Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 361

Friday, February 11 2000

• SE
• Re: SE
• Re: the SE and TuM
• Re: Ruba Vichazaka
• Re: Posthumous letters
• Re: science and halacha
• Re: Kumatz Cuff Lamed vs.Cuff Cholom Lamed
• Re: SE
• Re: Seridei Esh
• Re: Posthumous letters
• re: calendar
• Re: Seridei Esh
• Re: Ruba Vichazaka
• Nissan and Vernal Equinox
• Re: gezel akum (subheading: abortion)
• Re: gezel akum
• Re: gezel akum (subheading: abortion)
• Re[2]: calendar
• Re[2]: Seridei Esh

> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 07:45:21 +0200
> From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> Subject: Re: SE and Other Gedolim
> 
<<It's against Netiquette, but I'll agree. In fact, I thought of
suggesting the same thing in a private email. I'm sure JO would publish
it.>>

	Hear hear. Carried by acclamation.

<<He's got a point. The Contemporary Eruv is a choshuver sefer but the
title isn't exactly the Chofetz Chaim, the Chazon Ish or the Sridei
Eish.... :-) >>

	Maybe he'd like to be known as the Eruv Rav?

Gershon

On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 09:47:51AM -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: <<He's got a point. The Contemporary Eruv is a choshuver sefer but the
: title isn't exactly the Chofetz Chaim, the Chazon Ish or the Sridei
: Eish.... :-) >>

: 	Maybe he'd like to be known as the Eruv Rav?

Something RYGB should take into account before naming his next seifer, which
should be written BB"A. (I'm willing to place money on "Gilu Bir'ada".)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 10-Feb-00: Chamishi, Terumah
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 112b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Hmm...

The SE evolved in his attitude towards mizug, and earlier essays have to be
placed "in context".

I guess that does not apply to his letters ;-).

Since I do not have the Shapiro book, could you please cite for me the
explicit reference where he reneges on earlier opposition. If it is not in a
widely available source, could you - or one of other several perusers of
Shapiro's work, quote it, please?

BTW, I just bought the new version of the Shut SE (I did not own one till
now). I note with dismay that his essays on historical figures, mussar,
etc., are no longer there. Is this, too, revisionism?

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

----- Original Message -----
From: meir shinnar <shinname@UMDNJ.EDU>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 8:07 AM
Subject: the SE and TuM


> Rav Bechhofer pointed out some early essay by the SE in opposition to
> mizug of torah and haskala, and asked whether this is addressed by Marc
> Shapiro.  His book shows the intellectual evolution of the Seride Esh
> from an initial opposition to mizug, and indeed the entire German
> approach of TIDE, to a gradual acceptance and eventual championing of
> the approach.  When reading these essays, one has to note the date of
> composition and the intended audience.
>
> Meir Shinnar
>
>

The chazaka of tav l'meisva is also a rov - a rov b'teva, like chazaka ein
odom porei'a toch zmano.

I heard from R' YZ Gustman a beautiful interpretation (really based on R'
Shimon Shkop) of rubba v'chazaka rubba adif. A chazaka is a hanhaga b'makom
safeik. A safeik is defined, by its very nature, as the absence of a rov.
Thus, conversely, where there exists a rov, a chazaka is inapplicable.

Masok Me'Dvash!

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

----- Original Message -----
From: meir shinnar <shinname@UMDNJ.EDU>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>; <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 8:38 AM
Subject: Posthumous letters


> Here is, bimhilat kvot torato, where I remain puzzled.  Herem derabbenu
> Gershom is, to my understanding, a procedural issur, unrelated to the
> content of the letter.  I can not publicize or read the letter,
> regardless whether it is a tirade against someone, a beautiful hesped or
> hakkarat hatov, hiddushe torah, or a grocery bill.  Therefore, the fact
> that posthumous letters get published by many without an explicit (or
> even implicit) haskama means that the people who publish them feel that
> CDRG does not apply in this situation, and no  issur of gezel after
> mitta.
>

Not quite. Where there was prior indication that the letters should be
publishe, or an umdenah d'muchach or anan sahadei, as in the case of
Chiddushei Torah, then the CDRG would not apply. This is purely logical.
Lama le kra, sevara hu?

If the Igros CI or RCOG contain material of other sorts, then it is takke a
kashya why they were published. Go ask the publishers!

