jewish customs by R Dr Zvi Ron (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Kalah NaAh VeChasudah - Midvar Sheker (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 5. levels of effort needed above pure din (Joel Rich)
• 6. Mesora? (Joel Rich)
• 7. Re: Kalah NaAh VeChasudah - Midvar Sheker (Micha Berger)

On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 08:09:19PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> Last week I noticed the word Aluf appear many times near the end of
> Vayishlach...

I think aluf is also etymologically related to "elef" and the name of the
first letter (and thus to oxen?).

Also, aluf is both the tribe and its leader. There *MIGHT* be totalitarian
leadership implications.

> This week, I saw the same thing about many of the Egyptians who Yosef came
> into contact with. They are described/titled as "s'ris", but Onkelos
> translates it consistently as some form of the word "rav"....

But in Leshon Chazal a saris is definitely one who was castrated or
rendered impotent. Sereisei chamah etc...

Thinking out loud: What may have happened is that Bavel, Paras and/or
Madai (I think we can rule out Yavan and Edom) who subjugated us before
the develpment of Mishnaic Hebrew... well maybe one of them only entrusted
delegated authority to eunochs and so the term for second-tier authority
became the word for a eunoch.


Personally, what I find most interesting about Unqelus is that he assumes
idiom in the same places the Rambam would. So here you have a tannaitic
era Rationalist whose understanding was so accepted, it became part of
a din deRabbanan -- according to the Tur, le'iquva! The gemara Megillah 3a)
even describes it as a recreation of the Arammaic version of the Torah
that was almost canonized (!) in Ezra's day.

So Unqelus was vehemently accepted as authoritative by Chazal. Meaning,
the gemara was willing to attribute a Rationalist Theology to Ezra. And
to mandate inculcating that theology among the masses.

Throws a real monkey-wrench in academic studies that emphasize the
newness of Rishonim's conception of the Divine in contrast to Chazal's.

And now that I went on a tangent about the acceptance of a Theology that
is consistent with the [Greek] Philosophers, I will ironically close by
wishing you all

A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life isn't about finding yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   Life is about creating yourself.
Author: Widen Your Tent               - George Bernard Shaw
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

Rather than reply to RMGR directly, I was going to refer him to my 
source, R Yitzchak Berowitz's Center for Jewish Values and their mar'eh
meqomos booklets titled "Genveivas Da'as" and "Midevar Sheqer Tirchaq",
respectively. But it appears that since I was in a chubaurah learning
these sheets, all the booklets were bound into prined volumes and taken
offline.

What I can find while all my property is in a container was someone
from R Melameid, who summarizes (Liquim vol 2, 3:1, in "Hi' Geneivas
Daas) that there are two differences between these issurim:

1- Sheqer is a distortion of facts, while geneivas da'as is manipulating
   somoene to aid your relationship.
2- Sheqer can only be via obvert communication, while G"D would include
   behaving toward them in a misleading way.

Neither of these stuck in my memory from the CJV mar'eh meqomos sheets.

Most of the examples I gave were from the gemara, with the exception
of the Medrash explaining how, with the use of a comma, Yaaqov didn't
overly lie. Which gives us an interesting point of contrast: in the
case of Sarah's laughter, Hashem told half the truth. At the end of
Bereishis, the brothers tell Yoseif an outright fabrication. (Given
Chazal's assumption that Yaaqov didn't actually say such a thing in an
incident that isn't in the chumash.)

It is BM 87a, not me, that talks about leshanos es ha'emes mipenei
darkei Shalom but not to outright lie (if possible to achieve shalom
that way). As in the machloqes about keitzad meraqdin.

And is consistent with the aforementioned medras about Yaaqov, even if
there the primary benficiary of the peace was Yaaqov himself, and not
a third party.

> R Micha also posted - there are 2 issurim.
> geneivas da'as - Leaving out elements of the truth, or presenting the truth
> in a manner you know will be misunderstood.
> midevar sheqer tirchaq - since you knew what you meant and it was true.
> 
> Please expand upon these because I do not properly understand; re Midvar
> Shekker Tirchak - the Halacha, based on the Gemara Shavuos 31a, prohibits
> presenting oneself to intimidate a defendant thereby pushing him to admit
> the truth...

Sources that invoke midevar sheqer tirchaq in situations outside of court
or even anyone getting harmed altogether:
- Ritva, Kesuvos 17a "yashbichenu"
- Mordechai, end of MQ #933
- Chareidim ch. 4 mitzvah 26

- And maybe Rabbeinu Yonah, although Shaarei Tehuvah could be going
  lifinim mishuras hadin -- but see shaar 3, #178-186. He has a very
  long discussion of lies that aren't about harm.

