Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 391

Thursday, February 24 2000

• Publishing Letters and Lashon Hara to Let Off Steam
• Lashon Hara to Let Off Steam
• Re: Publishing Letters and Lashon Hara to Let Off Steam
• Study of History
• Tzedaka and Social Welfare Policy
• re: Diyukim (humor alert)
• Skepticism and Deism
• Re: diyukim
• Re: Skepticism and Deism
• Re: RYBS and P'sak
• Re: Megilas Esther - Reading the word Mordechai
• Re: besmirching frum sociopaths
• Halachah and ...
• Re: diyukim
• Noah's flood
• Re: Diyukim (humor alert)
• Re: besmirching frum sociopaths
• RE: besmirching frum sociopaths
• RE: besmirching frum sociopaths
• RE: besmirching frum sociopaths
• Re:Home hospitality
• Haredi Bashing
• Egyptian mythology

>I just think it would have been better to get a more
>expanded view of the SE which included sources
>additional to the series of letters that, IMHO were
>highly personal and and written to only one individual
>who was outside the mainstream of Orthodoxy. I don't
>believe we get as accurate a picture of the man,
>although I will admit that it was gratifying to see
>the SE's thoughts on the matters he discussed, often
>corroborated some of my own views.

It occurs to me that another exception to L"H is where one is calming
someone down and trying to reduce tension.  E.g., person A says "I can't
believe what B just said to me."  You are allowed to say something like,
"Well, B has a bit of a temper, I'm sure he didn't mean exactly that."

And so, I wonder if in a private letter to someone outside the mainsteam,
someone may have engaged in a L"H exception like that.  And, if so,
publishing that letter would be spreading L"H.  (Is this making sense?)

-- Eric

>Someone asked the other day whether it is permitted to speak 
>Lashon Hara to let off steam, and the question was sort of 
>dismissed.

Gosh, I've been meaning to repond to that, too.  I went and looked it up,
and remember the rule, but do not have the cite handy (if anyone wants it,
just ask, and I'll post to the list).  In the Chofetz Chaim, he writes that
it is also permissible to listen to a spouse "letting off steam" if that
will help one's spouse.  (I actually don't have the Chofetz Chaim, but "A
Lesson a Day" based on the CC, so while the CC permits listening to it, I
don't know if the CC permits speaking it).

Hope this is useful,

-- Eric

On 23 Feb 00, at 14:48, Eric Simon wrote:

> It occurs to me that another exception to L"H is where one is calming
> someone down and trying to reduce tension.  E.g., person A says "I can't
> believe what B just said to me."  You are allowed to say something like,
> "Well, B has a bit of a temper, I'm sure he didn't mean exactly that."

Correct. It's in the Hagaa to Clal 5 S'if 3.

> And so, I wonder if in a private letter to someone outside the mainsteam,
> someone may have engaged in a L"H exception like that.  And, if so,
> publishing that letter would be spreading L"H.  (Is this making sense?)

Perfect sense.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

>I wish I could agree with this, but I can't. The ideal of truth -- truth
with 
>a novelist's eye, gut truth, truth as HaShem has given us the power to see 
>the truth, i.e., real emes -- is absolute.

While I am generally sympathetic to making allowances in biographies and
history for the sake of truth, I can't help but feel the above comment goes
too far.  If the power to see "real truth" is absolute, how do we explain
HaShem's avoidance of lashon hara vis-a-vis Avraham and Sarah?  Why have
_any_ laws of lashon harah, after all, L"H is, by _definition_ a truthful
statement?

Rav Frand once wrote (on parsha Shmos):

"It is no coincidence that the word Chessed always precedes the word Emes
wherever the two terms are used together in the Torah. (For example:
Bereshis 24:49; Shmos 34:6; Yehoshua 2:14) If Emes would precede Chessed, we
would never reach Chessed. If our perspective on life would always be
'Truth', then no one would ever be worthy of receiving any Kindness."

His conlcusion was that sometimes Chesed is more imporatant than Emes.

