Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 147

Sunday, April 13 2003

• Re: oral and written traditions
• Re: Oral and Written Traditions
• Re: oral and written traditions
• Re: Oral and Written Traditions
• Re: gilgul
• Re: Sheitels
• Re: Sheitels
• Children and Mechiras Chametz
• [none]
• Children and Mechiras Chometz
• Re: Children and Mechiras Chometz
• Re: Tefilin on CHM in EY
• Re: Rambam: Hakdama
• Denatured alchohol vs. alchohol in deoderant
• Re: Denatured alchohol vs. alchohol in deoderant
• RE: How long should it take to clean a refrigerator for Pesach?
• RE: How long should it take to clean a refrigerator for Pesach?
• Re: What is Talmud Torah
• Re: On the Matter of Masorah
• Re: What's the "lishmah" of talmud Torah?
• Re: Sheitels
• Kavod Tzibbur
• Re: gilgul
• Re: gilgul

Micha Berger wrote:
> I'm sure it happens, although none come to mind. But compare those oddities
> against the norm of thought that goes into teshuvos, and RYGB's point seems
> pretty self-evident to me. New pesaq is overwhelming built on previous
> written pesaq.

I'm not denying the historical fact. I'm objecting to Rabbi B's contention
that it is l'chatchila rather than b'dieved.

David Riceman

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:
> 1. Reb Shalom Shachna was a Rishon?

Borderline.  He was of the generation before the Rama.

> 2. The vast ocean is the extraordinarily extensive responsa literature
> that is the basis of psak halacha.

But that's not a ra'ya for you. I concede that written psak is part
of mesorah; the problem is that you contend that oral psak is not part
of mesorah. You need more than tshuvos, you need tshuvos that say
"even though I told this to you I'm writing it down since otherwise
you'll think that was a one-shot psak which is not part of mesorah."
Admittedly there were those who held that all psak is one-shot (that
seems to be the Rama's position, and it seems to be RMF's position in
his hakdamah to Iggros Moshe) but I don't recall seeing anyone make
the chiluk between horaah and mesorah that you make. I observe, BTW,
that you have dropped your contention that the authority of the mesorah
is that of the moseir and not of the moreh.

David Riceman

On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 09:14:59AM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: Interesting - we've gone from not being allowed to have a standard
: written text of an oral law nature(pre horaat shaah or however you
: understand Rebbe) to making the written word more powerful than the
: oral transmission...

This is similar to what on Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 10:27:28AM -0400, David
Riceman wrote:
: I'm not denying the historical fact. I'm objecting to Rabbi B's contention
: that it is l'chatchila rather than b'dieved.

Does he contend it's lechatkhilah?

My own position is that while the writing of teshuvos is a bedi'eved,
as long as the cause of the bedi'eved exists, that cause makes it the
more authoritative means of issuing pesaq.

So, it's the halachic process of choice for the bedi'eved world the
galus forced us into.

Back to RJR:
:                    Does the posek have to believe his sh"ut (each of
: them?) are important enough for future dorot in order to justify writing
: them down?

Over the last 24 hrs I gave two arguments for a "yes" answer to this:

1- Apparantly RCBrisker thought so, which is the reason usually given
for why he was so afraid to write them.

2- It's also implied by the Bach, as per RAF's signature file. He seems
to give two choices: personal chumrah vs "recording in a book to rule
this way for the future generations". As though "recording in a book"
is the only means to create a rule ledoros.

:-)BB!!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

In a message dated 4/11/2003 8:36:15 AM EST, sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
>> and once you're dealing with a written post-ptirah document(or even an
>> unauthorized preptirah) you need to seriously consider whether the Rav
>> in question changed his mind subsequent to the writers information.

> Why wouldn't you have to consider that even if the Rav himself wrote 
> it? We have certainly all seen that happen....

One would assume that knowing his printed word was out there, if a posek
changed his mind on something he would make every effort to see that
the change was publicized (the burden of having published and putting
one's written word into the written mesorah chain!)

KT
Joel Rich

On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 01:01:41PM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: FWIW, Agus claimed that the Greek Philosophers borrowed from early Jewish
: and proto-Jewish thinkers he called "Sofrim"...

He's not alone in this belief.

The Zohar attributes the birth of Greek philosophy to their exposure
to the thoughts introduced to Babylonia by Daniel (in his role in the
court there).

This explains how the Zohar can used ideas first found in print in
Plato, Aristotle or Plotinus and not consider them borrowed.

R' Saadia and the Rambam didn't have this concern. They simply said that
emes is emes regardless of who found it, all emes comes from the same
Borei, and therefore must be consistant.