It would seem that we learn things about court from the issur, but it
isn't necessarily so that the issur is limited to those applications.

An enlightening and enjoyable Chanukah!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   "I am thought about, therefore I am -
Author: Widen Your Tent      my existence depends upon the thought of a
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch

On Wed, Dec 25, 2024 at 06:34:17AM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> Worthwhile reading -- Jewish customs by R Dr Zvi Ron. Deeply researched in
> both halachic and secular scholarship, my general take is that one needs
> both in order to understand the likely evolution of many minhagim.
> Apparently historical realia make a difference...

I might go further and say the same about some gezeiros. Why was there a
gezeira against X but not Y? I think sometimes the only answer is that
historically, people accidentally doing X happened and the Sanhedrin
needed to put a stop to it. Y just never became a common problem.

But back to the topic... My usual list of minhagim that look like they
were influenced by the cultures we were living among.

Let's start with inyana deyoma, Chanukah:

- Frying riccotto cheese into fritters was a common seasonal thing in
  Italy before Italian Jews made it a standard part of Chanukah, or it
  evolved into the pareve and cheaper potato latke.

- In Through the Looking Glass, Alice was spinning around and the White
  Queen asked her, "Are you a child or a teetoum?" A teetotum being a
  four sided top with Latin letters on the side. (Although later, versions
  with different numbers of sides and markings were also called "teetotums".)
  The name from from the bed side to land on "T", meaning "totum" -- take
  them all!

- Also from Italy: Purim costumes. Same season as the Catholic Carnival,
  right before Lent.

- Milchigs on Shavuos may be derivative of Wittesmontag or maybe has a
  common cause.  When the cows have been eating fresh grass long enough
  for there to be an abundance and higher quality of milk, a community
  with dairy farms would likely want to celebrate the holiday with some
  of the good stuff!

I don't think any of these minhagim would exist if we didn't happen
to live among people doing similarly. And then rabbanim found a
lesson to take from common practice, so that it makes the jump from
fashion to minhag.

An enlightening and enjoyable Chanukah!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Worrying is like a rocking chair:
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   it gives you something to do for a while,
Author: Widen Your Tent      but in the end it gets you nowhere.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

R Micha, I am still unsure of your meaning
Is it relevant that YaAkov is arranging a self-serving deception,
he WANTS his father to reach the wrong conclusion
in order to prevent Eisav getting the Beracha and in order to gain the
Beracha for himself?

Is that not significantly different from Kalah NaAh VeChasudah where the
intent is to make someone happy and to promote a harmonious relationship?

Keitzad Merakdin - is that permitted by the Shadchan who stands to increase
the size of his/her payment?
&&&&&&

Is GnDaAs an Issur DeOraysa?
I think not, but MiSheker is DeOraysa, no?
Does this discussion also not intersect with Lifnei Iveir?
&&&&&

1- Sheqer is a distortion of facts, while geneivas da'as is manipulating
   somoene to aid your relationship.
2- Sheqer can only be via obvert communication, while G"D would include
   behaving toward them in a misleading way.

 As for suggesting that YaAkov didn't overtly lie - lets put that to the
test; if you bought a house and were deceived by this type of a ruse, would
you say it was a MeKach TaUs? I suspect most people would, dont you agree?
 There is no parallel to a deception that hurts no-one and seeks to promote
harmony.

As for the brothers crude and truly incredible [as in being most unlikely
to be believed] lie that YaAkov instructed that Yosef forgive the sin of
his brothers, that was truly a self-serving deception and an outright lie -
may a Torah institution deceive in order to get more money to teach more
Toirah?

I am unsure why you reference the Gemara BM 87a, Devei R Yishmael taught -
Gadol HaShalom ShaAfilu HKBH Shina Bo Was there something vague that you
were trying to clarify?

BTW can anyone suggest why the word AFILU is used and what it means
EVEN HKBH 'distorted' in order to promote peace
implying that we most certainly ought to 'distort' in order to promote
peace.
How is that a KVeChomer?

Peripherally, the Gemara does NOT note that Sara became young again as in
capable of bearing children, as Chazal note she became a Niddah and AAvinu
did therefore not serve the bread,
rather, the Gemara focuses on the fact that she became beautiful, her
wrinkles disappeared and her skin was rejuvenated.
IOWords, she became physically attractive and therefore seems to be
reflecting,
whats the point in me being beautiful again if my master is too old?
Besides, AAvinu did not look at Sara, "I just happened to see you and
noticed that you are a beautiful woman and the Egyptians will kill me in
order to enjoy your beauty"

We might also ask, what was AAvinu thinking when HKBH told this white lie,
she said she is too old, when AAvinu knew she had rejuvenated and became
impure, and therefore no pita for the meal?
&&&&&&&&

The Mordechai MKatan #933 clearly says one must not deceive, his focus is
that one ought not break bad news bluntly but in a roundabout manner,
How is my father? is answered MY father, or Pelonis father is ok.

