Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 101

Thu, 20 Dec 2007

• 1. Re: All transgressions are sins? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Having a boyfriend equivalent to being married? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Apikores? (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: from a parsha sheet (saul mashbaum)
• 5. Re: from a parsha sheet (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: All transgressions are sins? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. The Five Corners Of A Beard? (RallisW@aol.com)
• 8. Re: Former Synagogue (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Women Lighting Menorahs (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Having a boyfriend equivalent to being married? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Women Lighting Menorahs (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: All transgressions are sins? (Elliott Shevin)
• 13. Ashkenazim and Sephardim (Michael Elzufon)
• 14. Re: Women Lighting Menorahs (Micha Berger)

On Thu, December 13, 2007 5:20 pm, R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: I am looking for a clear source that every transgression of a negative
: comandment is a sin which requires teshuva.

Wish I could help. I have a hashkafic stance that compels that
conclusion, but no maqor.

Let's go back a step... What do you mean by "sin" - cheit, avon, pesha
more than one of the above, etc...? You talk about transgressions and
sins, it would be easier if you spoke the jargon which was created by
/our/ mindset. I can't separate the notions of "transgression" from
"sin" in my head clearly enough to know what you are driving at. "Sin"
is the usual translation for "aveirah". "Transgression" is a
translation more closely related to its shoresh -- aveirah is about
violating rules. Pesha, of rebellion. Avon speaks of gasat ruach and
arlas haleiv -- the impact of sin on the soul. Cheit, perhaps, as RSRH
puts it, of "taking the coal from the fire" (related, but not the same
shoresh, as "shema yachteh begechalim") -- another reference to the
impact on the soul.

Does every lav violated require teshuvah? Well, pretend we detoured
into Izhbitz and aveirah lishmah, a worldview in which there are
aveiros which count to your credit. Now to get to hashkafos I /can/
wrap my head around...

But otherwise, if the aveirah causes the obligation for a chatas,
asham or olah, wouldn't hat mean that vidui and therefore teshuvah are
necessary?

: In particular I am studying the prohibition of ona'ah - fraud. It is
: prohibited for someone to overcharge by a sixth. If he overcharges
: more the sale is invalid while if he overcharges less than a sixth it
: is assumed that the buyer is mochel - and presumably there is no sin.

I would not assume this. In pereq Lulav haGazul the gemara separates
ba'alus from mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah. The stolen lulav may be the
gazlan's once the owner is meya'esh, but it's still a mitzvah haba'ah
ba'aveirah. It's ill gotten gains, but still gains and still ill.

2-1/2 days later, on Sun, December 16, 2007 4:23am, R Daniel Eidensohn
wrote:
:> I can't imagine what could possibly lead someone to think that one
:> might violate G-d's Word and not have to apologize to Him for it.
:>
: There are a number of authorities who claim that the Rambam holds that
: there is no Torah obligation to do teshuva

I do not believe that this is a question of whether there is a need to
do teshuvah. Rather, it's whether there can be a mitzvas asei whose
expression is entirely beleiv. Can a person be order about how to
feel? The Rambam similarly turns "lo sachmod" into manipulating people
in order to get something, not the desire itself.

Thus, Hil' Teshuvah opens by telling you that a heartfelt vidui is an
asei, even though teshuvah is not similarly described. Of course,
vidui is impossible without teshuvah; however, teshuvah is beleiv, and
vidui involves the mouth.


Between those two posts, on Sat, December 15, 2007 9:58 pm, on the
thread titled "The Kuzari, vindicated", R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: You are confusing the giving of the Torah and Taryag mitzvos with
: judgment Judgment of one's goodness/badness pre-dates and post-dates
: matan torah.

I am putting the reply here because I found that many of my comments
here also relate to my aforementioned hashkafic stance.

Hashem made a beris with Adam haRishon. In the days of Noach, He made
a revised one, loosening the issur on eating meat to an issur on eiver
min hachai. That, as far as I can tell, is the expression of the
"[j]dgment of one's goodness/badness [that] pre-dates and post-dates
matan torah."

