Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 106

Sunday, January 29 2006

• Re: the Torah's response to sex offenders
• RE: the Torah's response to sex offenders
• RE: Pascal's Wager
• Re: Pascal's Wager
• Rabbis/Communities
• RE: the Torah's response to sex offenders
• Re: the Torah's response to sex offenders
• Re: the Torah's response to sex offenders
• RE: Rabbis/Communities
• Re: Is There a Bug in Your Juice?
• Re: Rabbis/Communities
• Damrei inshei
• Re: Pascal's Wager
• Re: Emunah, Perakim and the Mabul
• Re: Pascal's Wager
• women, mitzvot and sachar
• Drashos

Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:
> AFAIK, the woman doesn't have to accept the proposal. This mitzvah
> protects the woman in that, since in earlier times, a woman that had
> been raped would have had major difficulties finding a mate, this man
> was now required to pay the price and marry her...

Can anyone imagine what the chances of such a mariage succeeding are?
But more importantly what kind of a punishment is it for the rapist to
force him to marry the object of his rape? Which victim would ever say
yes to such a Shiduch? To put it bluntly, what if it was God forbid one
of our daughters that got raped? Who in his right mind would even have
the slightest Hava Minah that the rapist should be required to marry
his daughter?!

HM

On January 27th 2006, David Riceman wrote:
> The Torah prescribes five forms of financial penalties for assault.
> IIUC the fine of having to marry a rape victim is for bosheth, and does
> not replace the other four types of fines.

> Jail time is a more general question. Biblical law doesn't prescribe
> jail as a punishment for anything. Halacha gives a lot of discretion
> to beth din to anticipate dangers to the community, but I have no idea
> to what extent jails were actually used. Any historians out there?

Yes, Rabbi A. Miller ztz'l. He claims that Sanhedrin had lockup facilities
for people who were incorrigible, and in cases where they were convinced
that he was a murderer, for instance, they locked him up and "forgot" he
was there. RAM was a historian par excellence so I trust his presentation
but I am not aware of his sources.

Simcha Coffer  

On January 17, 2006, David Riceman wrote:
> From: "Aryeh Englander" <iarwain1@earthlink.net>
>> (b) since every religion that
>> remains claims some sort of revelation, it therefore becomes very,
>> very reasonable to believe the Torah's account over the other choices -
>> we at least have a bit more than the word of a single person to go on.

> No; infinity times 2 million is no larger than infinity times one.
> Pascal's point is that the gain of believing in Catholicism is infinitely
> greater than the only alternative he could imagine. If you can imagine
> several alternatives you no longer have the feature of incommensurability,
> and you're left with an argument over weight of evidence.

My two cents. The Kuzri seems to present the above argument like RDR,
IOW, 2 million people at Har Sinai is a "preponderance of the evidence
in our favour" type argument as opposed to an 'impossible to conceive
otherwise" argument that Pascal's Wager implies.

Simcha Coffer 

On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 08:27:50PM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
: My two cents. The Kuzri seems to present the above argument like RDR,
: IOW, 2 million people at Har Sinai is a "preponderance of the evidence
: in our favour" type argument as opposed to an 'impossible to conceive
: otherwise" argument that Pascal's Wager implies.

It is impossible that the Kuzari intended to give a philosophical
argument. After all, this is after I par 13, where he writes:
    The Rabbi: That which you describe is religion based on speculation
    and system, the research of thought, but open to many doubts. Now
    ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on
    one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established
    by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much
    less capable of being proved.

And he later writes about Aristotle and the other Greek philosophers:
"There is an excuse for the Philosophers. Being Grecians, science and
religion did not come to them as inheritances." (par 63)

The Kuzari proposes an alternative to philosophy, which in his day meant
Scholasticism. One that modern philosophers would be more comfortable
with.

See:
    <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2004/12/kuzari-proof-part-i.shtml>
    <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2004/12/kuzari-proof-part-ii.shtml>
    <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/02/kuzari-proof-part-iii.shtml>

You may want to check the comments sections, where the usual questions
are raised.

