Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 023

Saturday, October 17 1998

• Re: Birchas HaChodesh Tishrey
• Re: glatt kosher
• Re: glatt kosher
• Re: chuma- 100 kolos of shofar
• Ethics & Halchah
• Re: Kulos v'Chumros
• Re: Ethics & Halchah
• Re: Avodah V2 #22
• Re: Avodah V2 #22 Missing pieces
• Re: Avodah V2 #22 proverbially speaking
• Re: Chlha Moed & Shaving
• Mehadrin min HaMehdrin - Cause and Effect
• Re: Mesorah & Minhag
• Re: Avodah V2 #22
• Re: Ponim chadashos - Not What You Think!
• Re: In the Spirit of Inclusionism
• Re: Ethics & Halchah
• Re: dateline questions

Richard Wolpoe wrote:        

<< 
The problem with bentching chodesh tishre could be its implications on our
calendar
>>

Anotherreasonwe do not bentch Rosh Chodesh Tishrey could be the understanding
of the pasuk, "Tik'u bachodesh shofar bakeseh l'yom chagenu"  We blow shofar
on a Rosh Chodesh that is "hidden" by the fact that it is another holiday.  In
fact, other than as a passing reference to olas hachodesh, we do not mention
the idea of Rosh Chodesh at all on Rosh HaShana.

That in itself is an interesting question: why not mention Rosh Chodesh on
Rosh HaShana?  I think one possible answer is that Rosh Chodesh was given
l'chapara, as we say in Ata Yatzarta ( mussaf of Shabbos Rosh Chodesh ).  On
Rosh HaShana we do not ask forgiveness for our sins.  In fact, many have a
minhag to to say the first Avinu Malkeynu aloud ( or at all ) because it
mentions chatanu l'fanecha.  Would we stress the fact that Rosh HaShana was
also Rosh Chodesh, we would be introducing our averos into Rosh HaShana, which
is something we try to avoid.

Eliyahu

Richard Wolpoe wrote:

<<
     I don't think of Glatt Kosher as a chumro anymore.  I think of it as 
     the PSAK of the Beis Yoseph, and I think it's a practical thing not to 
     exclude those who "religioulsy" follow his Psak hahalocho.  So as a 
     common denominator, Glatt makes sense because it can be eaten by Beit 
     Ysof people and Remo people.  As an intrinsic chumro it means little to 
     me.  I am quite satisfied to follow rabbeinu Remo lechumor or lekulo.  
     Only I recongized that it's not practical to have separate 
     slaughterhouses for Ashkenazim and Sephardim.  
>>

Glatt kosher, at least as it is currently manifested in America is quite
distressing.  Bais Yosef glatt means no sirchos at all, totally smooth.
Currently, there are many different definitions of glatt.  I have had to
advise my balabatim who are S'fardim to not eat the regular glatt sold in most
butchers, because to them it is not glatt, and therefore not kosher.  Rather,
they must look for what is sold as "Bais Yosef" glatt, as that is the only
true glatt.

My grandfather, zt"l, remarked one time that he would sooner eat non-glatt for
his own hashgacha than glatt of someone else.  He based it on practical
experience.  In the largest slaughterhouse in Elizabeth many different groups
came to shecht.  The two groups that had glatt as well as non-glatt had about
30-35% glatt.  The groups that had ONLY glatt had a glatt rate of over 55%.
The animals came from the same pool, so statistically there should not have
been such a great discrepancy.  My grandfather said, "Maybe they are checking
the glatt, and forgetting to check the kosher".  Of course he was kidding, but
nonetheless, he felt that their standard of glatt was not as strict as it
should be.

The problem today is that with the overwhelming use of glatt-only meat, those
who go into hashgacha of non-glatt meats might not always have the highest
standards. 