> You are saying that the content of the letters make them unsuitable for
> publication.  This is a judgement call.  However, if CDRG does not ban
> publication of posthumous letters, then what is the issur?  Is there a
> particular issur for letters which are tirades versus letters that are
> more civil?  If it is a judgment call whether to publish them or not,
> who better to make that call than the wife or  talmid muvhak?
>

Yes, I believe there is a particular issur. The anan umdenah d'muchach and
anan sahadei runs in the exact opposite direction. No wife or talmid muvhak
could then make the decision - perhaps a Beis Din could.

> Furthermore, there are hiddushe torah to be learned from the letters.
> For example, where else in the SE do we have an explicit psak according
> to the Meiri in avoda zara?  On what basis are these hiddushe torah to
> be discarded, while the hiddushe torah in other posthumously published
> letters are not?
>

Publish the chiddushim sans the sichas chullin. Vos is shlecht?

> With regard to my second point (publication of things that are already
> in the public domain), your argument applies if the initial placement in
> the public domain was illegal.    Does that mean that you would agree
> that if the initial placement was halachic, that there is no problem?
>
> my understanding in hilchot lashon hara is that once something (true)is
> known to a certain number, it is no longer lashon hara to tell it.  Is
> this different?
>

No, because this has other gedarim beyond LH. See the ET entry I have cited.

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

In a message dated 2/11/00 1:10:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
zlochoia@bellatlantic.net writes:


>  The halacha of mayim shelanu is based
>  on the observation rather than the offered explanation, and neeed not be
>  modified.

As mentioned many times before WRT Mayim SHelonu we rule Lchumra according to 
both opinion see Machtzis Hashekel begining of O"C 455.

>  We note also that R' Yehudah Hanasi has no problem with
>  rejecting the views of the leading sages of an earlier generation on a
>  matter of fact, if the opposing view appears to him to be more credible
>  - regardless of its source.

IMHO Lav Davka he argues on Halachic issues as well.

  
>  A similar type of reasoning should be applicable to the Rabbinic
>  prohibition against certain liquids and foodstuffs obtained from
>  Gentiles since it was assumed that they may not have taken precautions
>  to protect those products from contamination by snake venom due to
>  open-air storage (gelui).  Now the ostensible reason, concern about
>  poisoning from snake venom, is not reasonable since poisonous snakes
>  inject their venom only into intended live victims.

The Yerushalmi brings case where they actually saw the venom in the barrel, 
and compare with Mforshim regarding the "Eres" ejected by Chayois Toirfois.



Gut Shabbos, V'Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Here's my understanding:

this is a funciton of "semichus/semichut"
w/ cholom it is "ALL"

w/o cholom it is "ALL OF"

However since I can cite excptions myself,  I concede that this theory needs 
further elaboration.  Any takers?

Richard_Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kumatz Cuff Lamed vs.Cuff Cholom Lamed 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/11/2000 9:25 AM


Does anyone know what the difference is between Kumatz Cuff Lamed and Cuff 
Cholom Lamed?

Thanks,

Gad Frenkel

> Something RYGB should take into account before naming his next 
> seifer, which should be written BB"A. (I'm willing to place money on
"Gilu 
> Bir'ada".)
	Initials?

Gershon

On Wed, 9 Feb 2000 at 19:47:32 RYGB <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote
(Avodah V4 #353):

<<...when you open a SE and see teshuvos that begin with "yedid nafshi"
and other honorifics addressed to people named Gifter, Breish, Lopian
and Hurwitz (the last now one of the Dayanim of the Eida Charedis) - one
has some idea with whom he felt most associated.>>

The following salutations can be found in *Kisvei HaGaon RYY"W ZT"L*
(vol. 1, Scranton, 1998):

1. "Yedid nafshi HaGaon HaMufla Moreinu HaRav Shaul Lieberman..."
(Siman 40, p.73, letter dated Yom Shlishi Parshas Masei 5714).  Cf.
Siman 72, p.137 "Yedid nafshi HaGaon HaMufla Pe'er Doro V'Hadaro..." to
the same addressee.

2. "Yedid nafshi HaRav HaGaon [HaChasid HaShalem?? (I didn't recognize
these rashei teivos)] Moreinu HaRav Shmuel Atlas..." (Siman 63, p.128,
letter dated 2 Nisan 5716).  Cf. Siman 84, p.176, to the same addressee,
"Yedid nafshi HaRav HaGaon...."

3. "Yedid nafshi HaRav HaGaon HaMuvhak Cacham V'Choker Dagul Moreinu
HaRav Chaim David Chavel..." (Siman 78, p.162, Yom Revii, Parsha
VaYeshev 5725).  Cf. Siman 79, p.163 to the same addressee, "Yedidi
NaNe'ela HaRav HaGaon HaMefursam HeChacham HaMufla....").