However, the Zohar's stance is mystical, ie that G-d could only be known
by realizing the limitation of human knowledge. They were rationalists.
This idea wouldn't fit the Zohar's worldview.

:-)BB!!
-mi

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>: I do not think Erva can be created on the D'Orais level. It is an
>: objective standard.  When the Torah tells us something is Erva, it is
>: Erva...

> First, I am not sure where I stand on the issue anymore. Take the
> following only as an argument of plausibility.

> I think we ought to ask if everah can be created on a "das Mosheh" level.
> You speak in terms of objective vs culturally relative standards. That's
> das Moshe vs das Yehudis, not de'Oraisa vs deRabbanon. Even das Yehudis,
> whose implementation depends on social norms, is de'Oraisa. 

Das Yehudis is D'Oraisa? Are you sure about that? IIRC it is
D'Rabbanan. If not, what's the difference betwen it, and Das Moshe?

Also, you are saying that there is such a thing as relative Erva
D'Oraisa. That seems to me to be at odds with the absolutist nature
of D'Oraisos.

HM

On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 06:27:46AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
:> I think we ought to ask if everah can be created on a "das Mosheh" level.
:> You speak in terms of objective vs culturally relative standards. That's
:> das Moshe vs das Yehudis, not de'Oraisa vs deRabbanon. Even das Yehudis,
:> whose implementation depends on social norms, is de'Oraisa. 

: Das Yehudis is D'Oraisa? Are you sure about that? IIRC it is
: D'Rabbanan. If not, what's the difference betwen it, and Das Moshe?

As I wrote: Das Mosheh are those laws that are absolutes, given in the
desert to Mosheh. Das Yehudis is the din not to expose parts of your
body that the frum community of your time and place keep covered in
mixed company. Which I am arguing is a din de'Oraisa even though the
limits of that din have to do with what is social norm, what Yehudis does.

I have an argument against the idea (remember, I'm on the fence) that
hair covering is a das Yehudis caused by a different issur making hair
covering by married women the norm. The oft-quoted AhS about saying Shema
before a woman who doesn't cover her hair. He doesn't seem to exclude
such women from the population defining "Yehudis", he includes them in
our kehillah. And yet, he acknoweldges that one isn't distracted by it
(in his place and time) and therefore one could say shema. Implying that
it's not a violation of das Yehudis.

As I said, an argument, not a ra'ayah berurah.

:-)BB!!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

<<OTOH, if you own chametz on someone else's property (e.g. your desk
at work), AFAIK that's yours and you have to sell it or get rid of it.>>

My boss asks me each year to make bedikas chametz in the office. Do I
have any obligation to go beyond common areas (e.g. kitchen, lobby)-I've
always assumed that people's offices are their own "property" for this
purpose?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Toby Katz wrote:
> I gave my son a much longer grace period, but finally I told him that
> if his candy was not gone by the week before Pesach, it was going to be
> hefker. Then I asked R' Bensinger if I had the right to do it, since my
> son was over bar mitzva, and it WAS his. R' Bensinger said that even if
> he was a kattan I would not have the right to do it (uh oh). He added
> that even though I could not confiscate the candy or declare it hefker,
> I COULD charge my son rent for the space it occupied. [The rent could be
> payable in candy.] Also, since I was worried that the candy might attract
> ants, I could spray bug spray all over it, even though it would render the
> candy inedible. But I could not eat the candy without the kid's permission

This triggered a question that I always had. In many Yeshivas, it is
standard to confiscate items such as balls, Game Boys, PDA's etc from
kids who play them in class and even at recess and that is the policy of
the school. Oftentimes, there isn't even a warning that a sweep will be
done. Some principals' offices are filled with shelves of confiscated
materials and they are usually not returned. What is the justification
for this behavior via-a-vis the laws of gezel?

M. Levin

From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
>I was surprised by this post. We do not sell our chametz in order to be
>mekayem the mitzvah of tashbisu or to avoid the issur of bal yeira'eh.
>We sell chametz that we want to have after Pesach. The other chametz we
>get rid of and, if we miss it, are mevatel it.=20

Even though the intention of selling chometz is not be mekayeim the
mitzvah of tashbisu, couldn't one argue that it is a byproduct of the
mechirah? In other words, we sell the chometz so we can eat it after
Pesach, but at the same time we are being mekayeim tashbisu.

Children and Mechiras ChometzChaim Markowitz wrote:
>Even though the intention of selling chometz is not be mekayeim
>the mitzvah of tashbisu, couldn't one argue that it is a byproduct
>of the mechirah? In other words, we sell the chometz so we can
>eat it after Pesach, but at the same time we are being mekayeim
>tashbisu.