Another related issue is what to do if confronted with a situation of non-
glatt meat.  For example, if invited to a meal and you find out that you were
just served non-glatt meat.  Assuming that it came from a reputable source, I
feel that the issur of embarrassing the host and hostess outweighs the chumra
of glatt and that one should eat the meat, rather than put the hosts in an
uncomfortable situation.  Of course, if there is a  veal or lamb option, which
must be glatt according to all opinoins, or a chicken option, the difficulty
could be averted.  But the lo taaseh associated with malbin p'ney chavero
outweighs the chumra of glatt, at least to my thinking.  For a s'faradi,
obviously, this would not be the case, as for them non-glatt is non-kosher.

Eliyahu

Eliyahu Teitz points out the following:

> outweighs the chumra of glatt, at least to my thinking.  For a s'faradi,
> obviously, this would not be the case, as for them non-glatt is non-kosher.


Something just occurred to me when reading this last sentence. If in fact
non-glatt is non-kosher for sefaradim, then am I allowed to eat at an
Ashkenazi household? Someplace I know I can trust the kashrut in all
respects except for the fact that they don't keep halak. So presumably
their utensils are "tref", no?


I'm not asking for p'sak, just discussion.


---Sam

Richard Wolpoe wrote:

<<
     I'm also not sure about 100 kolos as a chumro - I see it more of a 
     MINHOG.  To me a chumro would imply blowing the shofar in such a way 
     as to do shitas, plone and then shitas ploni (yes I am aware of the 
     Shvorim-Teruah controversies).  Ok we ARE stuck with certain chumros.  
     Anyway, I still see this as a minhog, and we need go no further.
>>

Actually, 100 kolos is just minhag.  We blow the 30 initial kolos to resolve
the different shittos.  I was reading a sefer over Simchas Torah, on Minhagey
Ashkenaz, written by a rav in Eretz Yisrael whose shul follows German
minhagim.  He takes different issues and presents a full anaysis of sources
from the geonim onward.

He has a chapter on the kolos and how many we should blow during mussaf.  His
conclusion, and the way his shul blows ( and he is highly regarded in the
"yeshivishe" circles in EY ) is to blow 30 before mussaf, and tashra"t for
malchuyos, tasha"t for zichronos, and Tara"t for shofros, and that's it.
Nothing else.  Not after mussaf, no 100 kolos.

This certainly makes the job alot easier for baaley t'kiya.

Eliyahu 

I never understood the opinion of those who insist that there is no ethics
beyond halachah. Aside from "lifnim mishuras hadin", which has already been
raised, what about "menuval birshus haTorah"? Doesn't this concept require a
definition of neveilah that isn't spelled out in any (other) halachos?

To reiterate a point I made more than once before, both Mussar and Chassidus
(which even makes the idea the basis of the name it chose for itself) teach of
an ethic behind halachah, and the need to express this ethic in extra-halachic
ways.

However, a non-halachic ethic can be of two flavors: based in
reverse-engineering one from halachah, or one that is orthogonal to halachah
(which in today's zeitgeist would probably be humanist). Put another way: the
difference between an ethic beyond halachah, and one aside from halachah.

I have real problems with the latter. Orthogonal lines cross, which means that
there are going to be times when halachah and one's sense of ethics conflict.
This would have the unpalatable implication that one would have to act while
feeling that Hashem asked him to do something unethical!

The problem arises in that the two classes have a very blurry border. Many
different systems of ethics can be derived from halachah. If we follow Hirsch
in viewing established halachah as experimental data points, many different
lines can be drawn through the plot. In which case, there are going to be
differing shuros that one stands lifnim.

How does one determine which ethic to follow? Doesn't this end up a subjective
decision, only differing from our first option in the range of alternatives?
For that matter, throw in "vi'ahavta lirei'acha" or "don't do to others..."
and you could argue a tannaitic source for supposing that the underlying ethic
is humanistic.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5951 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 16-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In a message dated 98-10-15 02:52:58 EDT, you write:

<< 
 	There are problems with "picking" poskim just to rely on their kulos, 
 but those problems affect only the individual who does this, and those 
 individuals do not present any danger to k'lal Yisroel.  On the other hand, 
 we are all paying a very high price -- materially and spiritually -- 
 because of the pressure to embrace chumros.
 