Now you're suggesting that matan Torah was a beris with a nation, to
the exclusion of the individual, but the individual is judged by how
well he complies to it. Not only the 7 mitzvos benei Noach, but even
the other 606, are subject to judgment. Even though any healthy nation
has a certain number of low-lives, and therefore being one of them
doesn't put mean the person caused the nation's violation of the
covenant. I fail to see how that is sound.

As to the confusion.... I am going to recap part of my "Grand Unified
Theory", which I think I posted here at least once before. Leshitasi
(admittedly an explanation of my position, not a proof thereof):

HQBH created us because it is the nature of good to have someone to
whom to bestow that good. (An idea found in R' Saadia and the Ramchal,
and numerous other places.)

Hashem Himself is the greatest good, and that means that being able to
Create, as He does, is part of what He wishes to bestow upon us. Thus,
the giving was perforce left for us to complete -- we participate in
the creation of ourselves, our ability to receive His Good, and to
bestow that good on the rest of His world.

In order to tell us how to do that, HQBH gave us mitzvos. He gave the
world the Jewish People to instruct them, and the Torah to instruct
the Jewish People. That instruction is in our essential tachlis --
perfecting ourselves to be recipients of His Good, and thus Givers
made in His Image.

What we call sechar va'onesh is therefore not a consequence of the
mitzvos, but their cause. HQBH told us what to do or avoid doing in
order to maximize our ability to receive His good. Onesh is more
similar to a person who feels unwell after violating a doctor's orders
than someone who is beaten for not following his sargent's.

This is how Nefesh haChaim can tell us that the avos deduced the
entire corpus of mitzvos and issurim by being able to feel their souls
well enough to know what they need.

From this end of things, there can't be a violation without a need for
teshuvah, because if it didn't harm the soul and require healing,
Hashem wouldn't have told us to avoid it.

First, because I see things in terms of personal soul, rather than
kelal Yisrael's corporate soul, I can't even get started relating to
RRW's or R' Yeshayah Lebowitz's position. It's not simply a national
contract, it is a toolset on a road to a particular goal. And the
nation exists to serve the ability for individuals to reach the goal,
and in one case, to help other nations serve that function. Thus the
"goi qadosh".

Second, by seeing things as amenable to modeling as "medical" in
addition to the more usual judicial one, I avoid some of the
arbitrariness that I feel plagues RYL's position.

RYL's shitah, with its assertion that we follow the law for no reason
beyond it's the terms of the beris is acutely subject to the Euthyphro
dilemma. That either G-d's choice of laws was arbitrary, and the
difference between His choosing "lo sirtzach" vs "sirtzach" was
happenstance. Or, one is compelled to conclude that the inherent moral
superiority of "lo sirtzach" is a criterion by which Hashem chose,
something to which even He is subject.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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, December 14, 2007 1:12 pm, R Zev Sero wrote:
: It seems to me that RYBS would have difficulty explaining why, at
: least among USAn goyim, the majority of divorces are initiated by the
: wife.  According to him this should be quite rare, and certainly far
: from a majority.

It seems to me that RYBS isn't denying the majority, he is denying
that chazaqah is a simple variation of the theme of ruba deleisa
leqaman. And thus he disproves it not with statistics, but a pasuq. To
whatever extent that's peshat in the pasuq aside; I'm discussing the
implied meaning of chazaqah, not the specific treatment of tav
lemeisiv.

To more clearly phrase what I tried to express last time, RYBS seems
to be saying:

A chazaqah about human nature is on an existential, not a
psychological level. I don't know what that means, but certainly one
can distinguish between what one thinks one wants, and what one
actually wants. A person can refuse to admit to herself that she
really doesn't want to be alone, and out of a desire to see herself as
independent, frustrates her own desires. This isn't quite what he
means, as I'm making a distinction more like desire and consciousness
of desire, unconscious vs conscious; and both of those are on the
psychological level.

To put the above another way, the chazaqah may be saying that we
presume the law of human nature is followed through upon unless proven
otherwise EVEN IF the law of human nature is followed through upon in
less than half of all cases. It's simply another law of birur, similar
in function rov.

