Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 052

Sunday, May 28 2000

• Sholom Aleichem
• hechsherim
• Re: Quick question in defining "Shomer Shabbos"
• Re: Heter Mechirah
• Re: Heter Mechirah
• Re: Quick question in defining "Shomer Shabbos"
• Re: Quick question in defining "Shomer Shabbos"
• Existentialism and Kiruv
• Re: Existentialism and Kiruv
• hechsherim
• Re: Existentialism and Kiruv
• Re: hechsherim
• Re:Possible Maclokes Ritva and Rambam on nature of asmachta
• Re: Keepsakes
• Re: Lo sevsaheil Gedi
• Re: Re:Possible Maclokes Ritva and Rambam on nature of asmachta
• Inuy HaDin

> From: Micha Berger   subject: Re: Sholom Aleichem
> >SBA wrote:
> : Q. Why the change of nussach, with the first person saying "SA" and the
> : second replying "AS"?

> ...There is another custom that introduces assymetry in greetings. When I
> wish someone a "Gut Voch", the customary reply is "Gut Yahr". Again, because
> the person who initiates the exchange has a berachah already just for being
> the initiator.

> The same is also true of the greetings in Rus.

> "Hashem Imachem" can also be "imo Anochi betzarah". "Yevarechicha Hashem"
> asks for His "berachah". A "lason ribui", which therefore excludes the
> contriction of "tzarah". Their greeting is therefore a greater wish than his.

I need a bit of help here. Just a couple of days before we started on this
topic, I saw a Chasam Sofer (either in one of his sforim or a quote), but
simply cannot remember where, something along the following lines:

When being greeted, the responder has a Chiyuv to increase (double?)
the greeting (as per RMB above). For this reason says the CS, one should
always greet a Goy first...

I am (mentally) trying to go thru all the sforim I have browsed in the
past weeks, to be able to give a source, unsuccessfully. Efsher one of our
knowledgable members can help?

A Gutten Shabbos.

SHLOMO B ABELES

Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 12:51:17 -0400
From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
Subject: RE:hechsherim
 
<<Questioning his (a rav hamchshir's} reliability therefore does question
his 
> integrity, yirat shamayim and hezkat kashrut.
Meir Shinnar>>

<<how about questioning his competence?  Can't sincere people THINK 
> they are competent when in fact they are in over their heads?
 Rich Wolpoe>>
 
<<velo am ha'aretz hasid comes to mind...>>

	We are not discussing chasidus,  but ne'emanus/reliability in kashrus. 
An am ha'aretz can in fact be very sincere,  a yorei shamaim,  and not
realize that he is over his head.  The Rav Hamachshir whom I quoted
earlier as dismissing chemical-sounding ingredients as "khimische
shtoffen" was a yorei shamaim,  but out of his depth in kashrus.

	Interesting side point:  if we accept your premise that am ha'aretz in
this context can refer to someone who lacks knowledge of the facts on the
ground,  then this Rebbe was not a chasid!

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

PS I saw the post to which I am responding on both Avodah and Areivim. 
Micha's call.

On 25 May 00, at 16:42, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> >>Ideally s/he should be a shomer chinam (shouldn't be
> doing it al m'nas le'kabel schar).<< 
> 
> Ruach haChaim on Avos 1:3 writes that the ideal is al
> menas l'kabel schar - to draw Hashem's shefa to the
> world and reap its benefits, but most of us aren't on
> the madreiga to do avodah that way so we settle for
> shelo al menas l'kabel pras.  An interesting twist.  

Do I understand correctly that what he means is that I should keep 
Shabbos on behalf of the Klal and not only for myself?

-- 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

On 25 May 00, at 16:25, Harry Maryles wrote:

> The Ridvaz in his Teshuvos elaborates on this issue but Paskins like the Bais
> Yosef and concludes with the following: "It is certain ( Barur KaShemesh)
> that it is permissible to buy and eat grain and fruit purchased from Goyim
> in Israel without Kedushas Shvi'is.