I once read a different twist on this (and, apologies for having no
citation -- I think it was in relation to HaShem's avoidance of L"H at
Breishis 18:13) that _real_ Emes is that Jews, deep down inside, _do_ love
each other, so that "shading the truth" and/or avoidance of L"H enables
that _real_ truth to be expressed.

Carl, who did not write the above, wrote:

>Oy, RYGB, time to start a Chafetz Chaim shiur!

I presume some are aware that there is a "halashon" class from Project
Genesis (at <http://www.torah.org/learning/halashon/>)

-- Eric

I'm am looking for materials that relate to the halachot (in a broad
sense) of tzedaka as compared to present day social welfare laws and
policy in Israel.

Any ideas?

Reuven Miller

RGDubin wrote: <<
Well,  it certainly seems clear that the Ashkenazi mesora,  with all the
gedolei olam who used it,  commented on it and defended it,  needs to be
chucked,  as it is clearly no more than an accretion of aberrations
(how's that for alliteration?)  >>

Terrific!  Are you any relation to Spiro Agnew (of "nattering nabobs
of negativism" fame)?   

Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick 

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes in v4n386:
: I may disagree with your beliefs about the Mabul but I
: don't exclude the possibility that you may be right. 

I think the argument can be proven to be flawed by reducio ad absurdum. I'm
not claiming anyone here actually is a deist. However, the argument used to
declare the flood an ahistorical allegory can be used to "prove" that there
was no Yetzi'as Mitzraim, no nissim, and no hashgachah peratis altogether.

: Doesn't the scientific method encourage Agnosticism...
: especially when there is no grounding in Torah
: Hashkafa? 

Yes. Science presupposes that events follow strict rules, all of which are
grounded in the observable and testable. IOW, the miraculous is ruled out
a priori. Miracles aren't repeatable, and niskatnu hadoros guarantees that
even the general concept of miracle in the abstract isn't going to be
testable. Our generation doesn't merit miracles, therefore scientists assume
there never were any.

And so, the results produced, unsurprisingly, make sense of things without
miracles.

The same can be said of most skeptical arguments -- there is a circularity
in assuming that there are no miracles in order to prove the events were
natural or non-existant.

It boils down to whether we are to presuppose the correctness of our masorah
(to the exclusion of other people's traditions) or presuppose a skeptical
stance. For frum Jews, the effectiveness of the masorah in producing a
useful and productive halachah should be sufficient to suggest its reliability
in other venues.

But I'll quit paraphrasing the Ramchal already.

BTW, I recommend that newcomers go to <http://www.aishdas.org/search.cgi>
and search for "flood" in the "Avodah" search index.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-Feb-00: Shelishi, Sisa
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 118b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Richard Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes in v4n389:
: Shmos 27:20: v'atao tetzaveh es bnai Yisroel

This is lashon asid. The vav isn't on a verb, it's a vav hachibur.

: Vayikro 24:2 tzav es bnei yisroel

This is lashon tzivui.

I think you misunderstood the first pasuk, therefore yielding the wrong
contrast. The better question is why the pasuk in Shemos isn't a tzivui
and is instead phrased as a nevu'ah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-Feb-00: Shelishi, Sisa
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 118b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

In a message dated 2/23/00 8:52:36 PM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< It boils down to whether we are to presuppose the correctness of our 
masorah
 (to the exclusion of other people's traditions) or presuppose a skeptical
 stance. For frum Jews, the effectiveness of the masorah in producing a
 useful and productive halachah should be sufficient to suggest its 
reliability
 in other venues.
  >>

Or one could say the converse, that the effectiveness of the halachah in 
producing a useful and productive masorah should be sufficient to suggest its 
reliabilty in other venues. No?

David Finch

In v4n289 Gil Student <gil.student@citicorp.com> writes:
: I always thought that when RYBS felt he could be machria then he would follow 
: the position he thought was correct. When he did not have any information
: that could clear up the machlokes he was machmir for both.

What about diRabbanan? Shouldn't he be meikil as per any other safeik
diRabbanan? Or are we talking about what RYBS did for himself, not as a p'sak
halachah but as personal chumrah?

