Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 008

Friday, March 26 1999

• Re: Modern Orthodoxy
• Re: malchus/shoftim
• Re: gezeiros
• chametz sh-avar alav hapesach
• Halacha as Benchmark of Avodas Hashem
• TB vs. TY
• Re: Where is shabbat?
• Se'uda Sheshlishis b'Pas
• Re: Halacha as Benchmark of Avodas Hashem
• Judaism beyond Halacha
• Seu'dah Shelishit Sources
• Re: Seu'dah Shelishit Sources
• Re: Se'uda Sheshlishis b'Pas
• Re: Seu'dah Shelishit Sources
• Re: Seu'dah Shelishit Sources
• Nullifying Takanos
• [none]
• [none]
• Cholov Stam and Brisk
• Nisbatel and Brisk
• S'euda Shlishis w/o bread
• What is Brisker Derech?
• Halochoh kibasroi - reply.
• Re: Basroi

	See my responses, interspersed below, following your remarks.



	>The thinkers of the movement are those who agree  as to the primacy
of 
	>the Torah in all matters. Their only disagreement with the right
wing is 
	>in how much emphasis or even acceptabilty of the best of western
culture 
	>there should be in one's life. 
	>
	>The sociological Modern Orthodox, OTOH, are those who put more
emphasis 
	>on lifestyle and would put some of the arguments you've (the E-Mail

	>writer) mentioned on equal footing to Torah arguments (e.g.
sociological 
	>considerations).  These people are usually under educated Jewishly,

	>strongly influenced by often highly agendized  university
professors, 
	>various media... electronic or print, the entertainment community,
and 
	>other of the surrounding culture whether it be positive or
negative. 
	>They have precious little Torah input if any!  Because of their
Torah 
	>illiteracy, they are unable to understand the right and wrong of
their 
	>environment and often make illinformed and poor decisions which are
not 
	>based on Torah values but on the morally relativistic societal
norms of 
	>the day.

	What about the "morally relativistic societal norms" within the
traditionalist (right-wing, charedi, etc. ...pick your label) end of the
orthodox spectrum?   Subgroups have their own culture as well.   The real
issue is the extent to which those norms are based on halacha and the extent
to which they are based on extra-halachic considerations.   The modern
orthodox do not have a monopoly on being seduced by societal norms.  There
are those in both groups who are seduced by societal norms - different ones
to be sure - that have nothing to do with halacha.

	>Of this latter group I think it can also, be divided into two
distinct 
	>types. (Of course there are always those inbetween who are not sure
how 
	>sincere they want to be and seem to vascilate between one point of
view 
	>and the other.)
	>1) those who care little of Torah and Jewishness and are religeous
only 
	>because of peer acceptance. These are for the most part altghough
not 
	>completely lost souls.

	Again, the modern orthodox do not have a monopoly on behavior
induced by the desire for peer acceptance.   I believe this point is brought
out in William Helmreich's,  "The World of the Yeshiva", and in M. Herb
Danzger's, "Returning to Tradition". 

	>2) those who are sincere but are ignorant because of a lack of 
	>education. These people can be educated and indeed often become
right 
	>wing themselves, although not always.

	I presume you are not suggesting, however, that becoming literate,
Jewishly and halachicly, necessarily or even usually results in one becoming
"right wing."    I suspect that a lot depends on the sources of education.
It just so happens that the right wing has been far more agressive in
reaching out to the uneducated than has the modern or even centrist orthodox
crowd.

	Kol tuv,
	Avi
	Avram Sacks
	Chicago, IL
	sacksa@cch.com
	achdut@enteract.com

>>>I've alwasy been bothered by an apparent contradiction; our desire to
restore 
the Shortim as in Hoshivo, and a desire to restore Malchus, as in Es Tzemach.
<<<

No, even if you have a melech there is a mitzva of shoftim v'shotrim titen
lecha...