Does this weaken the strength of this particular leg of this
interesting debate? 

Good Shabbos.
Sincerely, 
David Eisenman

" However, we have had letters by many  gdolim published posthumously, without a specific haskama by the gadol...
I understand the argument that such posthumous publications don't have the same force as those directly approved by the gadol himself, but this seems to be the only case where anyone has said that it is assur.  Why is this so different? If a gadol dies without sons or brothers, are we forbidden to publish
any manuscripts or letters without an explicit approval?"

Q: A while back (avodah archives under "R' Zevin...") there was some mention about a letter from R' Zevin that was originally published anonymously and years after his death republished in his name. 
Wouldn't the fact that the author chose to publish anonymously imply disapproval? 

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

R' Micha Berger asked <<< What's the range of starting dates for Nissan to
preserve the notion of it being Chodesh ha'Aviv? I remember seeing on line
someone arguing that our calendar already failed in this regard, I think in
the 1980s? >>>

I have found the best places to learn about this is the books about Birkas
HaChama, which frequently give a detailed comparison of the solar and Jewish
calendars, and explanations of why and how Tal Umatar (in Chu"l) and Birkas
HaChama follow the solar calendar. I know the ArtScroll in particular has a
lot of info on it; it's a math geek's paradise!

If I remember correctly, somewhere in the next several cycles, Birkas
Hachama is scheduled to fall on Erev Pesach, and one of those books pointed
out that this ought to be impossible, and proved that our calendar will have
slipped too far by then. (I don't remember exactly what the inconsistency
is. There are lots of details which I do not remember, such as whether
Pesach (or Erev Pesach!) has to be in Aviv, or whether even Rosh Chodesh has
to be in Aviv, nor do I remember the relationship of Birkas HaChama to
Nisan. But its all in there somewhere.)

Of course, it may have slipped earlier than that, or even already by now,
but the Birkas HaChama will be the strongest proof. Or, at least, that's
what I saw somewhere. Sorry I can't remember where. (Only nine more years to
the next one!)

Akiva Miller

Not at all. There are similar letters in the SE.

But I do find it interesting that somehow *these* letters did not make the
cut for the SE, but were published in a book, I assume, edited by Marc
Shapiro (Scranton is a give away)...

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

----- Original Message -----
From: David Eisenman <eisenman@umich.edu>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: Seridei Esh


> On Wed, 9 Feb 2000 at 19:47:32 RYGB <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote
> (Avodah V4 #353):
>
> <<...when you open a SE and see teshuvos that begin with "yedid nafshi"
> and other honorifics addressed to people named Gifter, Breish, Lopian
> and Hurwitz (the last now one of the Dayanim of the Eida Charedis) - one
> has some idea with whom he felt most associated.>>
>
> The following salutations can be found in *Kisvei HaGaon RYY"W ZT"L*
> (vol. 1, Scranton, 1998):
>
> 1. "Yedid nafshi HaGaon HaMufla Moreinu HaRav Shaul Lieberman..."
> (Siman 40, p.73, letter dated Yom Shlishi Parshas Masei 5714).  Cf.
> Siman 72, p.137 "Yedid nafshi HaGaon HaMufla Pe'er Doro V'Hadaro..." to
> the same addressee.
>
> 2. "Yedid nafshi HaRav HaGaon [HaChasid HaShalem?? (I didn't recognize
> these rashei teivos)] Moreinu HaRav Shmuel Atlas..." (Siman 63, p.128,
> letter dated 2 Nisan 5716).  Cf. Siman 84, p.176, to the same addressee,
> "Yedid nafshi HaRav HaGaon...."
>
> 3. "Yedid nafshi HaRav HaGaon HaMuvhak Cacham V'Choker Dagul Moreinu
> HaRav Chaim David Chavel..." (Siman 78, p.162, Yom Revii, Parsha
> VaYeshev 5725).  Cf. Siman 79, p.163 to the same addressee, "Yedidi
> NaNe'ela HaRav HaGaon HaMefursam HeChacham HaMufla....").
>
> Does this weaken the strength of this particular leg of this
> interesting debate?
>
> Good Shabbos.
> Sincerely,
> David Eisenman
>
>

On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 09:02:01AM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: I heard from R' YZ Gustman a beautiful interpretation (really based on R'
: Shimon Shkop) of rubba v'chazaka rubba adif. A chazaka is a hanhaga b'makom
: safeik. A safeik is defined, by its very nature, as the absence of a rov.
: Thus, conversely, where there exists a rov, a chazaka is inapplicable.