None of which would apply to our original case, where there are
knowns, and therefore no need to relay on dinei birur. Sheiv Shemaatsa
6:22 rules out use of a chazaqah disvara in cases where there are
eidim, even if the matter is still in doubt. (Unlike a chazaqah
demei'ikarah.)

:> Witnesses to yichud? If they're "a couple", it's quite likely.

: Really?  Since your wedding, how many people do you suppose could
: testify that they'd seen you and your wife isolated together for
: 8 consecutive minutes?  In the ordinary course of events that's
: not something people usually see.

Actually, ROY has a teshuvah which would spell disaster for the
children of the "tefillin dating" crowd, bedavka because of the issue
we are discussing. Hopefully RtCL or RtSB (just to name our two most
plurific S contributors, both women and both S by marriage, hmm...)
has a mar'eh maqom.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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

Micha Berger wrote:

> : But He permitted, and even commanded, judicial / executive enforcement
> : of Halachah.
> 
> But when Sanhedrin saw that the masses weren't on the same page, and
> oneshim would turn Inquisition-esque, they exiled themselves to
> prevent the eventuality.

Was that the reason?  Or was it because they were prevented by the
Romans from carrying out their duty?

(Consider a famous execution that was carried out by the Romans rather
than the Jews, right around the time the Sanhedrin moved offices.
Cause?  Effect? Just coincidence?  Or pure fiction?)
 

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

RZN
a. When can women or children be included in a minyan?
> b. When must a minyan include two rabbis?
> c. when must a minyan consist of ten Torah scholars?

>RZS: I think A may be megilah, according to at least some opinions
Normally, kriat ham'gilla does not require a minyan, so this answer as it stands does not seem accurate. The g'mara does say, however, that when the megilla is read shelo b'zmano (m'gilla nihkreit b-yud aleph, yud beit...) it is read only publicly, not privately. Since, however, we have abandoned the practice of reading the megilla other than b'zmano, it would seem that this halacha is no longer operational. This, however, is not the case.
In Yerushalayim, the m'gilla is read on Tet-vav. This year, Tet-vav is Shabbat, there is a gzeira against  reading the megilla on Shabbat, and it is read onYud-dalet. For Yerushalayim, this is lo b'zmano! Thus, the megilla should be read only publicly, not privately. However, the accepted practice is to include women in the "public" required for megilla reading insuch a year. I don't know of psakim about children, but presumably a child a year or two away from bar/bat mitzva would also be a valid part of the megilla-hearing "public"

Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071218/8be9a9c1/attachment-0001.html 

saul mashbaum wrote:
> RZN
 
> a. When can women or children be included in a minyan?
 
>>RZS: I think A may be megilah, according to at least some opinions

> Normally, kriat ham'gilla does not require a minyan, so this answer as 
> it stands does not seem accurate. 

I meant for saying "harav et rivenu" and for having to read standing.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

R' Richard Wolpoe asked:
> Is the Medinah's legislation SAYING it is ASSUR
> or
> Is the Medinah really saying that when you DO you park there
> you are subject to a fine, but is it is not assur per se.

Below is an excerpt from page 231 of the Nassau County Administrative Code, found at http://www.nassaucountyny.gov/website/GenericServices/docs/NassauCountyAdminCode_June2007.pdf

> c. The Department of Public Works shall erect and maintain
> appropriate signs at reasonable intervals along designated
> snow routes to provide notice that it is unlawful to park
> or abandon any vehicle along a snow route during a snow
> emergency.
>
> d. Any vehicle parked or abandoned in violation of the
> provisions of this section shall be deemed a nuisance and
> a menace to the safe and proper regulation of traffic.
> Employees of the Department of Public Works or any peace
> officer may remove or cause to be removed any such
> vehicle to any other location within the County, without
> incurring any liability for damages to the vehicle. The
> owner of such vehicle shall be required to reimburse the
> County for the actual and necessary cost of removal and
> storage thereof before he is entitled to regain possession
> of the vehicle.
>
> e. Parking or abandoning a vehicle in violation of the
> provisions of this section shall be a traffic infraction
> and every person convicted of a violation thereof shall be
> liable to a fine of not more than fifteen ($15.00) dollars.