-CB

>>>we can postulate that no one, even Tosafos, holds that nisbatel
ha'ta'am nisbatela ha'takkana.<<<

Not a davar pashut.  See TAz O.C. 339 s.k. 3 regarding pshat in the Tos.  This
issue is discussed in achronim viz. refuah on Shabbos when there is no
chashash of shikas smimanim, see Ketzos Hashulchan on Hil Shabbos.  Also, see
Eretz HaTzvi by R' Schacter, siman 19, for more on this issue.  PAshut pshat
in the GR"A not what you wrote - he says lu yetzuyar we knew the correct ta'am
for a gezeira it would be bateil; however, who can say they uncovered the
depths of Chazal's reasoning in formulating gezeiros.  

-CB

>>>I propose that it would be muttar even d'orysa. I do not think the
products in a vending machine are even kavu'a me'd'rabbanan, since they
are not davar chashuv. As such, since rov vending machines are owned by
non-Jews, the chometz owned by Jews is battel b'rov.<<<

See M.B. in siman 449 regarding safek chameitz sheavar alav hapesach, acc. to
Chok Ya'akov it is no different than any other safek derabbanan.  I have no
idea what davar chashuv has to do with this (esp. on a d'oraysa level!), so
perhaps you would like to elaborate.  On the d'oraysa level one can deal with
whether one needs an issur to be nikar to create mechtza al mechtza, see
Shach Y.D. 110 s.k. 16, Dagul MiRevava there, also Koveitz Shiurim at the end
of perek 1 of Kesubos quoting R' Chaim - here it is not clear that any of the
vending machines or stores are assur.  However, were there to be one vadai
chain of stores or machines owned by a Jew and you are not sure if this
store/machine is one of them, the safek is in the store, which is very much
kavua - see Ran cited by Shach (ibid).

-CB

RYGB:>>>>
but it really accepts the Chazon Ish's premise in Emunah u'Bitachon
that Halacha is the benchmark of all Avodas Hashem. I am not comfortable
with that position.
>>>>

As well as Halachic Man's and R'Soloveitchik's premise as quoted by Rabbi
Meiselman in the recent Tradition article.  Please explain why you are
not comfortable with the position.  

Raffy
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>>>>>>>>>>
Question:  Wasn't the concept of Basroi applied to the TB vis-a-vis the
TY?  IOW
since it followed the TY, it was more Halachically authoritative?

(I think I heard this besheim the Ri Migash)

Rich Wolpoe
>>>>>>>>>

Although the presumption is that TB is more authoritative than TY, The
GRA doesn't seem to think so and states (Y"D 61) that the Rambam didn't
think so either. 

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>>>>>>>>>>
While going through the list of relevant scriptural quotes for Tr.
Shabbat in the Albeck mishnah, I noticed that there are *no* quotes
from the Neviim Rishonim.....

Was Shabbat
a neglected mitzvah for all those centuries of kibush haaretz and bayit
Rishon? ...
>>>>>>>>>

Quite the opposite actually.  The Gemara (where?) states that had Klal
Israel not sinned, nothing more than Chamisha Chumshei Torah and Sefer
Yehoshua would have been written.  The fact that Shabbos does not need
mention would indicate that Klal Israel had little or no failings in that
area.   Only in Yirmiyah's time did there seem to be some problem with
Hotza'ah.   The way the Yeshiva World (vague, I know. :-) ) relates the
idea, Nach, despite occasional Halachos found therein,  was meant to be a
mussar sefer, not a Halachic source.   

BTW, the story with the Shunamite woman, in Neviim Rishonim (Melachim), 
makes passing reference to Shabbos.  (Lo Chodesh v'lo Shabbos)

Chag Kasher V'Sameyach
Raffy
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Sammy Ominsky wrote:

> Since when? All my sources (Sephardic) say it does. I will cite them if
> need be, but it'll have to wait 'till I'm home. Can you bring sources
> that support this seemingly (to me) outrageous claim? 
> 

SA OC 291:5. Both Mechaber and Rama.