The position I take in the appendix to my very rough draft (the URL I posted)
was based on Shu"T R' Akiva Eiger (136). He makes a chakira by finding two
types of doubt: uncertainty about the metzius, and uncertainty about the
halachah. Rov is oonly usable in the former case. Once the metzius was kavu'ah
we now have a halachah and are now uncertain as to what it is. There, we
say kimechtza al mechtza dami.

I then procede to see where the other kinds of birur would fit in this
categorization. One rule I use for categorization is to see whether the
form of birur is usable in a case of trei utrei (following Dovid Kagan in
"Kigayon" 5789, pp 23-30, ed Moshe Koppel <Avodah lurker> and Ely Merzbach).

The point of eidus is to see reality. According to RAE's sevara for kavuah,
eidus creates a state of kavuah -- some reality was seen, and became halachah.
Trei utrei is a case of doubt about what that halachah is. It is therefore
unsurprising to find that t'rei kimei'ah. It is irrelevent which side of
the doubt had the majority of eidim, since there is no rov by kavu'ah.

Therefore, by seeing if the birur works in deciding between trei utrei,
we can see if it is a birur metzius or a birur halachah. The Sh"Sh argues
that rov and chzakah disvara are no better than a second kat, and t'rei
kimei'ah. One set of eidim were kovei'ah the din, so rov and rov-like
birurim don't work.

OTOH, the Sh'Sh says that chazakah dimei'ikarah does work even with trei utrei.
IOW, this kind of chazakah tells us something about the metzius, where we do
care about rov.

Chazakah disvara and chazakah dimei'ikarah are fundamentally different in
kind, despite the similarity in name!

As to the machshava issue.... It's interesting that when no one knows the
metzius, we follow rov; but once the halachah exists, we don't. It's almost
quantum mechanical. I would apply RYBS's notion that halachic logic isn't
bi-valent (it isn't true-or-false, boolean, it allows middle states or
combination states) -- but only in assumptions about the metzius.

I'm reminded also of R' Tzadok in Resisei Layla (17) where he notes that
while bipo'al contradictions don't exist, bimachshavah they're nearly
inevitable. This is how he extracates Eilu va'Eilu from the problems of
paradox. In the realm of thought, contraditions are okay. Again, a multi-
valued logic.

My hashkafic take on all of this is that the metzius to which we apply
halachah is that which people can know. Therefore, as in R' Tzadok, we don't
use a bi-valent logic for metzius. Rov is an actual logic state, sitting
between vadai and vadai, a possible answer to the question of metzius.
Given this answer we create a halachah. Which then gets you to issues of
two chatichos shuman and one of cheilev. Yes, you can eat all three --
because the halachah on each is determined by the *answer* of rov.

OTOH, halachah is about what to do bipo'al, which is why we can't use
rov. There are only two states -- assur or mutar, there is no "rov" state
on the halachic level.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 10-Feb-00: Chamishi, Terumah
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 112b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

There is a machlokes whether that month needs to start AFTER spring, or just 
have Spring start within the month.

Wanna know 2 bar plugtos?

The RC Church holds that Easter {alone} needs follow to the Vernal Equinox

The Eastern Orthodox Chursh holds that Easter must follow the new moon that 
follows the Vernal Equinox.

(even here the Orthodox are more machmir! <smile>)

Somehow, I would not be surprised to see - l'havdil - a similar machlokes among 
Jewish sources.

I am not even touching on the issue of Gregorian vs. Julian version of when the 
Equinox is.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: calendar 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/11/2000 9:35 AM


Daniel M Wells <wells@mail.biu.ac.il> writes in v4n346:
:       In addition, the Gregorian calendar is zipping past the Hebrew 
: calendar at a rate of about 1 day every 230 years.

What's the range of starting dates for Nissan to preserve the notion of 
it being Chodesh ha'Aviv? I remember seeing on line someone arguing that 
our calendar already failed in this regard, I think in the 1980s?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 10-Feb-00: Chamishi, Terumah 
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 112b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Micha Berger wrote:

<<<
Permitting abortion has to do with the *relative* value of protecting the
fetus's life to the mother's. The fact that it is assur to abort a non-Jewish
fetus in more instances than a Jewish one implies that the life of a non-Jewish
fetus and a non-Jewish mother are closer to equally worthy of protection.
>>>

There is no blanket permission to abort even a Jewish fetus, so
unless the mother's interest (somehow defined) is at stake, there is an
issur attached to aborting a fetus, but it is not murder.  Aborting a
non-Jewish fetus is murder.  So the non-Jewish fetus is accorded a
higher level of protection than the Jewish fetus.  

