Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 5

Sun, 21 Jan 2007

• 1. Re: VeHaGita - Proof....sources and quotes (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: daily halachot (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: VeHaGita - Proof....sources and quotes (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 4. Re: daily halachot (Saul Guberman)
• 5. Re: Lifnei Iveir (Jacob Farkas)
• 6. Re: Changing Havarah (Zvi Lampel)
• 7. Re: daily halachot (Daniel Israel)
• 8. Re: [Areivim] if they asked, it would have been assur (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
• 9. Re: Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering (Marty Bluke)
• 10. Re: daily halachot (T613K@aol.com)
• 11. Re: VeHaGita - Proof....sources and quotes - 2 (SBA)
• 12. Re: Lifnei Iver (Nachman Levine)

On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 08:18:03AM +0200, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote: : >
Proof?....sources and quotes).

: > As if that's gonna make the slightest difference..

: And this is highly insulting. And PUBLIC.

I approved the post because I didn't see the line as insulting. Rather, the
debate the two of you are having is an old machloqes, and one that is part of
how the O world subdivides itself into communities. A division that RSBA and
yourself have very different positions within.

No post from RSBA is going to get you to change your mind and self-identity,
to resolve a long standing machloqes that gedolim mimenu found heated. So, to
that extent no proof is really going to resolve the debate here.

: > Which shows us that
: > 1) the baal hamemreh himself, Rashbi holds that it is a bedieved
: > and therefore should not be publicised.

: Actually -- it doesn't.  We'll get to that in a moment.

I don't think it's relevant. The gemara's conclusion is like R' Yishmael, not
Rashbi, that one is supposed to earn a living.

That's a different subject, Torah vs parnasah as opposed to Toorah vs chessed.
However, if we reject RSBY's priorities when such rejection is a bigger
chidush, how can we assert them when the gap is the lesser one of Torah to
another mitzvah?

: A. All sides agree that "VeHaGita Bo Yomam VaLayala" is fully kept by
: saying Shma morning and evening.
: Interestinly enough, NONE of the opinions you bring disagree with this.
: This means that MeLeChatChilla -- VeHagita IS indeed halachically
: fulfilled by saying Shma morning and night.

I think part of what you're disputing is the meaning of "bedi'eved" WRT
mitzvos that are "kol hamarbeh harei zeh meshubach". That too is dividing the
world into an ideal and a pragmatic fall-back position. In colloquial sense,
the fall-back is bedi'eved; however, it doesn't qualify on the technical
definitions.

Bedi'eved is a case where the pe'ulah shouldn't have been done. Now that it
was, is there a chalos? Were you yotzei the chiyuv?

Here there is no "should not have". Learning close to the minimum is a lack of
doing what one could, not a presence of ought-not. In a technical sense,
that's not "bedi'eved".

The important distinction for the original topic... Does fulfilling talmud
Torah more than the minimal shiur outweigh other mitzvos? Which, and when?

And of course none of this touches on RSBA's opening claim on Areivim, that
since the chiyuv of talmud Torah only applies to men, it means that women
should end up with more time on their hands for chessed. That is true
regardless of exactly where one decides to divide their learning vs chessed
time. The relative value of chessed must be higher for women than for men.

And, of course, none of this applies to a man who learns as much as his
tzitzfleish allows, and skipping the chessed doesn't mean he would be
necessarily spending the same time learning. Pushing learning over other
mitzvos is often just a tefisah merubah.

: B. Now we have an educational issue: We want people to learn Torah and
: to send their children to learn Torah.

Veshinantam would require making sure those children learn a lifestyle in
which chessed is central. It's not limited to book learning; rather, that
particular pasuq (see RSRH's Chumash on it, I have the older English edition)
is about learning values.

: Many use the sentence of "VeHagita" to demand that men learn day and night
: as much as possible as an halachic imperitive.  The situation is not that
: people won't learn, but rather, this idea is used in an almost abusive form
: to force people who are tortured by this demand of full time study for years
...

Chanokh lenaar al pi darko. The decision of how much time one should dedicate
to various mitzvos has to do with knowing one's strengths and weaknesses, and
knowing to balance playing one's strengths and working to correct one's
weaknesses.

Giving someone a job to which they are not suited is not "almost abusive", it
is abusive. In fact, it's the very definition of "avodas parech" (as per the
Chazal quoted by Rashi).

I am not sure anyone in the chareidi world is actually giving out such jobs,
though, and no one is being forced. Such attitudes which minimize personal
autonomy underly non-O complaints about how halakhah is used by a bunch of men
to control women. No, people choose to buy into the system. Women wear long
sleeves on hot summer days because they choose what they believe will help
there AYH over comfort, and men choose learning when it means a day of
squirming in their seats because they believe it's the only way to their
qedushah. Same dynamic, and denying it is the same problem.