I think the reference to Chareidim is 12:26,
he notes that it is a Mitzvah, probably meaning a good thing rather than
one of the Taryag or even a DeRabbanan
&&&&&&&

Making a distinction between in the Beis Din or outside the BD
is not really convincing
Besides, MdVShTirchak looks to be a DeOraysa
whereas GnDaAs seems to be at the most a Derabannan.

I have yet to look more carefully at your reference to Rabbeinu Yonah


Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837


On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 9:43?PM Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> Rather than reply to RMGR directly, I was going to refer him to my
> source, R Yitzchak Berowitz's Center for Jewish Values and their mar'eh
> meqomos booklets titled "Genveivas Da'as" and "Midevar Sheqer Tirchaq",
> respectively. But it appears that since I was in a chubaurah learning
> these sheets, all the booklets were bound into prined volumes and taken
> offline.
>
> What I can find while all my property is in a container was someone
> from R Melameid, who summarizes (Liquim vol 2, 3:1, in "Hi' Geneivas
> Daas) that there are two differences between these issurim:
>
> 1- Sheqer is a distortion of facts, while geneivas da'as is manipulating
>    somoene to aid your relationship.
> 2- Sheqer can only be via obvert communication, while G"D would include
>    behaving toward them in a misleading way.
>
> Neither of these stuck in my memory from the CJV mar'eh meqomos sheets.
>
> Most of the examples I gave were from the gemara, with the exception
> of the Medrash explaining how, with the use of a comma, Yaaqov didn't
> overly lie. Which gives us an interesting point of contrast: in the
> case of Sarah's laughter, Hashem told half the truth. At the end of
> Bereishis, the brothers tell Yoseif an outright fabrication. (Given
> Chazal's assumption that Yaaqov didn't actually say such a thing in an
> incident that isn't in the chumash.)
>
> It is BM 87a, not me, that talks about leshanos es ha'emes mipenei
> darkei Shalom but not to outright lie (if possible to achieve shalom
> that way). As in the machloqes about keitzad meraqdin.
>
> And is consistent with the aforementioned medras about Yaaqov, even if
> there the primary benficiary of the peace was Yaaqov himself, and not
> a third party.
>
> > R Micha also posted - there are 2 issurim.
> > geneivas da'as - Leaving out elements of the truth, or presenting the
> truth
> > in a manner you know will be misunderstood.
> > midevar sheqer tirchaq - since you knew what you meant and it was true.
> >
> > Please expand upon these because I do not properly understand; re Midvar
> > Shekker Tirchak - the Halacha, based on the Gemara Shavuos 31a, prohibits
> > presenting oneself to intimidate a defendant thereby pushing him to admit
> > the truth...
>
> Sources that invoke midevar sheqer tirchaq in situations outside of court
> or even anyone getting harmed altogether:
> - Ritva, Kesuvos 17a "yashbichenu"
> - Mordechai, end of MQ #933
> - Chareidim ch. 4 mitzvah 26
>
> - And maybe Rabbeinu Yonah, although Shaarei Tehuvah could be going
>   lifinim mishuras hadin -- but see shaar 3, #178-186. He has a very
>   long discussion of lies that aren't about harm.
>
> It would seem that we learn things about court from the issur, but it
> isn't necessarily so that the issur is limited to those applications.
>
> An enlightening and enjoyable Chanukah!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger                 "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
> http://www.aishdas.org/asp   "I am thought about, therefore I am -
> Author: Widen Your Tent      my existence depends upon the thought of a
> - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20241231/dd93b85f/attachment-0001.htm>

An example of various levels of what chazal may have thought of levels of
effort needed above pure din. I?d love to better understand the threshold
calculations and what they mean in shamayim. A different example might be
going 5 mil for water when the ?requirement? is only to go 4. ?
???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?
??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????
??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???
???? ?????? ????? ???? [??? ??? ?] ????? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??
??? ???? ???????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???????? ?????
???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? [????] ??? ?????? ??? ??
???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???
??? [???] ???? ??? ?????? ??????? [???? ???] ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???
???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?????? [?????]:
Thoughts?
Chodesh tov chanukah sameach bsorot tovot
Joel Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20250101/21aae161/attachment-0001.htm>