 Jeffrey I. Zuckerman
  >>
I think the desire to embrace chumrot is sometimes sociological in nature.  I
don't see a problem with individuals doing so as long as they understand that
they are chumrot and don't pressure others to reach their level(which may be
different but not higher). I would liken this situation to someone who feels
they need to make nedarim or gedarim because of their own nature(eg one might
not engage in a competition which they are fairly sure to win because of their
nature to be egotistical).

As to why the rush to chumra-in the words of  R'(Dr.) Chaim Soleveichik
writing of the loss of mimetic transmission-"It is this rupture in the
traditional religious sensibilities that underlies much of the transformation
of traditional Orthodoxy.  Zealous to continue traditional Judaism unimpaired,
religious Jews seek to ground their new emerging spirituality less on a now
unattainable intimacy with Him, than on an intimacy with His Will, avidly
eliciting Its intricate demands and saturating their daily lives with Its
exactations. Having lost the touch of his presence, they seek solace in the
pressure of His Yoke."(emphasis mine)

Shabbat Shalom
Joel

In a message dated 98-10-16 12:33:17 EDT, you write:

<< 
 However, a non-halachic ethic can be of two flavors: based in
 reverse-engineering one from halachah, 

I'm not sure I would categorize this as non-halachic and I believe this is
what the Rav did


or one that is orthogonal to halachah
 (which in today's zeitgeist would probably be humanist). Put another way: the
 difference between an ethic beyond halachah, and one aside from halachah.
-mi

 >>
interestingly the vatican released an encyclical today  (fides et ratio)
dealing with the relationship between faith and reason(they can't be
orthoginal is the bottom line I think)

Shabbat Shalom
Joel Rich

     >> am not a historian, but the theory is tantalizing, particulary to
     myself, as I learn and teach Daf Yomi Yerushalmi!
     
     Nevertheless, an apparent flaw in the theory is that more than anyone 
     else
     the Rambam had a proclivity to pasken like the Y-mi. If I recall
     correctly, this was a tradition that came from the Beis Medrash of
     Rabbeinu Chananel. So, if that is the case, if anything, Sefardim 
     should
     have a more Y-mi oriented mesorah.<<
     
     
     There are a LOT of flaws with this theory by the way.
     
     Let me point out the basic point, what appears to be a twisted peshat 
     MIGHT be an attempt at reconciling an external source.  I believe IMHO 
     Rashi does this in Chumahs a lot, i.e. stretching peshat here so that 
     it does not lead to a stiro there.
     
     And the corrollary is that the poskim who did this were often aware 
     that the local peshat implied otherwise; they were more converned with 
     getting the true Psak or Minhog accross adn did not wish to leave the 
     text stand as is as a contradiction.  IMHO this has led to a traditon 
     of READING INTO things.  What the professor was saying was that they 
     had a leigitimate Mesroah to drive it, and were not trying to make 
     startling chiddushim.
     
     Furthermore, I have a friend and former chavrusa who teaches a Mishno 
     Bruror shiru and we BOTH concur that halocho has many hidden agenda.  
     let me illustrate by way of Mayim acharonim:
     1) Al pi Bavli, this is based upon Melach Sedomis
     2) Al Pi tosfos, foget about it; Melach Sedmois is "extinct".
     3) Al Pi the Gro, you shouldn't forget about it,the Gemoro menat the 
     din independent of Melach sedomis
     4) Al Pi the Aruch hashulchan the Melach Sedomis IS gone, and Mayim 
     ahcharon is no longer a CHVOVA, but "bleibs" a mitzvo.  And what 
     mitzvo might that be?  Well jsut like you washto daven, you should 
     wash to bench, particluarly if your hands got greasy.
     
     We might conclude that the Washing to Bench MIGHT have been the hidden 
     agenda all along and melach Sedomis was some "straw man".  Or 
     something along these lines.
     