It's a matter of accepting expectation without thinking it through. The
extreme cases opt out of the community, and usually that means Yahadus
altogether. But the borderline ones won't pay the social cost, and instead
could feel compelled to fake it. The same is true of someone who is raised to
believe that the only derekh that leads to AYH is the DL one, and is actually
better suited for Chassidus.

The walls between us are too high, so that the social cost of switching is
high enough to motivate people to fake it, and that others feel that once they
leave their community they might as well opt out of it all. But this is not a
one-sided problem.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Fri, January 19, 2007 5:09 am, Eli Turkel wrote his notes on a shiur by a
kashrus advisor for the rabbanut:
: 1. He said that the custom in bakeries (though I find it in many stores) is
: that
: when there are many baked goods they are put into a cardboard basket and
: then weighted. Thus one is paying for the cardboard but at a price that is
: determined by the inside products (in Israel he estimated between 1 and
: 2 1/2 shekel). He claims that this is onaah from the Torah....

How could it be, since the box is nowhere near 1/6 the total weight? The
market is allowed to vary by that much. One might find other issurim, since
the person leaves the store thinking he bought more than he did. But I don't
understand how ona'as mamon applies.

I stepped into the bakery this morning and watched. The workers consistantly
put the box (paper or plastic shell) on a digital scale and then hit the
"tare" button to re-zero it. I am sure people forget, so it pays to watch for
yourself, but I do not know why one must assume this is not the "custom" in
other bakeries (that have digital scales).

: 2. He quoted from Rav Zilberstein that when one enters a sherut in Israel
: (taxi with many passengers going to one place) one usually pays up front.
...
: Seems strange to me that paying any worker in advance is less of a mitzva
: then paying at the end becuase he is not legally required to pay in advance.

Me too. More so, paying up front means that you have less chance to forget to
pay. (Not that many drivers would forget they didn't get paid, but these
things do happen.)

: 4. Putting on a long lasting cosmetic treatment might violate the
: prohibition of tatooing.

... according to Ashkenazim it would be assur as nir'eh kekesoves kaakah, not
the de'Oraisa itself. We discussed this last June. Obviously kehillos which
have the minhag of having a Henna disagree.

See <http://tinyurl.com/2jqkve> for a search of the threaded archive on GMane.

: 5. Punishments in school have to fit halachic guidelines

I don't see a chiddush here, everything else in life does too. Did he offer
examples?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Reb' Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
>> From: "Shoshana L. Boublil"
>>     
>>> RSB: Who was it that said that saying Shma in the morning and Shma in the
>>> evening is sufficient to be Yotzeh "Vehagita Bo Yomam VaLayla"?  Last I
>>> checked, it was in the G'mara...
>>>       
>> SBA > That is a bedieved - and not lekatchileh.
>>
>> Proof?....sources and quotes).
>>     
Igros Moshe(YD IV 36.3 page 223 discusses the issue of Menachos (99b).

He says that in fact there are two separate mitzvos of Torah study 1) To 
learn all of the written and oral Torah 2) to learn twice a day. He 
cites the Rambam (Talmud Torah 1:8) that Shema does not count for Torah 
study but one must learn twice a day.

There is further discussion of this Igros Moshe YD IV #36.8 page 229 and 
#36.15 p233  He say that even one who learns regularly - but it is not 
his prime focus in life - is not called a ben Torah.


Daniel Eidensohn

On 1/19/07, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. He said that the custom in bakeries (though I find it in many stores) is that
> when there are many baked goods they are put into a cardboard basket and
> then weighted. Thus one is paying for the cardboard but at a price that is
> determined by the inside products (in Israel he estimated between 1 and
> 2 1/2 shekel). He claims that this is onaah from the Torah.

You must have thick cardboard in Israel for a bakery box to cost 2.5
shekel. The bakeries in Brooklyn tend to weigh the item directly on
the scale & then put it in the box or adjust the scale for the weight
of the box.

> 4. Putting on a long lasting cosmetic treatment might violate the prohibition of tatooing.

Did anyone ask about Henna?

Shabbat Shalom,
Saul

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Well, the notion of saying that lifnei iveir is about bad advice or 
> helping someone sin to the exclusion of literally tripping the blind is 
> supported in part by the fact that tripping blind people violates other 
> issurim. It would be superfluous to prohibit this particular kind of 
> chavalah.