One could argue that, although it certainly is not according to R'
Yehudah. But even without mechirah one is mekayem tashbisu by eating,
throwing out, or burning the chametz so selling does not add anything
that is missing.

Gil Student

On 9 Apr 2003 at 13:58, David E Cohen wrote:
> I don't know what the Gra himself did -- perhaps it's recorded in
> Ma'aseh Rav? (I don't have a copy.)

Ma'aseh Rav (174) says he didn't. 

-- Carl

RRW wrote:
> There are several meanings of the word Minhag in a Halachic context ONE
> is how we pasken.
> Illustration: we are NOHEIG like Rashi/Rambam vs. Rabbeinu Tam legabbie
> Tfillin

This is a correct understanding of the word minhag. We are faced with
a disagreement, and have little in a formal way to choose one over the
other, except that we know one to be the common pattern of observance,
hence we traditionally accept that view to be correct.

Arie

R' Micha wrote on Areivim:
> The way RMF, R' Yaakov Kamenetzky (Kamenecki), and R' Aharon Kotler
> pasken, this would not work if the food is such that the cleaner could
> be extracted (even if by centrifuge) or the food otherwise restored
> to edibility.

> I found them cited in "Hilchos Pesach" pp 25, 26. 

I looked up your cite. He's talking about denatured alchohol which can
be imbibed as is b'sha'as ha'dchak and can be fixed with "tikkun ktzas."
I would suggest that there is a difference between such alchohol, which
never lost the shem chametz, and an object which is completely not raui
l'achilas kelev (e.g., in deoderant) from which alchohol can be extracted
using a complicated process.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 11:18:42AM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
:> I found them cited in "Hilchos Pesach" pp 25, 26. 

: I looked up your cite. He's talking about denatured alchohol which can
: be imbibed as is b'sha'as ha'dchak and can be fixed with "tikkun ktzas."
: I would suggest that there is a difference between such alchohol, which
: never lost the shem chametz, and an object which is completely not raui
: l'achilas kelev (e.g., in deoderant) from which alchohol can be extracted
: using a complicated process.

To say this you need a definition of tiqun ketzas vs complicated process.

Where in this spectrum would you place my example: something where the
chameitz could be restored to edibility with a centrifuge?

BTW, your including the phrase "never lost the shem chameitz" to contrast
"completely not raui l'achilas kelec" to presume your answer.

The first only never lost sheim chameitz because you decided in your
teirutz that it's chameitz. The denatured alchohol will kill a dog,
but you presume your teirutz by saying it won't kill one fast enough to
qualify as eino RLK.

Rather than working with what seems to be assumptions, can we get a
solid basis for fixing the line in come particular point?

:-)BB!!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

RRF on Areivim:
> My neighbor did say, though, that once you battul the chametz it isn't 
> chametz anymore, since it is now battul, so any chametz molecules 
> magically change into battul molecules. 

I responded:
> I think this is incorrect. Bittul just changes the ownership of chometz 
> (makes it hefker). If hefker chometz falls into your food, the food becomes 
> chometzdik. 

RMB:
> That's one of two shitos about the mechanics of bittul. The machloqes 
> is a popular Shabbos haGadol derashah topic. 

I reviewed the Ramban on the first daf of Psachim (who I understand
to be the source of this machlokes, in explaining Rashi). AIUI, the
Ramban is explaining how bittul works in the context of bal yeira'eh
/bal yematzei and says that rather than working through hefker, bittul
causes the person to completely disassociate himself from the chometz.
I don't think that this means that the chometz loses its status as
chometz so that one who eats it does not violate an issur of achilah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

RRF on Areivim:
> My neighbor did say, though, that once you battul the chametz it isn't 
> chametz anymore, since it is now battul, so any chametz molecules 
> magically change into battul molecules. 

I responded:
> I think this is incorrect. Bittul just changes the ownership of chometz 
> (makes it hefker). If hefker chometz falls into your food, the food becomes 
> chometzdik. 

RMB:
> That's one of two shitos about the mechanics of bittul. The machloqes 
> is a popular Shabbos haGadol derashah topic. 

I reviewed the Ramban on the first daf of Psachim (who I understand
to be the source of this machlokes, in explaining Rashi). AIUI, the
Ramban is explaining how bittul works in the context of bal yeira'eh
/bal yematzei and says that rather than working through hefker, bittul
causes the person to completely disassociate himself from the chometz.
I don't think that this means that the chometz loses its status as
chometz so that one who eats it does not violate an issur of achilah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

R. Turkel wrote:
> The recent daf yomi had an extensive discussion of remedies for various
> diseases. As all (?) acharonim point out we no longer rely on these
> gemaras for a variety of reasons.

