Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 33

Wed, 28 Feb 2007

• 1. Re: Tzinius and the ILG (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. Re: Ivrit and Leshon Hakodesh (Michael Elzufon)
• 3. Re: Ivrit and Leshon Hakodesh (Galsaba@aol.com)
• 4. havdalah before megillah (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: ikkarim redux (Meir Shinnar)
• 6. Re: ikkarim redux (Meir Shinnar)
• 7. Re: ikkarim redux (Micha Berger)
• 8. Talmud Torah (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: early bird specials and ribbis (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Copyright and Dina deMalkhuta (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Chrein (really: soft matzah) (Micha Berger)

R' Michael Kopinsky wrote:
> If I may modify that slightly: "any notions we have that
> slavery is INHERENTLY immoral are contrary to the moral
> compass of the Torah."  I think that the fact that the
> Torah permits slavery indicate that it is not INHERENTLY
> problematic. Just like polygamy, there are times when
> slavery is OK.  Both are unacceptable under certain
> circumstances, which is why polygamy is assur, and slavery
> may as well be.  But there is not an absolute moral value
> decrying either.  Murder, on the other hand, (if it is
> actually murder, and not permitted killing) is absolutely
> immoral, and no societal norms can EVER be machshir murder.

According to this logic, rape is not inherently immoral, because if 
it was, then we would not find a case (yefas toar) where it is mutar.

Akiva Miller

On Tue, February 27, 2007 1:36 pm, Michael Kopinsky wrote:
: Can you provide some examples of where Ashurit refers to the language and
: not to the script?  Without any proofs, my natural association of the word
: Ashurit is specifically to a Ksav.

In Ashur they spoke Aramaic, the Eastern dialect which evolved into Syriac and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic.

[MJE] I think that Shulhan Aruch:OH 690:10 would be an example, not to mention inyana d'yoma.

In a message dated 2/28/2007 6:11:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org writes:
On 2/27/07, Galsaba@aol.com <Galsaba@aol.com> wrote:
> I posted already re the terms Ashurit, Ivrit, and Leshon Hakodesh.
> Reading the Gemara, Ivrit is not Leshon Hakodesh, Ashurit is.
> Although in a few places in the Gemara (Senhadrin 21), Ashurit is the Ketav
> (wrting) and
> Leshon Hakodesh is the Dibbur, my impression reading in other places that
> Ashurit can be both
> Ketav and Dibbur.
Can you provide some examples of where Ashurit refers to the language and
not to the script?  Without any proofs, my natural association of the word
Ashurit
is specifically to a Ksav.
yes, 

"Vehaloez SheShama Ashurot Yatza" - Mishna, Megila, Perek B, Mishna Alef
(I think also in Megilah 8 b - "Shmama AShurit Yatza")
Shama (HEARD) cannot be just script. (am I right?)

aaron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070228/cf33ae1f/attachment.htm 

This motzei shabbat for most of us is Purim.
Many shuls have a break where people go home after mincha for
seuda shlishit and then maariv is late to give kids time to dress up
and to bring a megillah to shul.
Thus one says "baruch hamavdil" and then does melacha including driving to
shul.

When does one say havdalah over the cup?
I haven't seen it discussed in the standard sources. On one hand it is
strange to say havdalah over the cup before maariv and megillah
(and drinking the wine)
also some people put off ending shabbat. On the other hand why
do all the work and drive before havdala when one can easily make
havdala.

-- 
Eli Turkel

>
>
> Tangent: is philosophy talmud Torah altogether? The Rambam uses the  
> beraisa
> that talmud Torah has three parts: miqra, mishnah, gemara. The only  
> aggadita
> possibly included is that which is in miqra. It would seem that  
> machashavah
> and science are included in ahavas Hashem (Hil Yesodei haTorah 2),  
> and mussar
> is Hil Dei'os, not talmud Torah.

No.  mikra is text of tanach, mishna refers to rabbinic texts - and  
gmara refers to thinking and analysis  about the texts and issues  
they raise - not to the text of gmara.   (Most daf yomi shiurim fall  
more under the rambam's definition of mishna)-.Gmara therefore   
includes philosophy, aggadta (at least the meaning of aggadta),  
mussar..remember that ma'aseh breshit is physics, and ma'aseh merkava  
is metaphyics - and both are part of talmud tora;

Meir Shinnar

>
> me
> :
> : However, ikkarim represent a statement of the core beliefs about what
> : is true - and while psak may determine some practical actions...
> RMB
> Not at all. I'm staying the ikkarim are used in pesaq of what to do
> lemaaseh.
> Who can handle my wine. Which converts should I accept. Who must I just
> lekaf
> zechus.