The Chazon Ish disagreed with this and held that even fruit and 
grain purchased from goyim during Shmitta does have Kdushas 
Shviis. Most of Bnei Brak works that way today, and the Shearis 
Beis Din of Rav Karelitz gives hashgacha on that basis.

> This is the basis of the Heter Mechirah that is used in Israel to this
> very day.
> 
> But... 
> 
> Many Gedolim are against this practice for other reasons (of which I, HM,
> am not aware) and for that reason, the Heter Mechirah authorized by R Kook,
> was only given BeShas Hadechak (during times of great need literally when
> Pikuach Nefesh was involved during the pioneering years of Israeli Statehood.

Some of the reasons are outlined in discussions that Reb. Luntz 
and I had a couple of weeks ago on this channel. There's an issue 
of whether Lo S'Choneim applies to the sale of land in Eretz Yisrael 
to the Arabs (to grossly oversimplify an issue we discussed at 
great length). But I hesitate to say more about this without at least 
seeing the Netziv's tshuva on this inside, because RCL and I were 
really only arguing based on Rav Kook's shita.

-- 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

----- Original Message -----
From: Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 1:49 AM
Subject: Re: Heter Mechirah


> The Chazon Ish disagreed with this and held that even fruit and
> grain purchased from goyim during Shmitta does have Kdushas
> Shviis. Most of Bnei Brak works that way today, and the Shearis
> Beis Din of Rav Karelitz gives hashgacha on that basis.
>

But Yerushalayim does not, correct?

> Some of the reasons are outlined in discussions that Reb. Luntz
> and I had a couple of weeks ago on this channel. There's an issue
> of whether Lo S'Choneim applies to the sale of land in Eretz Yisrael
> to the Arabs (to grossly oversimplify an issue we discussed at
> great length). But I hesitate to say more about this without at least
> seeing the Netziv's tshuva on this inside, because RCL and I were
> really only arguing based on Rav Kook's shita.
>

The major problem is that the sale is not binding in the secular sense (not
inscribed in the "tabu", to use the vernacular).

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

According to the Ramchal, only for the Klal and not for yourself!

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 1:49 AM


> Do I understand correctly that what he means is that I should keep 
> Shabbos on behalf of the Klal and not only for myself?

> -- Carl

: When we say someone is shomeir Shabbos, shomeir Torah uMitzvos, or the like,
: which of the four kinds of shomeir is he?

My father suggested that perhaps this means that "oneis Rachmana patrei" to
the extent of getting the sechar for shemiras shabbos (as opposed to patur
from onesh) only applies to someone who is oveid al minas shelo likabeil
peras.

-mi

[As this email seems to be sparking a discussion of Yiddishkeit and
existantialism, I though it would be appropriate to bounce it to Avodah.
-mi]

On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 04:17:03PM -0500, Eric Simon wrote:
: I, and my family, became shomer shabbos because we experienced a _real_
: shabbos, and loved it.  Because we experienced frum life and loved it.
...
: We were attracted to Judaism because we saw the "facts on the ground" --
: the richness of a frum life.

: And, while it sounds objectionable, one _could_ rephrase the above to say:
: we became frum because it felt good to do so.

I disagree that the two are equivalent. Experiencing Shabbos and noting
the richness of a frum lifestyle is an experience, not an emotion.

In comparison, the aesthetic content of a scene is what Kant would call
a noumenon -- something that we can know exists, but not through sensory
perception like the way one experiences a phenomenon. 

The enjoyment of that beauty is an emotion.

The aesthetic of a true idea, the way all these apparently disjoint
peices fit together, is a noumenon. One may have an emotional
reaction, but it is a reaction to something real and external to
the self.