The following two are also related to philosophy vs more immediate
sources of emunah:
    <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2004/11/emunah-peshutah-vs-machashavah.shtml>
    <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2004/12/argument-by-design-ver-40.shtml>

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
micha@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rabbi Israel Salanter

I'm pretty sure there's a geamra that says something along the lines
that any community rabbi who everyone loves, isn't doing his job. Anyone
remember where it is (I imagine practicing pulpit Rabbis would know
this one:-)

KT
Joel Rich

[R Simcha Coffer:]
> Yes, Rabbi A. Miller ztz'l. He claims that Sanhedrin had lockup
> facilities for people who were incorrigible, and in cases where they were
> convinced that he was a murderer, for instance, they locked him up and
> "forgot" he was there. RAM was a historian par excellence so I trust
> his presentation but I am not aware of his sources.

Are you sure he wasn't referring to the case of Sanhedrin 81b where
they put him in the kippa and burst his belly through natural means -
which really wasn't a long term jail situation?

KT
Joel Rich

First of all, the requirement to marry the girl is only if she is a NAARAH
(aged 12+ 1 day up to 12 years and 6 months). If she is a BOGERET (over
12.5), the halacha doesn't apply (see explanation in Aruch haShulchan
EH 177 who as usual summarizes most of the Rishonim). The rationale is
also discussed in the Minchat Chinuch # 557. Indeed, it's to PREVENT
a re-occurrence (a.k.a. "sex offender). In the words of the Sefer
haChinuch, "ah'im yachshov ha'oneis l'mal'oht nafsho bah, v'yelech lo,
yakeil b'eynav LAASOT KEYN P'AMIM HARBEH" [caps mine].

As to how batei din in the past centuries treated sex offenders, see:
Rambam Hilchot Sanhedrin 1:1; Yam shel Shlomo on Bava Kamma VIII 48;
Mabit I 22; Zichron Yehuda 91; and many of the Takkanot haKahal.

If the person fit the category of shoteh, see definition and discussion
in Choshen Mishpat 35:10 and in the Nishmat Avraham CM #10 (who suggests
the use of outside experts [psychiatrists]).

KT
Josh

>Jail time is a more general question. Biblical law doesn't prescribe
>jail as a punishment for anything. Halacha gives a lot of discretion
>to beth din to anticipate dangers to the community, but I have no idea
>to what extent jails were actually used. Any historians out there?

See the gemara in Sanhedrin 81b on the "Kippa" (jail cell where you were
fed barley and water. No picnic. See the Mechaber CM 2 and the Aruch
haShulchan CHOSHEN MISHPAT 2 #1 "v'yesh la'hem [BEIT DIN] reshut
l'yasro b'gufo u'mamino k'fi she'ro'im ligdor ha'pirtzah ..."

There were many teshuvot on use of jail as punishnment and deterrent.

KT

Josh (who in 1976 as duty officer in the Shneller army base in Jerusalem
once had a soldier arrested for talking during Kiddush :-)

On January 28, 2006, Rich, Joel wrote:
> I'm pretty sure there's a geamra that says something along the lines
> that any community rabbi who everyone loves, isn't doing his job. Anyone
> remember where it is (I imagine practicing pulpit Rabbis would know
> this one:-)

It sounds like the famous Maaseh with RYS. R' Yisrael said as follows:
Any Rav who is beloved by everyone in the community is not a good Rav. Any
Rav who is hated so much that the community dismisses him from his duties
is not a good Rav. Any Rav who is disliked by elements of the community
to the point where they want to dismiss him and yet despite this they
maintain his tenure is a good Rav.

Simcha Coffer

From: "SBA" <areivim@sba2.com>
> From: "Rich, Joel" <>
>> Food makers may not want to dwell on it, but the ingredient that gives
>> Dannon Boysenberry yogurt and Tropicana Ruby Red Grapefruit juice their
>> distinctive colors comes from crushed female cochineal beetles.
>> ..... Products containing carmine
>> "may look like kosher," but they aren't, says Rabbi Moshe Elefant,
>>of the kosher division of the Orthodox Union,

> Cochineal is additive # 120 [and maybe also 124]

124 is synthetic and is OK [at least from a kashrus POV.]

> From a Google search:
> 120 Cochineal, Carminic acid, Carmines Natural Red 4 - colouring
> made from the female insect found on cacti called Dactylopius Coccus. She 
> is boiled alive or left to "cook" alive through sun exposure.
> Cochineal is the result of crushing scales of the insect into a red 
> powder.

> IIANM, one of the nosei keilim in SA YD is meikil.
> {I'll have to look it up again.]

I now have.

YD 87:10, Pischei Teshuva 20 seems to mattir.