> Why would one be mekayem the mitzvah of talmud torah learning this
> sugya? Why not just learn a modern medical text on how to treat these
> diseases. Furthermore the translation of these diseases and their reatment
> is frequently a matter of speculation. So we don't even know what they
> were saying.

I recall reading an article in the AOJS journal decades ago that made an
argument that Torah is defined not by content but by the source. Thus,
geometrical discussions in the Gemora are Talmud Torah but the same
discussions in other literature are not. The author, whose name I
unfortunately do not remember, brough the following raya. We know that
Sefer Torah shkosovo min -isoref (Gittin 59, I think). So we see that
the crucial determining characteristic is the soure and not the content.

The same might apply to medical discussions.

M. Levin

On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 12:23:29PM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
:> However, RHS is quite clear and the majority of his article is on
:> that subject. It boils down to:
:>   Nevertheless, we still assume that a centuries-old halachic position,
:>   accepted and observed universally by all of Klal Yisroel, does not lend
:>   itself to reversal. The tradition makes room for, and even encourages,
:>   chiddush, but not for shinui (see Nefesh Harav pg. 64). According
:>   to Rambam, the binding force of the Talmud is precisely due to the
:>   fact that it was universally accepted by all of Klal Yisroel.

: Corect me where I am wrong but this sounds
: Sounds a lot like Catholic Israel

As I've written in the past, the only problem (but it's a big one) I
have with Schechter's forumulation of CI is that he doesn't articulate
a constitutional law, ie limits that aren't open to vote. They way he
phrased it, halachic Judaism during the end of malchus Yisrael should have
included Asheirah worship, since most of BY who considered themselves
obervant worshipped her. Ah, but they're not /really/ observant? Well,
by this definition they would be! As I said then, no constitution makes
his definition circular.

: BTW, see the very first halachah in SA/YD and the Shach there re: lo
: ro'inu eino raya

This is textbook chiddush -- making something new where before there was
nothing.

The harder part is understanding how RHS calls the relabeling of Beis
She'an a chiddush rather than a shinui. Although I tried in a post sent
last night (EDT).

...
: Accodring to Micha's shita, that lamdus is NOT academic but practical
: why did the Rambam NOT overrule the Gaonim...

As stated numerous times: lamdus only trumps mesorah when it can find
the source of the current practice and prove it's based in ta'us.

Not when it can't find a source. Not when the sevarah shows their
couldn't be a source. And not when it finds a source for an alternate
that is more convincing.

It is a HUGE guess on my part, but consistant with his article, that
this is RHS's distinction between chiddush and shinui.

Chiddush, okay change, is (by translation) a halachah created where
none existed before. This could be:
- in response to a new situation, for which there was no pesaq.
- because the old position turns out to be minhag ta'us (as described
  above), and therefore not count as a "yashan" that was being changed.

: <<Nevertheless, we still assume that a centuries-old halachic position,
: accepted and observed universally by all of Klal Yisroel, does not lend
: itself to reversal. The tradition makes room for, and even encourages,
: chiddush, but not for shinui (see Nefesh Harav pg. 64). According to
: Rambam, the binding force of the Talmud is precisely due to the fact
: that it was universally accepted by all of Klal Yisroel. >>

: So what about Kitniyos which is NOT universal?
: Can we rely upon Sephardic Masorah to be mevateil this minhag?

There is no Sephardic mesorah contradicting qitniyos. There is no
Sephardic mesorah about qitniyos at all, which is why they never
left the default state of mutar.

: And if we cannot rely upon Sephardic Minhag, how come the ommission
: of Tefillin on Chol Hamoed which at one time was universal worn by
: Ashkenazim?

Because the Zohar says it's wrong. That would make the pesaq a ta'us,
ignorable, and the change a chiddush.

I've made this distinction repeatedly: there is one thing to have
a sevarah that proposes an alternate hanhagah, and a totally different
thing to have a sevarah that shows the current hanhagah is flawed.

: <<The Tosefta (Megillah Chap. 3) records that theoretically, a woman
: should be permitted to get an aliyah (to the Torah), however the Rabbis
: did not allow this because of kvod hatzibbur. This has clearly been the
: universal practice in Klal Yisroel for close to two thousand years. >>

: SA/YD 1:1: Lo Ra'inu eino raya re: Women doing Shechita

Thus proving a current ruling would be a chiddush, as above.

: re: <<kavod hatzibbur.>>
: And which wins - Masorah or dikduk?