> As a side note, without Seu'da Revi'it (melava malka), Seu'da Shelishit
> is void as it's considered as if you had eaten your normal dinner,
> without the intention of fulfilling the mizva of shalosh seu'dot, at
> least according to the Sepharadim. I'll have to look up the source for
> that as well, but I believe they're both from the Ben Ish Hai. 
>

Source please? 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Because I am an adherent of the Mussar movement, and that which it
represents, and, to a lesser extent, a sympathizer to Chassidus and that
which it represents.

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 raffyd@juno.com wrote:

> As well as Halachic Man's and R'Soloveitchik's premise as quoted by
> Rabbi Meiselman in the recent Tradition article.  Please explain why you
> are not comfortable with the position. 
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

While I do not think I would agree necessarily with Meimad's positions on
such issues, the issues they raise are examples of areas where Torah
values must be brought to bear that do not relate directly to Halalcha.
See below.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 15:32:52 +0200
From: D Wolff <wolffjrslm@netmedia.net.il>
To: meimadnews@lists.virtualjerusalem.com

MEIMADNEWS    8 Nissan 5759          25 March 1999
The following appeared in last Monday's Jerusalem Post.  

A jubilee Liberation for Judaism 

                  By MICHA ODENHEIMER 

[much deleted]

(March 22) - 

Meimad's leaders - Ravitzky, Rabbis Michael Melchior, and Yehuda Gilad,
along with Meimad's founder, Rabbi Yehuda Amital - have mentioned, as a
start, a wide range of issues which they consider more Jewishly important.

Israel is now the Western country with the greatest gap between the
richest and poorest sectors of society. Is this what a Jewish country is
about?  Israel's fragile natural environment is being threatened by the
building of roads and housing developments pushed through by powerful
business interests. Is this what the Torah has in mind for the holy land? 

The Torah admonishes us 36 times - more frequently than any other
commandment- to love the stranger. Is this reflected in the way we treat
our foreign workers and our Arab and Druse minorities? Should Israel
continue to sell arms to immoral regimes, in clear violation of halachic
principles? 

These, Meimad is saying, are religious questions of the highest order.

[much more deleted]

[Note: While, in fact, the author claims such matters as the sale of arms
are clear violations of halachic principles, that is not at all clear. In
fact, however, there is a clear violation of the ethical principles of
Avodas Hashem involved.] 

After replying to R' YGB re: seu'dah shelishit without bread, I was
concerned that I had jumped the gun. So I came home and checked my sources. 

I guess I'll start with what I remebered. Ben Ish Hai, 2nd year, parshat
Hayei Sara, #13: "Ehad ha-ish v'ehad ha-ishah hayavin l'kayem seu'dah
shelishit b'pat, v'al ha-shulhan, kiseu'dah rishonah u-sh'niah v'ein
hefresh..."

Supported after the fact by Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur Shulhan Aruch) siman
Resh-Tzadi-Alef, #13, based on Shulhan Aruch, Aruch Haim, siman RTz"A #4.
Not contradicted as far as I can see by the Rema, who brings Avudarham, to
support two loaves, and Tur U'Mordechai that we need only one. He concludes
that we (actually you, since I follow Maran) really only need one, but
"yesh l'hahmir likah shnaim".

So I must ask again; why would you say we need not have bread at seu'dah
shelishit?


---sam

On Fri, 26 Mar 1999, Sammy Ominsky wrote:

> So I must ask again; why would you say we need not have bread at seu'dah
> shelishit? 
>

See, again, the next se'if after the one you quoted, 291:5. A detailed
discussion may be found in Shemiras Shabbos K'Hilchoso vol. 2. 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

R' YGB replied:


>SA OC 291:5. Both Mechaber and Rama.
>


Pardon my last post, I stopped at 291:4. OK, so you *can* have seu'dah
shelishit w/o bread. It was pounded into my head that we don't, though,
unless you can't help it.



>> As a side note, without Seu'da Revi'it (melava malka), Seu'da Shelishit
>> is void as it's considered as if you had eaten your normal dinner,
>> without the intention of fulfilling the mizva of shalosh seu'dot, at
>> least according to the Sepharadim. I'll have to look up the source for
>> that as well, but I believe they're both from the Ben Ish Hai. 
>>
>
>Source please? 
>


Siddur Ish Matzliah, hilchot seu'dah revi'it #7: "Amru b'zohar hakadosh
she-mi she-eino m'kayem seu'dah revi'it, nihshav lo ke-ilu lo kayem seu'dah
shelishit."