Being used and should be used are two separate issues.  Again, this
dramatically changes the notion of ikkarim. Another post of mine addresses
how much they are actually used.

I am saying that some loose form of them are de facto used in pesaq. Not
> that
> that makes them true or false. But we can't say the ikkarim are open to
> debate
> when we rely on them as "halachic truth".


Part of the reason that they are used is precisely the perception that they
are universally accepted - and therefore, the precedents  that Marc Schapiro
brings means that any psak that did not take these into account is of less
value - and those of us who know the precedents can therefore rule
differently....(hilchta kebatrai only when the batrai knew the
kadmai...(although I still have problems applying halachic methodology to a
philosophic argument...- somehow, applying hilchta bebatrai in a philosophic
argument seems ludicrous.- but that's what the underpinning of this
discussion leads to)

I would also argue that this was the Rambam's intent, as he includes them in
> Hilkhos Teshuvah in defining terms he then uses throughout Mishneh Torah
> in
> these ways. But that's secondary, since I'm talking about pesaq today, not
> the
> Rambam's intent.


Yes, the rambam would have had no problem classifying many gdole yisrael as
kofrim - but most of us do..

While this has social impact, I'm not saying we should use that pesaq to
> define the sociological grouping we call O. I'm convinced for
> Areivim-esque
> reasons that we need to foster the existence of "non-observant O Jews",
> lest
> they join communities where traditional halakhah is kept on their agenda.
>
> I'm presenting the notion that we have defined for ourselves normative O
> belief and used it lehalakhah. And not dismissing that of there being a
> home
> in the O community for non-normative O Jews.


But you can't have it two ways - if all those who don't hold by a particular
ideology are kofrim - there isn't a home for them.

Nor am I saying that pesaq defines metzi'us, like pechusah mibas 3.
>
> : The problem is the application of halachic methodology to the
> : determination of the truth - which is a radical innovation - each
> : area has its own rules of logic and thought.  halacha has become the
> : predominant mode of jewish expression - but it too has bounds.. Its
> : use in philosophy is a problem not only for philosophy - but for
> : halacha.
>
> Not at all. I would say that the same is true for pesaq here as whenever
> we
> find a pesaq that contradicts the actual metzius. If we were to disprove
> one
> of the Rambam's ikkarim somehow, we would each apply whatever our version
> of
> that principle is.


Problem of pesaq contradicting metziut normally only applies to statements
of chazal - do we really apply it to shitot rishonim and  achronim??? If a
rishon makes a claim about metziut which we now know to be false, we don't
treat it the same way as a ma'amar chazal...)


>
> OTOH, he also quotes this list's membership agreement, and while I'm
> neither
> as bright as him nor as educated in the subject, I am well aware that the
> ikkarim enjoy an acceptance today that they hadn't in the past.


yes, as a sociological statement they enjoy an acceptance -  but  I thought
we weren't  talking about sociologically Orthodox - but on a conceptual
level  (in essence, you are saying that the 13 ikkarim are the hashkafic
equivalent of orthopraxy - something we should  uphold even if we don't
necessarily believe...)


>
> The book, or the opinions themselves? And wouldn't studying the opinions
> help
> you understand the sevara of the issue as a whole?


I am one who doesn't have a problem studying books of apparent kfira.
However,  again, the whole  issue erupted when a  rosh yeshiva argued (I
don't remember if in the same article, but it appeared close together) both
that the 13 ikkarim  were  universally accepted -  and that study of kfira
is something that is forbidden to the amcha (basing himself, paradoxically,
on the rambam) - and I think empirically, most of those who are the kfira
enforcers also don't believe that one should study kfira.

RMB




But it isn't an ikkar. The flipside of accepting the ikkarim as defining
> which
> of my peers I'm to treat one way or the other is that it sets a maximum as
> well as a minimum.


You might - but others view them as the minimum.  Once one is willing to ban
positions accepted by many, there is no reason to limit it to the ikkarim..

RMB

> Besides, we can learn from the fact that the gemara still quotes Rav
> Hillel
> while telling us his statement requires kaparah that one is supposed to
> learn
> these rejected opinions, just like any other. Perhaps this is a proof to
> the
> Ra'avad.


This is the radbaz's proof text
Meir Shinnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070228/1c3bc63b/attachment.html 

On Wed, February 28, 2007 11:38 am, R Meir Shinnar wrote:
:> Not at all. I'm staying the ikkarim are used in pesaq of what to do lemaaseh.
:> Who can handle my wine. Which converts should I accept. Who must I just
:> lekaf zechus.

: Being used and should be used are two separate issues.  Again, this
: dramatically changes the notion of ikkarim. Another post of mine addresses
: how much they are actually used.