Another phrase I tried to coin was "cognitive consonance", as an antonym
to cognitive dissonance. Beyond the aethetic of an elegent idea. This is
the same reason why we consider an experiment that fails to disprove a
theory as lending credance to it. (Related to this is Bayesian reasoning.)

I think you are confusing noumena and the emotional reaction to them.

Another way of showing the reality of this earlier layer ahead of the
emotion -- the same noumenon could provoke a good feeling or a sense of
duty (usually both). There is a cause that is in common between these two
effects.

It's an experience, not an empirical data point. In western society (an
Adam I based worldview of mastering the world, science and technology),
if I can repeat it for others, IOW, if it's not science, it doesn't
exist.

-mi

PS: Apologies to scj regulars, who have lived through me and a former BT r"l
belabor this issue in a half dozen emails a day for roughly a month.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-May-00: Levi, Bechukosai
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 10a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

In a message dated 5/25/00 7:31:50 PM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< 
 It's an experience, not an empirical data point. In western society (an
 Adam I based worldview of mastering the world, science and technology),
 if I can repeat it for others, IOW, if it's not science, it doesn't
 exist. >>

Someone told me once that the bulletin board Engineering Building at the 
University of Oklahoma caries this sign: "If You Can't Count It, It Don't 
Count." I take it you're saying that Judaism takes a subtler view of things.

David Finch

I think that the thread on hechsherim has gone on long enough, and this is
just one last clarification:
RYGB and I differ in a reading of a tshuva of RMF about hechsherim.  Without
belaboring the point, I find his reading extraordinarily forced.  RMF was
not giving a mussar schmooz about slander, nor was he deciding that
something inaccurate was said.  He merely reiterated that the position of a
mashgiach had certain hazakot associated with them, and that any issues
related to them needs to be decided by a bet din.  Until such  a decision
is made, the mashgiach has a hezkat kashrut that should not be publicly
questioned, with the problems of motzi la'az.  The fact that he may have
been motivated by the feeling that there was financially motivated slander
doesn't change the nature or the foundation of the psak.

While the hevra can read for themselves, and normally I would be very
careful to challenge RYGB's reading of pshat in a halachic text, R David
Bleich reads the tshuva in the same way I do, even though, like RYGB, he is
very troubled by these conclusions.  He ends up saying essentially that Rav
Moshe could not possibly have meant for this to be widely acceptable.
However, the pshat of rav Moshe seems clear.  

Meir Shinnar

On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 11:09:02PM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
: Someone told me once that the bulletin board Engineering Building at the 
: University of Oklahoma caries this sign: "If You Can't Count It, It Don't 
: Count." I take it you're saying that Judaism takes a subtler view of things.

I think it's true for engineering.

Science is the study of phenomena.

Engineering is the application of that study to the creation of phenomena.

Yiddishkeit is first and foremost about axiology and teleology, or in English,
values and purpose. It deals with noumena. (These values are justified
given some empirical claims, but that is a topic in itself.)

This observation is why we find so many O thinkers from R' Breuer to RYBS
who utilize Kant or neo-Kantianism as a tool to explain Yahadus.

I also think that the Rihal was an existentialist, although he appeals more
to the experience of ancestors than to personal experience. The Kuzari is
a book that claims to be anti-philosophy. Yet the format is like one of
Plato's dialogues, and he even quotes Plato's /Timaeus/ at least once (4:25,
the one part not translated to modern Hebrew in the copy I own because it
dealts with Sefer haYetzirah).

The Rihal addresses some of his complaints against philosophy in 1:11 - 1:13.
The chaveir introduces to the king his G-d as being the One of Avraham,
Yitzchak, Ya'akov, yetzi'as Mitzrayim, Midbar Sinai, Yam Suf, Yehoshu'a,
Moshe and matan Torah, as well as the other Nevi'im, the G-d whose promises
(including much of this week's parashah) have been born out by Jewish history.

The king objects to the idea of introducing G-d in historical terms rather
than as the Creator, Ruler and Guide of the universe, and to show His
Existance based on evidence from the world.