I've seen it elsewhere, but can't recall where at the moment.


---sam

R' YGB replied again:

>See, again, the next se'if after the one you quoted, 291:5. A detailed
>discussion may be found in Shemiras Shabbos K'Hilchoso vol. 2. 
>


I don't have Shemirat Shabbat K'Hilchoso, but on reading S"A OC 291:5 he
seems to say that if we don't have bread we MAY eat the seu'dah without it,
or as explained by the Rema, in a circumstance where one may not eat bread,
such as erev Pesah.

Is it really taken as a l'chatchilah? Or is it, as I seem to read, only
b'diavad?



---sam

I wrote:



Siddur Ish Matzliah, hilchot seu'dah revi'it #7: "Amru b'zohar hakadosh
she-mi she-eino m'kayem seu'dah revi'it, nihshav lo ke-ilu lo kayem seu'dah
shelishit."



Again, my apologies. I left out his source. Yehavei Da'at 4,60:5


---sam

Reb Moshe writes (Igros Moshe O.H. II # 100 page 292) "No dancing
or clapping but there is a heter for Tosfos Beitza 30 who writes
that it is permitted for us since we don't know how to fix
instruments - Tosfos seems astounding even if you grant his
premise that in modern times we don't know how to fix instruments
- nevertheless - since it prohibited by vote it can not be
nullified even though its whole rational has ceased and surely in
our times when we see that there are those who know how to make
instruments - therefore there is no basis to nullify the
issur..." He comes with an ingenious rationalization...He
concludes "that it is appropriate to be machmir even though the
din is in accord with the Rema who writes that the minhag is to
be maikel and that we see many righteous people who dance on
Shabbos and Yom Tov."

Please read the tshuva.

                                 Daniel Eidensohn

> These people are usually under educated Jewishly, 
> strongly influenced by often highly agendized  university professors, 

why are university professors, blamed for everything?

Prof. Eli Turkel
Department of Mathematics
Tel Aviv University

Subject: TT

I just attended an interesting conference on Torah & Mada at JCT.
There was a comment of Rabbi Rabinowitz on TT.

The Rambam seems to classify learning about the world, eg physics
as part of TT. On the otherhand in the perush hamishnayot he says that on
shabbat one cannot read material such as letters and scientific works.
This seems to contradict his other statement that science has the level of
TT. Though he did not reference it he said that a number of achronim
discuss the contradiction.

He then pointed out that the correct answer to the problem is to use
the Kapach translation of the Mishna commentary rather than the old
translation. With the newer translation Rambam only prohibits reading 
letters even those that contain some scientific information. This is
different than prohibiting the learning of science on shabbat.

The question (which he did not raise) is that since Rav Karo only had
access to the old translation and based his psak on that does the halacha
change? This case is stronger than most since even with the old translation
it was clearly in contradiction to other sources. Furthermore, this
alleged prohibition appears only in Rambam's mishna commentary and
not in Yad Chazaka.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

RDE:>>You are correct that Rav Moshe classified commercial milk as cholov 
yisrael and not as a heter to drink chalav akum. In effect he said there are two
types of cholov yisrael milk.<<

Tangentially, I consider this Brisker-style analysis. Note that the conclusion 
makes a key distinction that R. Moshe did not override the gezeiro, rather he 
defined (redefined?) as to how the gezeiro should be applied.

Rich Wolpoe 

RYGB: >> Thus, it is not a question of nisbatel, but rahter, b'yesod ha'takkana 
- just as b'yesod ha'takkana of Ma'aser d'Rabbonon b'zman ha'zeh - there are 
limitations on its applicability. <<

The technique here of defining limits - similar to the cholov Akum case - is 
perhaps another Brisker style tehcnique.  More later.

Rich Wolpoe

>>From: Sammy Ominsky <sambo@charm.net>
R' YGB wrote:

> Seu'da Shlishis does not require bread.