As I have mentioned a few times on Areivim, I have been listening lately to R'
Rakkefet's history shiurim (I think that label is the most apt) while
commuting.

I can't tell if RAR personally agrees with you, that we need to widen our
definition of normative, or me, that we need to widen our definition of O to
include the non-normative. But in any case, he tells the following
(<http://tinyurl.com/2o2wwc>, 45 min in).

As an outline, I think he mentions 3 positions: shemiras Shabbos, 13 ikkarim
and Taryag mitzvos.

YU had a symposium about the Hitqatnut from Azza, and RHSchachter responded to
that symposium, and in turn RAR got a copy of a student's summary. RHS said
that it has to be the will of the people of Am Yisrael in EY, and it must be
put up to a plebiscite. Whether or not you agree with what RHS said so far,
how does he define "Am Yisrael"? Someone who agrees with the 13 ikkarim.

RAR personally would use shemiras Shabbos, not the 13 ikkarim. But he opens
the whole topic by showing how the ikkarim are implied in Shabbos and qiddush.

He feels that RHS is responding to RMShapiro's book. That ironically, the book
made the ikkarim central by causing a counter-reformation. I don't know... The
whole point of the book is that they were taken for granted already. (Not to
mention my disbelief that RHS's would state as halakhah something that
impacted by personal history. It smacks of historical school to my ear.)

RAR then continues by quoting the AhS's citation of opposition by the
mequbalim to putting Yigdal in the siddur. But the the problem the AhS gives
is not that it's too narrow of a criterion, but too wide. All Taryag mitzvos
are indispensable.

:> I am saying that some loose form of them are de facto used in pesaq. Not
:> that that makes them true or false. But we can't say the ikkarim are open to
:> debate when we rely on them as "halachic truth".

: Part of the reason that they are used is precisely the perception that they
: are universally accepted - and therefore, the precedents  that Marc Schapiro
: brings means that any psak that did not take these into account is of less
: value - and those of us who know the precedents can therefore rule
: differently....

But they did! You open the Rambam, the Raavad is right there, defending those
who assign a bodily form to the Creator.

:> I would also argue that this was the Rambam's intent, as he includes them in
:> Hilkhos Teshuvah in defining terms he then uses throughout Mishneh Torah
:> in these ways. But that's secondary, since I'm talking about pesaq today,
:> not the Rambam's intent.

: Yes, the rambam would have had no problem classifying many gdole yisrael as
: kofrim - but most of us do..

How is this in response to what I wrote? I am talking about what we hold
lehalakhah today, you're talking about people who lived during the days of the
rishonim. I tell you what... If I find a bottle of wine that was handled by R'
Moshe ben Chasdai of Taku, we'll argue then if the pesaq would hold
retroactively.

You're accusing me of condemning R' Yosef haGelili for eating his chicken with
cheese.

...
: But you can't have it two ways - if all those who don't hold by a particular
: ideology are kofrim - there isn't a home for them.

This is an Areivim issue. If I had more to say than the observation that I
miss how the seifa follows from the reisha, I would reply there.

: Problem of pesaq contradicting metziut normally only applies to statements
: of chazal - do we really apply it to shitot rishonim and  achronim??? If a
: rishon makes a claim about metziut which we now know to be false, we don't
: treat it the same way as a ma'amar chazal...)

Nu, so that in itself would be the resolution of what to do if one of the
Rambam's 13 were to be proven false. Ani maamin be'emunah sheleimah that's not
going to happen.

:> OTOH, he also quotes this list's membership agreement, and while I'm
:> neither as bright as him nor as educated in the subject, I am well aware
:> that the ikkarim enjoy an acceptance today that they hadn't in the past.

: yes, as a sociological statement they enjoy an acceptance...

YOu say "yes" and then miscast what I said. I'm talking about pesaq.
Halachically speaking, they enjoy an acceptance. It's what most poseqim rely
upon.

Your defense seems to be that these poseqim are simply ignorant of the history
of Jewish philosophy, and therefore that acceptance doesn't have halachic
weight. If I understand correctly, there is no point to discuss that issue
further.

However, do you have any support for that statement? As I mentioned before,
one of the ikkarim is shown to be a machloqes on the standard tzuras hadaf
alongside the Rambam. And while it's easy to point at those trying to continue
Vilozhin and Brisk and talk about how they never study machashavah. But they
aren't the sum total of contemporary poseqim.

:> But it isn't an ikkar. The flipside of accepting the ikkarim as defining
:> which of my peers I'm to treat one way or the other is that it sets a
:> maximum as well as a minimum.

: You might - but others view them as the minimum.  Once one is willing to ban
: positions accepted by many, there is no reason to limit it to the ikkarim..