     The danger in the hideen agenda theory is coming up with ideas that 
     might turn Halacho on its head (I think the Gro sensed that very same 
     danger!)
     
     The yershalmi as the underlying source of Minhag Ahskanazi is indeed 
     problematic.  And although I studied history the period from about 500 
     CE to about 1500 CE is my weakest era.
     
     shabbat shalom
     Rich Wolpoe
            

     >>If this is accurate, the Rambam, at least in theory, views the Bavli 
     as the final word.
     
     In practice, he may often paskin like the yerushalmi. On this I can't 
     comment.
     
     Ari<<
     
     Several ideas:
     
     1)  it's always been fun to speculate on the Rambam's sources.
     
     2)  Some of his stiros to our Bavli lie in his edition (apparently 
     they have contempaorary Spanish manuscripts that occasionally read 
     liek the Rambam and NOT like the Vilna shas).
     
     3)  While the Rambam might pasken like a yerushlmi ove a Bavli, it 
     might be that it had nothing to do with the Yerushalmi per se, but 
     that there was another source  (I don't know a Tosefta or something 
     Gaonic - I can't say for sure) and that OTHER source might either have 
     disappeared ro nobody has made the connection so it APPEARS that the 
     Rambam is favcring the Yer. over the Bav.
     
     As I pointed out previously, I agree with YGB that the specifis of the 
     theory have a lot of holes, I do think there is a tamtiz of truth in 
     that our existing texts do NOT tell the entire Mesorah story as known 
     by the Rishonim.  And that's why we are often puzzled by the apparent 
     contradicitons....  Underlying the Rishonim was probably a lot of 
     Torah shebal peh that did not make either Talmud or at least the 
     current editions we still have.
     
     What we often do in yeshivos is try to fit Rishonim into the known 
     texts.  this is ok as far as lomdus goes.  Intuitviely, I think we 
     would see the Rishonim in a simpler more straightforward light IF we 
     could only reconstruct ALL of the pieces they had way back then.  
     
     Back to the Mishno.  I suspect sure Rebbe rejected many braisos 
     consiously, not because he was unaware of them.  If we had the entire 
     universe of both Mishnaic and rejected Mishnayot that Rebbe had, a lot 
     of things  would be clearer.  My understanding is that even the Gemore 
     only had a piecemeal collection of Braisos. 
     
     
        
      

     >>Subject: Irvuv
     
     >     chodesh but both of its days are counted as part of the new 
     month 
     >of Tishre, instead of spanning the end of ellul and the begining of 
     Tishre.  This might be the REAL peshat in kdei l'arbeiv.
             How do you explain l'arvev es **hasoton**?
     
     Gershon<<
     
     I'm not sure, I think that the Rabbi of the Sutton Place Synaoguge 
     might know! <smile>
     
     so nu if you read my poin re: Melach Sedomis, you may realize that 
     Chazal might be speaking in some kind of metaphor.
     
     and I do not take my drush as that serious, rather as food for 
     thought.
     
     I'll give a cute story.  One Rov on his death bed was asked to name a 
     successor - he replied Maybe Rebbe Meir.  the esrach committee went to 
     find this famous Rebbe Meir and faileed until a Talmid chocho (I 
     forget who) said, you ddin't chap what the later Rov was saying.  He 
     didn't mean to look for a Rebbe meir, he said Maybe Rebbe Meri and 
     meant maybe the halocho is like Rebbe Meri by chosseshin ;lemeiuto. 
     adn taht the late Rov was hoping to survive despite being a goseis.  
     The search committee realized that this indeed was the worthy 
     successor.
     
     chevro my point is that we tend to take several expressions literally 
     when they are meant metaphorically.  personally how does ANYONE 
     udnerstand l'arbeiv es hasoton.  If God is learning to get wiser 
     (according to yenner Reform Rabbi) I would guess that the Soton has 
     figured out soem of OUR tricks by now. so nu, if the Gemoro realized 
     it could be me'arbivin its day, don't you thinkg the Soton learned 
     something during the last 1400+ years???  Kdei L'arbeiv probably had 
     either a metaphroic meaning OR was a legalistic term (eg habeus 
     corpus) that was not to be taken literally.
     