Since when? All my sources (Sephardic) say it does. I will cite them if
need be, but it'll have to wait 'till I'm home. Can you bring sources that
support this ..<

The Remo re: Erev Pesach on Shabbos suggests eating peiros for S'eudo 
Shilishis...

Of course the Remo was no Sephardi!

Rich Wolpoe

Micha: uIn short, R' Chaim Brisker understood halachah in terms of halachah. 
Nothing is allowed to become more primary. The only "first principles" are the 
underlying halachic "patterns" (to borrow from computerspeak): gavra, cheftza, 
pe'ulah, chalos...

The primary means of finding the patterns involved is the chakirah, finding a 
dividing line between two opinions or two halachos. <<

Bekitzur, to me the Brikser Derech si about definionns, disticnions, 
limitations, boundaries, categories, etc.

Micha is speaking more with regard to the tools and tehcniques in hios first 
point,  The ikar goes more to his 2nd point:  Fro example

Kavono: What is it?  When is it meakeiv and when is it not meakeiv.
Arbo Avos Nezikin - Well what about geneivo/gezeilo? (The simplest disctinction 
is that geneivo requires daas, hezek does not.)

IOW Chaftzo/gavro, etc. are the means.  Precisely defining the principle, 
delineating dsictinctions, are the ends.

My 2 cents, 2 dinars or 2 dinim <smile>
Rich Wolpoe

RDE writes:
<Regarding your historical view of the post talmudic period - wasn't the
rosh
(4th perek of Sanhedrin) applying this rule to justify arguing with gaonim?
Even
though he doesn't use the term he is using the same logic to allow
disagreement
with the greater earlier generations. Similarly in disagreements between
rishonim - they seem to assume that they have every right to disagree with
the
previous generations? In sum - my understanding of the rule is that the
halacha
follows the contemporary poskim - even if it is not consistent with the
consensus of previous generations.   Daniel Eidensohn>

Not sure the rosh was doing that (though even if he was that would only push
back the public 'breakout' of the rule from its long stasis by about 25
years or so.)  In fact, as you note, he nowhere mentions this rule.  instead
the rosh cites yiftoch b'doro - a concept which speaks most directly to a
different matter, which is the samchus of a current bais din, i.e. why
should anyone have to listen to them about anything, rather than addressing
the somewhat different question of how to choose between differing opinions.
That having been said, there is no doubt that others - after the rosh -
have, as you do, pointed to rosh's sanhedrin remarks as justification for
the assertion that the rosh too held from the kilal of HkB for post-talmudic
authorities.  the first to do so was the Rosh's son, R. Yehuda (later
seconded by the Tur).  i had occasion last night to look up a tishuvoh of
the alshikh on another matter and found that he also cites the rosh as
holding the kilal of HkB (he himself cites no supporting source for this but
presumably has in mind the sanhedrin reference - or,  perhaps he simply saw
R. yehuda's claim) in the course of rejecting the notion as the sefardim did
..  But (IMHO and L'D of course) I don't see where the rosh's text really
supports such an expansive read in.  

That rishonim apparently felt little compunction about disagreeing with
earlier generations of post talmudic scholars certainly does not require any
recourse to a necessary existence of some implicit HkB rule lurking in
unrecorded background.  The rambam's articulated description of the right to
exercise one's own judgement based on solid ra'ayos is more than sufficient
to account for this rishonic zeitgeist. 
GS.
Mechy Frankel			michael.frankel@dtra.mil

RRW writes:
<Question:  Wasn't the concept of Basroi applied to the TB vis-a-vis the TY?
IOW
since it followed the TY, it was more Halachically authoritative?
(I think I heard this besheim the Ri Migash)
Rich Wolpoe>

Actually it was the Rif in eruvin 35b.  this came up by chance in an
off-line interaction with Dr. Saul Stokar who also pointed me to that
reference.  the go'onim preceding the rif however applied on an individual
basis, though never to any post-talmudic authorities.

Mechy Frankel			michael.frankel@hq.dtra.mil

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]