As I write this, a further thought occurs to me.  Are Jews allowed to
abort non-Jewish fetuses and are gentiles not allowed to abort 
Jewish fetuses.  Must a Jewish mother who seeks an abortion 
(with halakhic sanction) have the abortion performed by a
Jewish doctor?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

Gil Student wrote:

<<<
>>I don't mean to sound hostile>>

It didn't work.
>>>

You're right. That's why I wanted to attach a disclaimer disavowing any
hostile intent. But I should have kept revising until all taint of hostility
was eliminated. Sorry.

<<<
Were the printers of the gemara less than fully honest when they changed words 
like nochri to kena'ani or kusi?  Maybe, but if not for that we would not have 
had any printed gemaras for centuries. 
>>>

I take your point, but there is still a big difference it seems to me
between susbtituting a code word for another word to avoid antagonizing the
authorities and making an explicit halakhic statement that is exactly the
opposite of what the author actually believes.

<<<
>>I don't see the problem. He says that you can't steal form an idolator, but he
is going out of his way to say that Christians are not idolators, to teach 
people who think that they are idolators that they are wrong to think that 
Christians are idolators.>>

No.  The Noda BiYehudah disagrees with the Rama and holds that Christianity is 
avodah zarah.  See the Pischei Teshuvah in Y"D 147:2.
>>>

I don't have immediate access to the Noda-bi-hudah. But is it not possible
that there is a distinction between whether Christianity which, unlike,
say Islam or Unitarianism, (and l'phi shitas Agudas Harobinim d'America,
Conservative Judaism), involves a forbidden belief in shituf which makes
it avodah zarah from the standpoint of Jews but not necessarily from the
standpoint of gentiles who may not be commanded not to believe in shituf.
Is this the basis of the Meiri's position that Chrisitanity is not Avodah
Zara? And by the way if the Rama holds that Christianity is not Avodah Zara,
how can the Meiri's position be characterized as a da'at yahid?

David Glasner  
dglasner@ftc.gov

In a message dated 2/11/00 11:20:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
DGLASNER@SIRIUS.FTC.GOV writes:

<< 
 As I write this, a further thought occurs to me.  Are Jews allowed to
 abort non-Jewish fetuses  >>
Sounds like that at least kdusha chamurah  to kedusha  kala would apply.  
Philosophically did brit etc take us out of earlier relationships to HKB'H or 
add to it.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

HUH?

 I thought that Birkas HaChamah had to be by definition the first Yom Revi'iv in
Nissan? how can that ever be Erev Pesach? 

Do you mean the Vernal Equinox perhaps?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


If I remember correctly, somewhere in the next several cycles, Birkas 
Hachama is scheduled to fall on Erev Pesach, and one of those books pointed 
out that this ought to be impossible, and proved that our calendar will have 
slipped too far by then. (I don't remember exactly what the inconsistency 
is. There are lots of details which I do not remember, such as whether 
Pesach (or Erev Pesach!) has to be in Aviv, or whether even Rosh Chodesh has 
to be in Aviv, nor do I remember the relationship of Birkas HaChama to 
Nisan. But its all in there somewhere.)



Akiva Miller

<<...when you open a SE and see teshuvos that begin with "yedid nafshi" 
and other honorifics addressed to people named Gifter, Breish, Lopian 
and Hurwitz (the last now one of the Dayanim of the Eida Charedis) - one 
has some idea with whom he felt most associated.>>

===> iow with intelligent, learned, stimulating, creative, original, 
complex, fellow Jews?? <smile>

 Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com<========

The following salutations can be found in *Kisvei HaGaon RYY"W ZT"L* 
(vol. 1, Scranton, 1998):

1. "Yedid nafshi HaGaon HaMufla Moreinu HaRav Shaul Lieberman..." 
(Siman 40, p.73, letter dated Yom Shlishi Parshas Masei 5714).  Cf. 
Siman 72, p.137 "Yedid nafshi HaGaon HaMufla Pe'er Doro V'Hadaro..." to 
the same addressee.

<snip>
Does this weaken the strength of this particular leg of this 
interesting debate? 

Good Shabbos.
Sincerely, 
David Eisenman

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


[ 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         ]