     Shabbat shalom
     Richard Wolpoe
     
     
     
        
     
     
      

In v2n17, Richard Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:
:      Which heakens backto chasimas hasmishno.  To me the Ikkur Golus we 
:      have is the rigidity of halocho withou the Beis haMikdosh and lishkas 
:      hagozis.

I'm not sure the lishkas hagazis' effect would be entirely to increase
mobility of halachah. To some extent, breaks in masorah causes questions to
reopen. Do we always re-resolve them in the same way as the original?

If the Sanhedrin were a continuous body, such breaks would largely be a thing
of the past. (And an artifact of bad record-keeping.)

In another post, same digest:
:      Again, if a valid Sanhdrin were around it could say:
:      The ikar ha din is lchovod yomtov....
:      it coudl say, the ikkar is to avoid shaving...

Or, it could insist the ikkar was to avoid shaving, but annul the original
g'zeirah. (Assuming gadol mimenu.)

***

About who wrote the mishnah... The word "mishnah" means three things: 1- a
style of learning, where halachos are encapsulated into easily memorizable
form; 2- such instances of (1) found in Rebbe's compilation; 3- the
compilation as a whole.

B'rachos 5a states that the halachos studied in mishnah(1) are miSinai, as
well as the means of expanding them to a fully applicable system (g'mara, in
the parallel sense of the word). I'm not sure why one would need to say it's
asserting more than that.

Doros HaRishonim could be referring to mishnah(1). They set up schools of
memorizers. An attractive thought is that this is part of the "kiymu vikiblu"
of the Purim story. It's unlikely it is insisting that Ezra said the words
"Amar Rabbi Akiva".

R' Akiva wrote the standardized forms studied by his Talmidim, logically
enough, including R' Me'ir, and from him to Rebbe. OTOH, some of the names
post-date R' Akiva. So, it is impossible that all of mishna(2) were written by
R' Akiva in their final forms, never mind The Mishna (i.e. mishna(3)). Perhaps
most of them are R' Akiva's, or the Rebbe's starting point were R' Akiva's
forms. As I said earlier "stam mishnah k'Rav Meir" argues that Rebbe had final
say on defining mishna(2).

***

I'd like to post a speculation about the Shulchan Aruch's rule for p'sak. R'
Yosef Karo's primary rebbe was a maggid. Because of "lo bashamayim hi", this
rebbe and things learned by this means have little halachic authority. Perhaps
the SA follows rigid rules because the SA doubted the role his own Torah ought
to play in the development of halachah? (An obvious flaw with this speculation
is that if he harbored such doubts, why did the Bet Yosef think he was the one
to attempt the SA? But I'm curious to hear the chevra's reactions.)

In v2n19, Daniel Eidensohn talks about the SA "ignoring the traditional
approach of trying to Truth". As a halachic pluralist, I have to disagree.
There is no single Truth for the SA or anyone else to find. The question is
the means of mapping "eilu va'eilu" to produce a single p'sak.

I disagree with his suggestion that the MB takes a strict majority. He takes a
strict majority of those sources he quotes. But that is a statement about the
Chafeitz Chaim's rules of who to quote. Also, we find far more often that the
MB doesn't reach a clear p'sak. (Not to reopen that can of worms.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5951 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 16-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

     Dear List,
        It's a LONG way to Chanuka, but it is the next Holiday...
     
     The Minhog of Sepharad is 1 candle per night be bayit. This 
     corresponds to Tosfos I believe.
     
     The Ashkenaz Minhog lights 1 candle per night per male member of the 
     household.  This corresponds to the Rambam.
     