From R? A Zivotofsky:
Claim: There is a mesorah on turkey. Ask almost anyone from the older
generation and they will confirm that they and their family and their
community ate turkey without hesitation.
Analysis: I think this is the most persuasive argument for the continued
treatment of turkey as kosher. There is indeed a mesorah and no one
questions its existence. It is not our job to ask our grandparents from
whence the mesorah. We in general rely on the previous generations for all
Jewish traditions, and this one should be no exception. The burden of proof
is on those who want to prohibit turkey rather than on those who want to
maintain its status quo as kosher. Thus, the existence of a mesorah
explains the continued treating of turkey as kosher; it does not explain
the big questions of how and when that mesorah originated. Those are indeed
fascinating questions in the realm of ?history of halacha?, questions for
which I have no satisfactory answer.

Me-Can you reject this claim but still accept the Kuzari argument for
Judaism?s truth?

Chodesh tov chanukah sameach bsorot tovot

joel rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20250101/e28e0aaf/attachment.htm>

On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 11:29:36PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> R Micha, I am still unsure of your meaning
> Is it relevant that YaAkov is arranging a self-serving deception,
> he WANTS his father to reach the wrong conclusion
> in order to prevent Eisav getting the Beracha and in order to gain the
> Beracha for himself?

I am not sure how much of your question was about my position, and how
much questioning what is within the medrash I started with as a
data point.

The medrash, before Rashi, is found in Bereishis Rabba 65:18, Tanchuma
Toledos 10, and the Zohar I 167. (I won't get into the 'before Rashi"
on that last one.)

The whole point of "ani; Eisav beckhorekkha" is to show that he wasn't
actually lying by showing how with creative pausing, the sentence could
have been technically true but misleading.

Radaq ad loc makes a point about Yaaqov being "shanah devaro" rather than
"doveir sheqer". The gemara too, when talking about darkei shalom talks
about shinui, rather than sheqer.

Meaning, the medrash is emphasizing that Yaaqov didn't sin in this pasuq
because the situation was one that permits shinui.

Your point about how can it be permissible since Yaaqov was misleading
in order to getg personal gain isn't addressing my interpretation of the
medrash. The medrash itself is evidence that personal gain doesn't remove
the permissiblity of geneivas daas (but not sheqer) in Yaaqov's situation.

As for what I added:

1- I associated sheqer with midevar sheqer tirchaq, since the word is
right there in the pasuq. At least according to the sources that apply
MDST outside of beis din. (I am not sure all rishonim agree.)

2- As far as I know, this gemara (Yevamos 65) *only* permits shinui
devarim for the purposes of shalom. And so I am leaning into the rishonim
who explain the other gemaros as instances of this rule. "Kalah na'ah
vechasuda" (Yavamos 16) when she doesn't seem that way to the speaker's
tastes is about fostering the new couple's shalom bayis.

When enother gemara (BM 23) gives 3 exceptions: beMesechta, bePuria,
beUshpiza, they too can be explained as instances of shalom. Even when
it's your own anava you are protecting when you only talk about half what
you know, and your own tzeni'us WRT bepuria. And similarly "kalah na'ah
vechasuda" (Yavamos 16) is about fostering the new couple's shalom bayis.

But even if you disagree with what I am now describing as my second point,
you cannot escape that it is Chazal who is saying that the situation
legitimized Yaaqov's shinui devarim and that sheqer in the same situation
would have been a problem.

We could say that this is because
a- the situation inherently doesn't make lying permissible, or
b- only because there was a shinui devarim solution to Yaaqov's problem,
being more outright than necessary in his lying wasn't permissible.

I think thw medrash about how Aharon brought arguing parties together by
lying to each about how the other wants reconciliation means that (a)
is a hava amina. Shalom can permit uttering outright sheqer, but only
when shinui devarim isn't an option.

And so, given 1 (that sheqer is a second issur atop geneivas daas which
derives from "midevar sheqer tirchaq") I wrote about preferably only
violating geneivas daas rather than both issurim, if one can achieve
peace that way.

So, to address your question:

I don't see anything in Yavamos 65 requiring that for the sake of peace
means that it be someone else's peace, or that it must be solely for
that purpose to the exclusion of any other personal advantages.

Because Rivqa and Yaaqov were objectively right that peace (and the
Divine Plan) called for the ruse, the ruse was permissible even though
Yaaqov thereby gained personally as well.

Chodesh tov,
un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life isn't about finding yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   Life is about creating yourself.
Author: Widen Your Tent               - George Bernard Shaw
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF


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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)