First, how is that a halchic argument? Second, who are the "many"? I would bet
that RMShapiro himself believes the loose version of the ikkarim I am speaking
of. He denies their being necessary for his self-identification as O, I heard
nothing about his denying their truth.

:> Besides, we can learn from the fact that the gemara still quotes Rav
:> Hillel while telling us his statement requires kaparah that one is
:> supposed to learn these rejected opinions, just like any other. Perhaps
:> this is a proof to the Ra'avad.

: This is the radbaz's proof text

I miss how this helps your position. The Radvaz is saying that someone can
hold a non-normative position and yet still not be a kofeir. It doesn't widen
the definition of normative. It means that I am still supposed to study the
opinions of rishonim we today not only reject (the particular position on this
one subject) as false, but reject as normative. By divorcing the anyone who
reached an answer through honest derishah vechaqirah from the label "kofeir",
it removed any possibility of proving a topic as gray area by citing
authorities from the past. They too wouldn't be koferim even if their
resulting idea is one we now hold would be one of the criteria for qualifying
someone as a kofeir. Seems to answer your question, not strengthen it.

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

On Wed, February 28, 2007 9:52 am, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: No.  mikra is text of tanach, mishna refers to rabbinic texts - and
: gmara refers to thinking and analysis  about the texts and issues
: they raise - not to the text of gmara.   (Most daf yomi shiurim fall
: more under the rambam's definition of mishna)-.Gmara therefore
: includes philosophy, aggadta (at least the meaning of aggadta),
: mussar..remember that ma'aseh breshit is physics, and ma'aseh merkava
: is metaphyics - and both are part of talmud tora;

I agree with your parenthetic about beqi'us study of Talmud Bavli, but wonder
why you limit is only to "most daf yomi shiurim". I would set a much higher
bar for gemara.

However, I was recalling the Rambam in 1:11 which is pretty clear that gemara
is the origins of halakhah "heiyach yotzi ha'assur vehamutar ukeyotzei vahen
midevarim shelamad" in particular.

But then he's very clear in 1:12 that "ha'inyanim haniqraim PARDES bikhlal
hatalmud". Leaving me very confused. Similarly 1:12 places "divrei qabalah,
bichlal TSBK hein", and only peirushan is TSBP. The second description would
have facts as TSBK, their explanation as TSBP, and everything I personally
deduce from them in any domain is talmud.

Totally confusing. I don't see how the two halakhos describe the same thing.
Help!

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

On Mon, February 19, 2007 7:22 am, R Michael Kopinsky quoted me and asked:
:> Avaq LH is assur because it leads to LH.

: Meheicha teisi?  Maybe it is prohibited because it in itself is slightly
: derogatory, even without passing the d'oraisa test of what's considered
: LH.

I got this impression from the CC, Hilkhos LH pereq 9, who includes speaking
positively of someone as avaq LH when it effectively invites the listener to
respond, "Yeah but..." (E.g. in front of a rival or when speaking in public.)

:> Is avaq ribis prohibited as ribis, or prohibited as mar'is ayin?
:
: As Zev said, there are different categories.  Mechzei K'ribbis (which he
: says is applicable here, I haven't looked up the sources properly to agree
: or disagree in this particular case) is different from Avak Ribbis.  The
: Rosh writes in Eizehu Neshech (on the sugya of "Ein Sochrim mimenu
: b'pachos") that Mechzei K'ribbis is subjective, and thus dependent on the
: situation.

Given this Rosh, what would be the status of heter iska today? Does it make a
difference if the person is enough of a lamdan to really feel its more than
just a loophole?

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

On Fri, February 16, 2007 10:46 am, R Arie Folger wrote:
: You contention, that this theory of DDD no longer applies today is exactly
: what I was aiming for: the modern legislative bodies most likely find their
: halakhic support in the concept of 7THI, not DDD.

I thought the 7THI was specifically Jewish civil authority. What about
copyright law in chu"l?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

In v23i27, RSGuberman responds:
: On 2/22/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
:> As for preferable... How can one say "kein asah Hillel" and make a sandwich
:> when one has the ability to actually make a wrap, just as Hillel did?
:
: Is the "kein asah Hillel"  that you have a "shwarma in a laffa" or
: that all the components are eaten together?

Obviously the latter -- which is why one is yotzei either way. However, in
terms of reliving what Hillel did and saying "this is what he did", I would
think there is some value to getting as close as possible.

But to be honest, this wasn't my motivator. I used soft matzah last year for a
simpler reason -- it got my children anticipating having matzah! (Their father
too, although I actually like hand-made shemurah crackers...)

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



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 33
**************************************

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..."