The Sh"ut Veherim Hacohen {by RY Cohen - ex-Antwerp, now Paris] lists E
numbers and their status and quotes Darkei Teshuva [beshem Hamoreh Hazoken
miVilna] who is mattir if cooked in oven - or older than 12 months.

RYC says that although cochineal has all reasons lehetter it is not
generally considered kosher.

See MB 216:7 re musk - citing many mekilim.

Ayin also AH YD 84:95.

SBA

Kesubos 105b "Amar Abaye, hai tzurva merabanan demerachamin lei benei
masa, lav mishum dema'alei tefei elah mishum delo muchach lehu bemili
deshemaya"

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

The gemara uses this expression quite a few times has anyone written
on the force of these statements(why did the gemara record them)?
There seem to be a number of possibilities:
1.Use as support for a halachik position
2.Reflection of a truth inherent in the briah
3.easy way to remember a halachik position
4.interesting insight with no halachik value
5.halachik statement that you can be medayek from
6.proof that bnai yisrael are bnei nivim(so listen carefully to folk
wisdom)
7.other

Any thoughts would be appreciated

Kt
Joel rich

From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
> No; infinity times 2 million is no larger than infinity times one.
> Pascal's point is that the gain of believing in Catholicism is infinitely
> greater than the only alternative he could imagine. If you can imagine
> several alternatives you no longer have the feature of incommensurability,
> and you're left with an argument over weight of evidence.

Exactly - Pascal's Wager simply tells us Yiddishkeit is better than
atheism and "personal god" religions; we use an argument about weight of
evidence to show that Yiddishkeit is more likely to be true than other
religions that claim a revelation.

Here are a few links that some may find useful:

Synopsis of A Test of Time (David Rohl):
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm

Another synopsis:
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/newchrono.html

The NewChronology forum (Yahoo Group)- excellent!! Especially, check
out the files and links! (You've got to be a member of the forum to
do this though): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology/
NewChronology2 (NewChronology reference archives):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology2/

Although this forum was originally set up to discuss Rohl's theories,
they discuss a very wide range of revisionist theories (although
I have not seen Lisa's particular theory come up). Although it is
a very high-level forum - you'd probably need a serious background
in Egyptology and Assyriology at the least in order to really follow
all of the discussions - the files and links are still quite good and
with a little patience and research perhaps one would be able to begin
following the discussions a bit. I did, at least. In any case, from my
experience it is a pretty good assumption that pretty much any support
for or objection to any revision theory has been discussed knowledgeably
and extensively at some point on the forum.

A list of problems with Rohl's theory:
http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html Note that ALL of these
objections have been addressed in the NewChronology forum (at least,
that's what the forum moderator told me- I haven't looked through the
forum enough to see how well they were addressed).

Another comment:

What are the sides of the issue if we would try to say the Mabul was
only local? This wouldn't answer up the chronological problems with
Mesopotamian history, but it would get rid of any problem involving any
other part of the world.

First, R' Gedalya Nadel (major talmid of the Chazon Ish) in MiToraso
Shel R' Gedalya (you can't get this in stores, by the way) says that he
thinks "Tachas kol hashomayim" could just mean that the Mabul covered
everything that Noach and his family could see. He then goes on to say
that he thinks a local Mabul is perfectly reasonable, along with pre-Adam
humans and a few other non-conventional shittos. Hmmm ... and you wonder
why his family isn't selling this in stores.

My problem with a local Mabul is that the possuk says it covered the harim
hagevohim. But if it the waters got that high, why DIDN'T they cover the
whole world? And it's very hard to say that harim hagevohim means large
hills - aside from the fact that that's definitely not the mashma'us,
the Zagros Mts. are not far away so it would be pretty strange to call
much smaller hills "harim gevohim". Also, Ararat is understood to be
the land of Urartu in what is now Armenia / E Turkey (if I remember
correctly, Urartu is actually the Latinized version of the word Ararat -
maybe I saw this in The Living Torah? don't remember) and that area is
very mountainous. Can anyone come up with a way to answer this objection?

ALE

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 at 23:09:22 -0500GMT, R' Aryeh L. Englander proposed:
> It seems to me that there is a very simple answer to ANY emunah question,
> one that is virtually irrefutable as far as I can tell. This is Pascal's
> Wager.

One comment, and one question.

The comment is, Pascal's Wager doesn't lead to emuna in Yahadut. All it
leads to is accepting -- or faking -- whichever belief system has *the
worst afterlife for infidels*.