     Now let me ask you:
     Did the Remo choose the Rambam and the Beit Yosef choose Tosfos
     
     OR
     
     were the Minhogim pre-existing; and that in this one unusual case it 
     happened that the Sepharad do like Tosfos and the Ashkena do like the 
     Rambmam? AND perhaps the shitos of Tosfos and the Rambam were not the 
     underlying cause at all rather they simply co-incided with the 
     Minhogim of the "other camp"?
     

In v2n18,
: So by that understanding, the sfeika deyoma did not just take on 
: a life of its own, but was lechatchilah part of the fixed calendar:
: one day in E"Y, two days in galut.

My own thought. The need for preserving SD is not for the sake of the safeik,
but the calendar. "Minhag avoseihem" may refer to the more general notion of a
calendar that required ri'iyah, and the relationship between man and the
calendar. S'feika diyoma is preserved as a reminder that the current fixed
calendar is non-ideal.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5951 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 16-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

>         Furthermore, I have a friend and former chavrusa who teaches a Mishno
>
>      Bruror shiru and we BOTH concur that halocho has many hidden agenda.
>      let me illustrate by way of Mayim acharonim:
>      1) Al pi Bavli, this is based upon Melach Sedomis
>      2) Al Pi tosfos, foget about it; Melach Sedmois is "extinct".
>      3) Al Pi the Gro, you shouldn't forget about it,the Gemoro menat the
>      din independent of Melach sedomis
>      4) Al Pi the Aruch hashulchan the Melach Sedomis IS gone, and Mayim
>      ahcharon is no longer a CHVOVA, but "bleibs" a mitzvo.  And what
>      mitzvo might that be?  Well jsut like you washto daven, you should
>      wash to bench, particluarly if your hands got greasy.
>
>      We might conclude that the Washing to Bench MIGHT have been the hidden
>      agenda all along and melach Sedomis was some "straw man".  Or
>      something along these lines.
>
>      shabbat shalom
>      Rich Wolpoe


There is no hidden agenda with regard to mayim achronim. The gemara (either
Brachot 53b or Chullin 105), based on the pasuk of "viheyisem k'doshim" gives
as the reason for mayim achronim that one should not bentch with dirty hands.
Thus, both reasons, clean hands and melech sdomi, are in the Bavli.

Ari

In v2n20, R' YGB writes:
: a beautiful explanation in the Rogatchover on how Shabbos is Ponim
: Chadashos. He says that the Seven Days of Mishteh for Chassan v'Kalla area
: a "nekuda" (single unit of time) not a "shetach" (combination of many
: units). As such, some hischadshus is necessary to repeat the berachos. But
: Shabbos by its very nature is an hischadshus in time, and thus obviates
: the need for ponim chadashos.

Rabbi Nachman Cohen proposed the exact opposite definition of Shabbos. In a
line still stuck in my head since High School, he defines it as, "Shabbos is
an island in time which is the eternal present". As I understand it, his view
was that Shabbos is defined by a lack of [external] chidush.

This is certainly in line with Hirsch's definition of melachah as "creative
work", which appears to stress Shabbos's nature as a day without change -- an
attempt to halt external progress.

Internal progress, OTOH...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5951 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 16-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In v2n20, R' YGB quotes a hesped for R' Shlomo Carlbach zt"l:
:    "Carlebach-style" concerts and Friday night prayer groups are the rage
: in yeshivot and religious centers, sprouting like mushrooms after a deep
: rain, drawing young and old.

One such Friday night minyan started in Passaic, although we call it "The
Singing Minyan" as Reb Shlomo's name would probably be political death for
the minyan. For me, and while it's still new, the minyan has major value. (To
the extent that I'm considering puting a "How To" guide on the AishDas web
site.)

The basic idea is that more of each perek is sung, and the singing tends to
continue beyond the end of the words. Instead of the chazan just giving a tune
to the last pasuk or two, the whole kehilah is singing along for long enough
times to get "into" the tune.