V'Lifnei Iveir in a literal sense would be Gerama, not active Hezeq. For 
those who don't see an Issur in digging a Bor bereshus harabim because 
it merely creates a possibility of paying damages, this would be no 
different.

With the exclusion of the Issur of V'lifnei Iveir, one might 
differentiate between active Hezeq to this form of passive Hezeq.

--Jacob Farkas

Mon, 15 Jan 2007 From: T613K@aol.com
> How fascinating that men and women would have different pronunciations! The 
only other place I've heard of such a thing was in the ante-bellum Deep 
South (and to some extent even today),  <

...and in the USA, where girls are taught "oh" and boys are taught "oy." 

Zvi Lampel
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070119/10586430/attachment-0001.html 

Eli Turkel wrote:
> 1. He said that the custom in bakeries (though I find it in many stores) is that
> when there are many baked goods they are put into a cardboard basket and
> then weighted. Thus one is paying for the cardboard but at a price that is
> determined by the inside products (in Israel he estimated between 1 and
> 2 1/2 shekel). He claims that this is onaah from the Torah.

It is definitely not uncommon in bakeries in the US for them to weigh 
the box and there scales are designed so that they can re-zero them to 
subtract out the weight of the box.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

R' SZN posted (on Areivim) this link,
http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=11008 and assumes, in his caption,
that it would be assur. Would it really be? The only thing stated in this
article is that the subject took female hormones. I highly doubt that this
comes under the letter of the letter of the law of Lo Silbash (although, I
agree that it would be included in the spirit). Also, mah dino? Rambam
(Hilchos Nashim 2) discusses the various simanim, if these are all
surgically or chemically induced does it halachically change one's gender?
And, Lu Y'tzu'yer that Surgeons manage to have a (?former?) man give birth -
do we say Banim harey hein k'simanim? Comments? 

 

KT,

MYG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070120/825f592c/attachment.htm 

How could the adon haneviim stutter? The Rambam (Mamrim 7:2) writes that a
Navi has to be shalem b'gufu, if Moshe had a phsyical defect he should have
been unable to become a Navi at all.

To answer this I heard the following from R' CY Goldvicht. The Targum
translates the words vayehi adam l'nefesh chaya, that Adam was a ruach
memal'la. What distinguishes man from animal is the ability to speak. Speech
is a chibur between the gashmiyus of the body and the ruchnius of the
nefesh. Moshe Rabbenu stuttered because he was so ruchani that this
connection was weak and therefore he could not speak well. He did not have a
phsyical defect. This is why Moshe could not enter Eretz Yisrael as well. EY
is supposed to be the place where we create a chibur between ruchniyos and
gashmiyos be living a life of teva while doing mitzvos. Moshe Rabbenu was
too ruchani for this role.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070121/daece168/attachment.html 

 
 
From: "Eli Turkel" _eliturkel@gmail.com_ (mailto:eliturkel@gmail.com) 

>> He said that the custom in bakeries (though I find it in  many stores) is 
that
when there are many baked goods they are put into a  cardboard basket and
then weighted. Thus one is paying for the cardboard but  at a price that is
determined by the inside products (in Israel he estimated  between 1 and
2 1/2 shekel). He claims that this is onaah from the Torah.  <<
 
>>>>>
.
There is a frum-owned candy store here in NMB where you choose the gift  
basket or box you want and then they fill it with the candy and weigh it.   What 
they do is, they put the basket on the scale and then set the scale to  zero, 
so that you are indeed only paying for the weight of the candy or nuts and  not 
the weight of the container.  
 
In the new kosher bakery that just opened, I noticed just yesterday that  the 
owner weighed the cardboard box before putting cake into it, wrote down the  
weight and then subtracted that weight from the weight of the cake before  
calculating the price.  This seemed a rather time-consuming procedure to  me, 
which he will have to streamline when (I"YH) his store becomes really busy,  but 
I did take note of his Yiras Shomayim.
 


--Toby  Katz
=============

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070121/4fadecc4/attachment.htm 

From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <>
> Reb' Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
Who was it that said that saying Shma in the morning and Shma in the
> > evening is sufficient to be Yotzeh "Vehagita Bo Yomam VaLayla"?  Last I
> > checked, it was in the G'mara...

 SBA> That is a bedieved - and not lekatchileh.

: "Shoshana L. Boublil"  Proof?....sources and quotes).

> Igros Moshe(YD IV 36.3 page 223 discusses the issue of Menachos (99b).
> He says that in fact there are two separate mitzvos of Torah study 1) To
> learn all of the written and oral Torah 2) to learn twice a day. He
> cites the Rambam (Talmud Torah 1:8) that Shema does not count for Torah
> study but one must learn twice a day.
--


explains that Rashbi's saying that one can be yotze with KS twice daily,
refers to a person who has already studied (and knows) kol hatorah kulo.