It's not a choice between Atheism and Judaism; it's a choice between
Atheism, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Shinto, Taoism, Baalism, Nuwaubu
and every other religion, philosophy, and belief-system that has ever
existed. And once you get into the realm of religions that posit eternal
torment for disbelievers, how are you going to compute which is the 'best
deal', the worst one to adopt and therefore assumedly save yourself from.

The question is, whatever happened to Twelve Month Geihinom?

-Stephen 'Steg' Belsky
 "word-making is world-making" ~ the DAG"Z

RMSS writes:

 "Samuel Svarc" <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com>
> [Seeing that an entire digest passed with no one pointing out 
> what to me is an obvious point I will stop lurking to respond. - MSS]

> From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net>
>> Maybe this would be a good time to go back to a question 
>> posted in the past by Chana Sassoon (Luntz). I'll be paraphrasing it 
>> according to my understanding, but I hope the other women will also chime 
>> in:  <MAJOR SNIP>
>> So, we have 3 major categories that impact women's lives, take 
>> many hours and much energy, but for which they, apparently, have no 
>>     Sachar: Having children;
>>     Educating children;
>>     Mitzvot SheHaZeman Gerama.

I think the question to which RSB is referring is a bit more complicated
than this (and thereby I am not convinced your answer helps), as it is
not really matter of schar at all.

In a nutshell, my question is, - isn't it odd that in a world (the
halachic world) in which chiyuv is very much the driver, a woman has no
chiyuv to get married and have children?

She may choose to (and clearly many of us do, otherwise many of you
would not be married or have children), but there is no chiyuv on her
to to do so.

To put it in its crudest terms, we have probably all heard people say
"women should concentrate on doing the mitzvas that they were commanded
to do, and only when they are fulfilling all of those should they turn
to mitzvas that they may do but are not commanded to do".

When people say this, they are usually thinking about mitzvos shehazeman
grama, eg sitting in the Sukkah.

But the same is true about getting married and the mitzvah of pru u'rvu.

And yet think of the difference in effort that people will put into
enabling a woman to get married compared to the effort they will put
into enabling a woman to sit in the Sukkah.

Part of the issue is that while people tend to thing of mitzvos shehazeman
grama as being tangential to a woman's role in life, getting married
and having children come pretty close to a lot of people's definition
of the tafkid of a woman.

So why is it optional? Why would it seem that the halacha seems to say,
- well it is a nice to have (and sure you get schar for it) but if you
want to you can walk away, no taynas? Why is that the fundamentals of
women's lives are not actually determined by the dictates of the halacha,
in the way men's are? Why does the halacha not seem to recognise this
concept of tafkid in the most basic way?

That is why your answer does not really seem to me to help, but may
arguably makes things worse:

> I do not believe that women get no schar for those actions. 
> Someone who gets someone else to learn doesn't have a share 
> in the learning

> Yes. I believe that a woman shares with her husband the world 
> to come equally. They remain forever a team (for lack of a 
> better word). 

So why is a woman not commanded to enter into this partnership, while
a man is?

What does that say about a woman who would seem to have made a
halachically permissible choice not to marry or have children? This is
not a question of whether they actually do or not. There are men who are
obligated to marry and have children, and who try very hard to fulfil
the mitzvah and are not able to - that is clearly a situation of ones.
But the absence of a chiyuv on women would seem, at least theoretically,
to allow for a category of women who choose not to get involved, and
that is still OK - in the same way that a woman can choose not to get
involved in the mitzvah of sitting in a sukkah - sure if she does so
she may get schar, but if she doesn't there are no taynas on her. Odd no?

Regards
Chana

I have been wondering about the drashos that Chazal bring in halachah,
what the basis for the logic system being used is.

I know that the Malbim holds that every drashah in halachah is muchrach
from the dikduk of the pesukim. However, he himself says that he's
arguing on the Rambam, so what does the Rambam hold? Also, I have heard
that R' Yitzchok Isaac HaLevi (Doros HaRishonim) devotes virtually an
entire sefer to arguing with the Malbim's shitah, and he apparently
comes out that all drashos are halachah l'Moshe miSinai. I have also
heard that R' Dovid Tzvi Hoffman argues with the Malbim in his peirush
to Vayikra. However, I do not have access at present to either of these
sefarim, so I'd appreciate confirmation / other mekoros / etc.

Aryeh L. Englander

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


[ 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         ]