Also RYBS's definition of "correct" gave more weight to sevara in comparison
to mesorah than non-Briskers would. Note that this will create a tendency
to pasken like the Gra and other such chadshanim. A chidush requires
justification from its authors, following mesorah doesn't. Therefore in
most cases we know the reason why the Gra diverged from minhag Litta, but
we don't know the reason for the minhag.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-Feb-00: Shelishi, Sisa
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 118b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

In v4n389, Rich Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:
: And fwiw, I was taught in Day School that a chataf kmoatz is in between a
: full kamotz and a shevo na...

I was taught that it's a shortened kamatz *katan*. And, FWIW, Rinat Yisrael
uses their kamatz katan notation for the kamatz portion of the chataf-kamatz
symbol.

Kamatz gadol is a tenu'ah gedolah, and it makes little sense to combine the
notions of gedulah and chatufah. It's actually a longer version of the patach,
and there is a chataf-patach already.

-mi

(PS to RMP: I intended bolding, so I used asterisks.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-Feb-00: Shelishi, Sisa
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 118b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> writes in v4n390:
:> "frum" sociopaths in prison, one of whom was convicted
:> of murdering his wife for insurance money.  I believe
:> he is the bal Koreh.

: Maybe he did teshuvah? Some people do, you know.

Doesn't "dan likaf zechus" require us to believe he probably did? Let's put
it this way: If he says "harei at mekudeshes li al minas she'ani tzadik",
we hold he'd be married.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-Feb-00: Shelishi, Sisa
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 118b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

I noticed something during my walk to the train this evening.

Brisk, to take an extreme case, define Jewish behavior entirely in terms of
halachah. OTOH, we have mod-O preaching TuM / Hirsch teaching TIDE; Chassidus
teaching extra-halachic behavior to achieve a state of d'veikus to Hashem; and
Mussar teaching extra-halachic means toward a state of self perfection. All
three are "halachah and" ideals.

In the Maharal that I've quoted too many times here before (Derech haChaim 1:2)
he identifies three worlds and three relationships that the three pillars of
the world refer to.

Note that mod-O's and RSRH's "and" involves this world, Chassidus is "and"ing
with shamayim, and Mussar with the world between your ears. We actually have
divided ourselves along the same lines as the avos. (ayin sham, or at least
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/vayeitzei.html>)

Okay, maybe I'm playing fast-and-loose with the ideas. But, as the pasuk
says, "lulei Torascha sha'ashu'ai..."

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-Feb-00: Shelishi, Sisa
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 118b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

In v4n389, Shlomo Godick <shlomog@mehish.co.il> quotes me and asks:
: <<The implication of vayomer is
: that it was over a period of time. Important, as it is grammatical support
: for the co-origin of Torah sheba'al peh.  >>

: This sounds interesting, aval lo yarad'ti l'sof da'atcha.  Could you
: elaborate?

Well, under this assumption, "Vayomer Hashem el Mosheh leimor" becomes "And
G-d was talking to Mosheh, to say". It's past imperfect. The talking goes on
beyond the past-tense event described in the text. IOW, we are being told
that more was said to Mosheh on the subject than what is recorded in Torah
sheBichsav.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-Feb-00: Shelishi, Sisa
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 118b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Now that Marc Shapiro and Harry Maryles have revived, apparently, an old
discussion on this list - the extent of Noah's flood, I thought I might
share the feelings of an Orthodox scientist on this question.  It would
be of value, certainly, to review what has been said previously on
Avodah on this subject, but the Aishdas website only lists the current
volume in its archive.