Neither: it's not a halachic issue. Any identification with diqduq and
as a kind of sevarah doesn't map this question to the rest of your post.

I usually use common pronunciation for jargon, as I treat the jargon
as its own language irrelevent of the source language it was lifted
from.

Which reminds me of something I showed RCMarkowitz and RNWitty last
Shabbos. In the version I use of peirush haGra on Mishlei, the word is
written "meichamas". That something comes "from the heat of" another
idea is a meaningful idiom. I'll still be using "machmas", though,
in my own speech.

:-)BB!!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Micha wrote:
>Personally, I have written in the past that learning Torah for the
>intellectual joy inherent in grasping complex but elegent ideas is
>shelo lishmah.

What about the Eglei Tal?

Gil Student

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Das Mosheh are those laws that are absolutes, given in the
> desert to Mosheh. Das Yehudis is the din not to expose parts of your
> body that the frum community of your time and place keep covered in
> mixed company. Which I am arguing is a din de'Oraisa even though the
> limits of that din have to do with what is social norm, what Yehudis does..

I don't see how you can define a relative type of Tznius as a
D'Oraisa. What is your source for that? It is difficult for me to see
that a singular act in one society violates a D'Oraisa and in another
society that same act is Mutar. I would argue that Das Moshe is D'Oraisa
and Das Yehudis because of it's relative status is D'Rabbanan. I do not
recall sources but, it just seems like a logical conclusion to me. The
only D'Oraisa involved is that of Lo Sasur.

HM

We recently had some discussion on this topic. Without discussing practical 
implications, when the gemorah (mgilla 23a) says "Tannu Rabbanan, Hakol olin 
lminyan shiva, vafilu katan vafilu isha, aval amru chachamim - isha lo tikra 
btorah mipnei kavod tzibbur" how do you visualize the development of this 
din?  Was there a time period when a woman or a katan did get an aliya(ie 
read from the tora) and then some later bet din stopped the practice? If so, 
did the definition of kavod tzibbur change to make this not an acceptable 
practice?On a duraita level was this allowed but the Rabbis immediately 
stopped it? If so, why did the torah allow it?

Also interesting (and I'd love to be corrected on this) is that of the 6 
places in shas that I could find (full disclosure, I am not a baki in 
anything but do have access to the BI CD) only once (in Yuma re: rolling the 
sefer torah on yom kippur) does Rashi explain what the issues is(they have to 
stand around quietly and wait!).  I wasn't able to find much else in the way 
of Rishonim discussing what kavod tzibbur really means  though there is 
spirited discussion of whether a tzibbur can be mochel its kavod.
Is Kavod tzibbur one of those things that are hard to define but you know it 
when you see it?

CKVS
Joel Rich

----- Original Message -----
From: "shmuel"
To: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>

Re R Richwolpoe's dificulty with non-Jews of antiquity getting their
ideas from chazal. Thus idea is to be found in Moreh and Cuzari (It's
erev Pesahc, hob rachmonus that I can't look up the references).

Pythagorus got all his ideas from the Egyptians. He spent twenty years
there, and only later became a rebbe in his own right. Quite apart from
his mathematical school he also ran a clandestine mystical school where
he passed on what the Egyptians had taught him. They also appear to have
accepted gilgul.

The point raised about a diference between our belief and theirs may
perhaps be valid in some areas, but that is getting very technical. In
some places in Ari the concept of gilgul for non-jews is not accepted,
whilst in others, it clear that the assumption is that it occurs. Remak
accepts it explicitly, and since the Ari (with some exceptions) is built
on Remak, we may accept the latter to be reliable.

Somebody way back mentioned a teshuvas HaRosh on the matter. I can't
find it anywhere. Please give a clear reference.

RML wrote:
> The Ramban in the pirush on Iyov finds many hints to this idea - see
> introduction and the commentary itself. So it is not entirely accurate to
> say that there is no hint to this idea of gilgul.

You may find hints towards the notion of gilgulim in early sources, but
there is no outright discussion of this matter, even though it should
have been a major tool in encouraging the masses towards meticulous
shmirat hamitzvot. I ought to add that nowadays gilgulim are mentioned
for the very same reason (in elementary school, we were taught that
extreme honesty is required, lest we come back as gilgulim to repay a
single pruta).

Yet, no such discussion exists in the early sources. Ipso facto, I
believe that either gilgulim is a newly imported concept a la RSG's
claim, or that it has a totally different function than what believers
therein claim, or that in functions in such complicated ways that it
becomes meaningless to talk about gilgulim (as I find the approach of
the saintly Ari to this matter. See earlier post).

Pessach kasher vesamea'h,
Arie

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


[ 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         ]