The chaveir replies (1:13) that that philosophy is of limited value compared
to tradition because a pair of good philosophers can each prove his side of
the dispute. As he later says (1:63-65), deduction is a decent 2nd-best for
a culture that lacks a tradition that records the direct evidence.

1:13 is very close (albeit not identical) to Kant's thesis in his Critique
of Pure Reason.

I think the Rihal was addressing Scholasticism and neo-Platonism in particular,
which combined made up what was thought of as "philosophy" in his day.
Western philosphy caught up with him in the 19th century, as a reaction to
Locke and empiricism.

Unfortunately, the culture has yet to catch on to this idea. For example,
the American people expect to find moral guidance and axiology in general
from empirical scientific data. Since one can't scientifically prove the
correctness of any stance, they end up with moral relativism, no absolute
standards, "ish hayashar be'einav ya'eseh".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-May-00: Levi, Bechukosai
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 10a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Under other circumstances I would let RMS have the last word, but not when
it comes to the "reading" of the IgM. Sorry.

On Fri, 26 May 2000, Shinnar, Meir wrote:

> I think that the thread on hechsherim has gone on long enough, and this
> is just one last clarification:  RYGB and I differ in a reading of a
> tshuva of RMF about hechsherim.  Without belaboring the point, I find
> his reading extraordinarily forced.  RMF was not giving a mussar schmooz

The feeling is mutual :-) .

> about slander, nor was he deciding that something inaccurate was said. 
> He merely reiterated that the position of a mashgiach had certain
> hazakot associated with them, and that any issues related to them needs
> to be decided by a bet din.  Until such a decision is made, the
> mashgiach has a hezkat kashrut that should not be publicly questioned,
> with the problems of motzi la'az.  The fact that he may have been
> motivated by the feeling that there was financially motivated slander
> doesn't change the nature or the foundation of the psak. 
>

Once again, the teshuva is not at all concerned with the responsibility or
right of "unbiased" third parties to critique the Kashrus standards of a
concern or its certifying body. This teshuva is concerned with the
employment of slander, and other improper methods, for commercial
competition - with the express intent of getting the hashgocho, and its
lucre, away from another and for oneself.
 
> While the hevra can read for themselves, and normally I would be very
> careful to challenge RYGB's reading of pshat in a halachic text, R David
> Bleich reads the tshuva in the same way I do, even though, like RYGB, he
> is very troubled by these conclusions.  He ends up saying essentially
> that Rav Moshe could not possibly have meant for this to be widely
> acceptable.  However, the pshat of rav Moshe seems clear. 
> 

I agree that it seems clear :-).

Two more points:

On the Areivim list yesteday I made this point somewhat tongue in cheek,
but I believe it correct: There is an inconsistency inherent in a
perspectiive that allows, even encourages, critique of Rabbonim (or
Gewdolim) for their methodology and statements in one arena or area, but
no others.

As to "chumra bein adam la'makom" vs. "chumra bein adam l'chaveiro" (CBALM
vs. CBALC), we migt learn a lesson form Chaba, who are stringent to the
point of paranoia on Kashrus, but do fine, generally, on Ahavas Yisroel.

KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In a message dated 5/25/00 7:51:46 PM Central Daylight Time, 
owner-avodah@aishdas.org writes:

<< ubject: Re: Taz on Milah
 
 Zehr shverr.
 
 I hope there is no such shitta. Because that is what I believe.
 
 IIRC, The Ritva in RH says that asmachta'os were intended by the RBS"O as a
 minor form of derosho, not just as a mnemonic device, but not that the
 process was from the asmachta to the din.
 
 Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
 http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org >>
If you learn the sugya of alu valu with Ritva and the Sefer Hamitvos Shel 
HaRambam,  is there is a fundamental difference in how these ywo Rishonim 
understand the concept of asmacta?The Rambam describes dinin which are 
mfurash in the psukim, dinim such as lulav which are halochos lmoshe mesinai 
and dinim which are doraisa and upon which there is a makor in Tanach. On a 
lesser level, one can find gzeros, takanos drabanan, etc. 
The Ritva rejects the popular and baale batish apprroach that some dinim are 
"nu ,it's just an asmachta" emphatically .
Please enlighten me and the olam on this chakira if you believe it's nitan 
lomra.
                                                        Steven Brizel
                                                         Zeliglaw@aol.com

On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 10:10:30AM -0400, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:
: The specific question was referring to the actual act of procreation/marital
: relations, not "why did Hashem want man and woman to marry."  In other
: words, even within the structure of marriage, Hashem could have made human
: beings reproduce in other ways, as opposed to the way in which He chose.


Well, I started by replying, but it grew into a whole p'shetl. However, I 
did touch on your question:
: "Lo tov heyos ha'adam livado". If man could feel complete alone, there would
: be no community. Hashem therefore had to create man so that he needs another
: to be complete. In particular, to be sufficiently complete to raise and
: lead the next generation, to build toward the future. In RYBS's terms,
: the role model for a child must not be an indvidual, but the fundamental
: community of the couple.

I was viewing things as why does procreation require two people? Because
offspring should be raised by a community (in RYBS's technical sense of
the word), not an individual. Which is why we are emotionally designed
so that the procreative act provides glue to that community of two.

But yes, it did end up getting buried once I was done editing the whole
thing into a bigger thought.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 22-May-00: Levi, Bechukosai
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 10a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Actually, RSG seems to have held that chukkim are meant to cultivate
discipline and espirit de corps, and do not necessarily possess intrinsic
rationale.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
To: <areivim@aishdas.org>; <areivim@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 9:58 AM
Subject: Lo sevsaheil Gedi


> I understood that the Rambam said that ther is a logical raiotnal for all
> mitzvos. Chaver and landman David I. cohen pointed out that this is
acutally a
> R. Saadya Gaon.  Either way, this is a big rtionale for rationalism <pun>
that
> the TIDE/TuM world is in touch with a logic behind a mitzva.  In this case
the
> TuM world confirmed via arachaeology - so I am told - that this was indeed
an AZ
> ritual of one of the Canaanite groups!
>

Not sure I understand. Care to elaborate?

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: <Zeliglaw@aol.com>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 9:55 AM
Subject: Re:Possible Maclokes Ritva and Rambam on nature of asmachta


> If you learn the sugya of alu valu with Ritva and the Sefer Hamitvos Shel
> HaRambam,  is there is a fundamental difference in how these ywo Rishonim
> understand the concept of asmacta?The Rambam describes dinin which are
> mfurash in the psukim, dinim such as lulav which are halochos lmoshe
mesinai
> and dinim which are doraisa and upon which there is a makor in Tanach. On
a
> lesser level, one can find gzeros, takanos drabanan, etc.
> The Ritva rejects the popular and baale batish apprroach that some dinim
are
> "nu ,it's just an asmachta" emphatically .
> Please enlighten me and the olam on this chakira if you believe it's nitan
> lomra.

The Gemara in Sanhedrin 42b says that when Beis Din was going to kill someone,
the execution place was a bit far away from the Beis Din, because we don't
want Beis Din to look like they're bloodthirsty, and because we want eidim
who can be mazim the first eidim to have time to come. The latter svara is
because of the din of v'hitzilu ha'eida. Lichora there's a stira from this
to the rule that we aren't me'aneh a din by postponing an execution. And if
you answer that it's for his own good, then why not postpone the execution
even more in the hope that eidei hazama will come during a longer postponement.

-- Carl (for Avraham Yaakov who will not be home to see answers from Sunday
morning until Friday afternoon, so don't expect me to argue this :-)


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

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


[ 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         ]