================

> SBA  That is a bedieved - and not lekatchileh.

RSB: Proof?....sources and quotes).

OK, let's start again (and I should have listened to my own advice and
looked up the sources more thoroughly and carefully. It would have saved a
lot of to-and-froing.

ShA, YD 246:1 (in fact, the very 1st seef of Hilchos Talmud Torah)
 in the Rema:
"UBESHAAS HADECHAK afilu lo kara rak KS shachris ve'arvis 'lo yomishu
mipicho' korinen lei.."

Now unless you can come up with some proof ("sources and quotes") that there
is a real difference between 'bedieved' and 'beshaas hadchak',
I would say this debate is closed.

================
>>RSB: And this is highly insulting. And PUBLIC.
----
In that case I apologise - in public.


RSB: Many use the sentence of "VeHagita" to demand that men learn day and
night as much as possible as an halachic imperitive.  The situation is not
that people won't learn, but rather, this idea is used in an almost abusive
form to force people who are tortured by this demand of full time study for
years
==========

You've got me all wrong if you think that I am a supporter of the 'Kollel
for life' shitah. Far from it.
But I do think that bachurim - when enrolled in a yeshiva should concentrate
on their studies rather than join social welfare programs - as per Sherut
Leumi girls.
And THAT, BTW, was what we were talking about before you
somehow drifted sideways.

SBA

Micha Berger writes:
> Well, the notion of saying that lifnei iveir is about bad advice or 
> helping
> someone sin to the exclusion of literally tripping the blind is 
> supported in
> part by the fact that tripping blind people violates other issurim. 
> It would
> be superfluous to prohibit this particular kind of chavalah.
> 
> So, there would be no nafqa mina lehalakhah, since both agree that 
> (1) telling
> someone to sin violates LI, and (2) putting a stumbling block where 
> it might
> cause a blind person to hurt himself is assur. The debate is only 
> over which
> issurim #2 violates.


There?s no question that tripping a blind person is really not nice and
(in the context of lifnei iveir and beyond) not to be encouraged. And
certainly forbidden. 
 
My question was in regard to its (paradoxic) specific Shem Isur as
regards its halachic meaning. The Ragatchover (Responsa Tzafnas Paneach
5) raises the issue if Lifnei Iver violates (generalized) Lifnei Iver or
a subset of the specific sin that was encouraged and abetteted, though
not Halachically itself constituting a Maaseh. [He brings many
fascinating examples: is giving fire to fire-worshipping  Persians
(Sanhedrin 74a) avizrayhu of Avodah Zarah (Rashi) or ?only Lifnei Iver?
(Ramban) (!)]. (And see the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Likutei Sichos 11:149, ff.
65).
 
So is [literal] Lifnei Iver an independent Shem Isur in the Torah
(Meshech Chochmah, Zohar, etc.), or simply a subset of another
prohibition, and thus what is the status of its own [halachic] Lifnei
Iver? So, not necessarily a halachic Nafka Mina, though the Ragatchover
cites several (halachic) instances of nafka minas of the general question
(is a Tarfus seller a Tarfus eater or not as regards Eidus (Rambam Eidus
12:9), etc.), but rather what shall we call this generalized/specific
Isur.
 
There is of course, a POST-postmodern reading and Nafka Mina in the
relationship of Peshat and Derash in Lifnei Iver. If, as had been pointed
out, MANY instances of ?Iver? are meant simply metaphoric in many
(Halachic!) texts (Ki HaShochad YE-AVER, Shemos 23:9, Devarim 1:19),
etc.) and ALL usages of Michshol in Tanach are ALWAYS metaphoric in their
plainest sense (Michshol Avon, etc.), reading Lifnei Iver lo Sitein
Michshol literally would make it the ONLY Pasuk in Tanach where it isn?t
meant metaphorically at its plainest level of meaning.
 
Thus: if Lifnei Iver at the level of Peshuto shel Mikra is understood as
plainly metaphoric at its simplest level of meaning, (as in: Im yakum
veyis-halech bachutz al Mishanto, im yizrach alav hashemesh, Charbi
veKashti, etc.)
 
the Halachic sense [encouraging] of  Lifnei Iver would be the pasuk?s
Peshat meaning and the subset prohibition of [literally] tripping derived
by reading the pasuk hyperliterally would be a shem Isur derived by
Derash! (and would this have halachic ramifications?)

Nachman Levine
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070121/d95cd373/attachment.html 

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 5
*************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."