The language of the Torah in describing the mabul certainly leaves the
impression that we are dealing with a global event that destroyed all
animate life on land except for the passengers of the ark.   "And the
water rose exceedingly over the earth and covered all the tall mountains
that are under the entire sky" (Gen. 7:19).  That is the evident
(peshat) understanding of the text.  Unfortunately, it leaves many
unanswered questions.  The principle one being the lack of any physical
evidence for such a calamitious global event.  Where are the extensive
silt deposits, rich in organic matter, that can be dated to 4100 (or
4270) years ago through calibrated radiocarbon dating? Where is the
evidence of the flooding of the massive layered ice deposits on
Greenland and Antarctica?  The ice there has over 100,000 seasonal
layers without any sign of melting or salt intrusion due to flooding 4
millenia ago.  Then there are the numerous "practical" questions.  Where
did all the water needed to cover the highest mountains originate, and
where did it go?  It would require an addition of twice the volume of
the current oceans to cover the purported Mount Arrarat (18,000 ft.),
and our current atmosphere has a moisture content only 0.03% that of the
oceans.  How did such far-flung regional species as the arctic polar
bear, the antarctic penguin, the Australian kangaroo, and the Andean
llama. get to the ark?  How did the ark, which was the size of a garden
apartment building, contain the many thousands of species of mammals,
reptiles, and birds, or the hundred thousand species of insects?  How is
it that the great genetic variability noted in all species but man arose
from single breeding pairs that survived in the ark?   In fact, how does
one account for the races of man if they stem from the three sons of
Noah?   To be sure, one can answer that the mabul was a miraculous
event.  But here we have miracle upon miracle upon miracle that left no
apparent trace.  You might argue that it is in the nature of miracles
that they leave no trace lest they force us to acknowledge the presence
of the Master of the world.  Yet, the people who were eyewitnesses to
miraculous events did not lose their free will thereby.

I have no easy solution to the above conondrum.  I can sympathize,
however, with those who feel the need to reinterpret the mabul as a more
local event.   Even the Torah can occasionally use exaggerated
language.  For example, "Today I will start placing the terror and fear
of you on the face of the nations under the entire sky who will hear of
your reputation and will tremble and quake as a result." (Deut. 2:25 -
referring to the impending battle with the Amorite king of Transjordan,
Sichon).  The nations that would hear about the annihilation of Sichon's
people in consequence of the battle would be the surrounding nations
such Moab, Ammon, Edom, and the Canaanite city states.  The resulting
fear of Moab and the Canaanites (Jericho inhabitants) is evident in the
Torah and the book of Joshua.  Yet the Torah speaks of nations under the
entire sky.  Why would the Chinese or Africans or American Indians fear
the result of the defeat of Sichon even if they somehow heard about it?
It would seem that the verse really means the local nations despite the
more grandiose language.

Nor should anyone be lightly accused of heretical tendencies if they
espouse the local flood thesis.  Marc has alluded to various unnamed
Rabbis who are allegedly familiar to those on this list.  I would
mention a book, "Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe"
by a noted author who was both a scientist and Torah scholar that was
published posthumously from manuscripts.  In it he states, "After the
Flood, inbreeding between the children of Noah stabilized the strain of
longevity...The descendants of Noah then migrated to the east,
eventually to Babylon, where they interbred with other tribes.  The
longevity trait was thus diluted again..." (page 22).  Clearly, the
author is prepared to accept a more local flood that did not affect
other humans unrelated to Adam who were not living in the same area as
Adam's descendants.  One could argue, as some have done about Harav
Weinberg's letters, that the author may not have intended to publish his
manuscript.  Nonetheless, he was clearly prepared to speculate along
these lines.

Yitzchok Zlochower

On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:01:35 +0200 "Shlomo Godick" <shlomog@mehish.co.il>
writes:

<<Terrific!  Are you any relation to Spiro Agnew (of "nattering nabobs of
negativism" fame)?>>

	No,  but old enough to remember him.  Come to think of it,  maybe we
should be chucking those Mishna Berurahs into the Potomac <g>!

Gershon

On 23 Feb 00, at 21:12, Micha Berger wrote:

> Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> writes in v4n390:
> :> "frum" sociopaths in prison, one of whom was convicted
> :> of murdering his wife for insurance money.  I believe
> :> he is the bal Koreh.
> 
> : Maybe he did teshuvah? Some people do, you know.
> 
> Doesn't "dan likaf zechus" require us to believe he probably did? Let's put
> it this way: If he says "harei at mekudeshes li al minas she'ani tzadik",
> we hold he'd be married.