Frankly, the first time I attended, I had to actively try not to feel "weird",
or take the mental attitude of a spectator. Once I did allow myself to be a
participant, it rapidly became important to me. During the week, I find the
tune and subsequently the mood, floating back through my head.

I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts the other subscriber who attended
once. I assume his reaction was somewhat different.

:   "If you want to raise a man out of the mud," Reb Shlomo would quote his
: namesake Rabbi Shlomo of Karlin, "you have to go all the way down yourself
: into the mud, and then pull him and yourself out into the light". 

I could use more explanation of this idea. But then, we never got down to the
bottom of the whole aveirah lishmah issue. This particular quote unfortunately
sounds to me very Sabbatean.

But once I understand that whole idea, I have a problem with this approach to
kiruv. If you get on your knees to pull someone out of the mud, you limit how
high you can pull. If you look at R' Shlomo's successes -- yes, they are far
more observant than they were, and he reached people unlikely to be reached in
other ways. But for the rest: how many got altogether out of the mud in
comparison to other systems they could have been exposed to instead?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5951 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 16-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

 On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Micha Berger wrote:

> I never understood the opinion of those who insist that there is no ethics
> beyond halachah. Aside from "lifnim mishuras hadin", which has already been
> raised, what about "menuval birshus haTorah"? Doesn't this concept require a
> definition of neveilah that isn't spelled out in any (other) halachos?
> 
I'm not sure what is hard to understand. If we look at the Ramban in
kedoshim (the source of a menuval birshus hatorah) he, based on Toras
Cohanim, is very clear that
the chidush of the pasuk of kedoshim teheu is not to be a menuval etc. He
then explains using Chazal and pasukim what is considered a menuval--isn't
this considered being spelled out in halacha. He even says that the name
perushim came from the idea of being parush from menuval acts--even when
muttar. It would seem that the perameters of menuval... are as spelled out
in chazal as much as any other mitzva, which makes sense because we need
to know how to fulfill the mitzva of kedoshim teheu. Nowhere in the Ramban
does he suggest his own ideas of what is considered a menuval, he strictly
brings Chazal and pesukim. Can you explain why you don't feel that theses
ethics that are found in chazal and pesukim are part of halacha.  
Why do you consider these beyond halacha, why isn't kedoshim teheu as
explained by Chazal part of halacha.
Elie Ginsparg

In message , EDTeitz@aol.com writes
>
>Actually, if someone started out to sea early in the week  on a long voyage,
>they could traverse the date line on Shabbos without being mechalel Shabbos.

Only if you assume (as you do below) that the status of the day changes.
If you assume, as I do that the status of the day does not change on
crossing the imaginary line, only on reaching port then you would never
traverse from Friday into shabbas, or vice versa, without being mechalel
shabbas.

>And there is no need for pikuach nefesh consideration to do this.  Also, why
>should one keep the dateline until arrival at the new location?  If one
>crosses the imaginary line, why should the status of the day not change as
>well?

This issue comes up a lot in relation to cruises, which often traverse
the various datelines.  My understanding is that the psak that has been
given (universally, as far as I know, but maybe somebody will know
differently) is that you ignore having crossed the dateline until you
hit port.  That means that you may well end up keeping shabbas on a
cruise on what is now officially Sunday (or Friday) depending which way
you are going.

I vaguely remember  being show a source from which this was derived, and
how it was derived, but it was a long time ago (perhaps somebody out
there could refresh my memory). This is by no means a new question, once
intercontinental ship travel became possible the question already became
relevant (ie several centuries ago).  This psak was then followed in the
case of aeroplanes, so that the psak, certainly as i have always been
told it, is that you keep eg a fast as per the place you left until you
arrive (based on the ship and shabbas ruling).

However the questions that I raised (and the taharas mishpacha one) have
only arisen really in the last few decades, once it became possible (and
people began) to fly intercontinentally on a regular basis (it is only
very recently that you could fly fast enough to physically be able to
have sheva brochas in Jewish Centers on two sides of the various
datelines).

>
>Eliyahu
>
Regards

Chana
-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]