If this was his only aveira, we definitely would have to say that he 
did tshuva. If he was a total rasha in other areas of his life, R"L, we 
would not have to say that he did tshuva. If he was somewhere in 
the middle, I think it depends where....

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Another point to consider:

What if the "crime" is not considered an aveira?

For example: A Teimani with two wives could be imprisoned under US law for
bigamy -- would that make him a sociopath?

A grey area -- a diamond smuggler (or anyone who ever walked through customs
without declaring when they should). L'halacha (so I've been told) there's a
difference between "telling a lie" and "not declaring" in that one has no
obligation to volunteer information, even if required by law.

I'm not questioning the status of mureder, fraud, and other "active"
aveirot, of course.

Akiva


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

On 24 Feb 00, at 7:45, Akiva Atwood wrote:

> A grey area -- a diamond smuggler (or anyone who ever walked through customs
> without declaring when they should). L'halacha (so I've been told) there's a
> difference between "telling a lie" and "not declaring" in that one has no
> obligation to volunteer information, even if required by law.

Why would this not be onaas dvarim? Maybe because you don't 
"say" anything? (Although in the US and Canada and other 
countries, you do file a written customs declaration, so that might 
be considered saying something). 

Assuming that the laws are applied evenly to all smugglers, 
wouldn't there be a dina d'malchusa problem?

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

> Why would this not be onaas dvarim? Maybe because you don't
> "say" anything? (Although in the US and Canada and other
> countries, you do file a written customs declaration, so that might
> be considered saying something).

Specifically -- yes, it's the fact that you don't "say" anything. Lying, of
course, is a problem (and you could claim that walking through the green
aisle is a lie, as is filing out the form falsly).

>
> Assuming that the laws are applied evenly to all smugglers,
> wouldn't there be a dina d'malchusa problem?
>

Caveat: my post was based on halachot I've heard *here* in Eretz Yisrael --
and there are those who hold that Dina d'malchusa doesn't apply here (or
doesn't apply with a Jewish state, etc).


Akiva



A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

Dear Avodah members,
I am looking for (preferably) Shomer Shabbat home hospitality in
Thousand Oaks, California so that I can attend my cousin's bat Mitzvah
on March 18. It will be held at Temple Adat Elokim on Hillcrest.
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Elana Schachter
Jerusalem

Regarding R. Harry Maryles' post on Avodah last night and
that of his anonymous correspondent:

 1. We vehemently protest the disrespectful, pejorative
references to Gedolei Yisrael.

 2. We will not be baited into participating in a contentious and 
ultimately unproductive thread which has no place in Avoda.
However, sh'sika lav k'hodaa damya.

-- Carl Sherer
-- Shlomo Godick
-- Danny Schoemann
-- Akiva Atwood


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

I recently emailed a chaveir a three things from Egyptian mythology that
could be interesting to frum Jews:

1- The goddess of childbirth, Heqt, was a frog (or frog-headed). Picture the
mental state of a Mitzri during makkas tzefardei'a. Coming out of the river
where they drowned all the Jewish newborns is the effigy of the appropriate
goddess. The midah kineged midah wouldn't be missed on them. (Hertz, IIRC)

2- The demigod who was supposed to carry prayers to the gods and blessings
down to the people was Apis, who was a bull. (Bulls pulled carts in their
culture. Horses were for speed and war, not burdens. I think it has to
do with their lack of harness technology. The way they made harnesses in
those days would cause pulling a heavy load to choke the horse.)

RSRH notes that this adds an element to the eigel hazahav story, as it shows
that they really were trying to replace Moshe with a new middleman and they
weren't out to find themselves a new deity, as per Chazal.

3- According to Avudraham, Egyptians don't worship sheep. They worship the
zodiac, which includes a sheep. This provides a second connection between
the korban Pesach and sheep, as the mazal for Nissan is the ram.

I just noticed that both in the case of the eigel and the korban there's a
shift from adult to child (ox -- > calf; ram -- > lamb). I don't know what
it means. I'm curious to "hear" your thoughts.

-mi

--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 22-Feb-00: Shelishi, Sisa
micha@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 118b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.

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


[ 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         ]