I would imagine that the laws of other jurisdictions are phrased in similar terms.

Everything in this section speaks about parking in the wrong place being a violation of the law ("assur per se"). I have no idea why you would suspect that there is no violation done.

I do acknowledge that there are some people who choose to flout the law on the basic that the fines are cheaper than the parking expenses and loss of time incurred by looking for a legal space. But I doubt that even such people actually think that their actions are not violations of the law. They are expedient, but illegal.

Why would you think otherwise? Could it be that I am misunderstanding the question?

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Grow your small business with email marketing. Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3l4wWH4Dj9ugbFw0jtSOsHCwrbI9hTw04BweBQFevnssI2We/

The Torah says it ossur to destroy the corners of one's beard. The  rabbis 
said this means shaving with a razor. Where exactly are the corners of  the 
beard according to most poskim? 



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071218/637b445f/attachment-0001.htm 

On Sun, December 16, 2007 8:04 am, R Jonathan Baker wrote:
: Similarly, Cong. Or Zarua on the Upper East Side (C) bought a building
: that had been the original synagogue of Cong.  Kehillath Jeshurun (O)
: until sometime around 1900, used by other congregations for 50 years,
: then sold as a church in 1951, and then bought again as COZ about
: 15-20 years ago.  After some years, OZ knocked it down and built a
: larger building.

An intentionally contravercial question, simply because I can't
justify what I would think is the obvious answer:

Say one holds like RT about shituf for benei Noach.

How could one rank a center which included institutionalized chilul
Shabbos as a better use of the space than worship for benei Noach of a
format permitted to them?

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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 Mon, December 17, 2007 6:52 pm, Zev Sero wrote:
: Rich, Joel wrote:
:> Are candles really a mitzvah that applies to the home as a unit

: AIUI the obligation is on the baal habayit.

A conclusion one would reach from diyuq halashon as well: "Ner ish
ubeiso".

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

On Mon, December 17, 2007 7:52 pm, Rn Chana Luntz wrote:
: A chazaka in general is a rebuttable presumption.  That is, we assume
: something, usually about an existing status continuing, if we do not
: have the information to know to the contrary....

That is a chazaqah demei'ikarah, which is different in kind than our
case, a chazaqah disvara. The former is a presumption that nothing
changed until the moment a change was observed, the latter is a rule
of nature or rule of thumb. The example of a distinction I posted
yesterday (which was still more recent than RnCL's post) was a chiluq
made by the Sheiv Shmaatesa, that a CdS is not asserted where there
are eidim, even in a case like terei uterei where the eidus still
leaves you with a safeiq. However, for a CdM, we would assume nothing
changed even where two of the eidim claim it did.

That said, I think that RYBS's position inclines us to say that
neither kind of chazaqah is a form of rov. And thus he could still say
tav lemeisav is a law of human nature, even if that law might come
into play rarely because of the prevalence of other laws. Or, it could
be that he insists that tav lemeisav is true even in rov women today,
and the women who think otherwise are just in denial.

The notion that chazaqah holds even when the circumstance it describes
is a mi'ut can be supported by a case in Chullin. Lechat-chilah, the
chalaf should be inspected before every shechitah. Bedi'eved, if it is
found kosher in one check and pasul much later, every animal shechted
until the failed inspection is kosher. Even if someone use the knife
to hack a bone, we do not assume the nick came from the bone. I would
presume, though, that rov cases such a knife would have been nicked by
the bone and not the very end of the last siman cut.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, December 17, 2007 6:52 pm, Zev Sero wrote:
> : Rich, Joel wrote:
> :> Are candles really a mitzvah that applies to the home as a unit
> 
> : AIUI the obligation is on the baal habayit.
> 
> A conclusion one would reach from diyuq halashon as well: "Ner ish
> ubeiso".

At this point we're talking about neirot shabbat, not ner chanukah.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

In response to R. Joel Rich:

>>    1. Is the parking ticket a FEE for parking and you MAY lechatchila
>>    park illegally so long as you are willing to pay
>>    2. OR is it a fine for bad/moralunethical/anti-social behavior and
>>    it is not OK to do so unless under duress?

R. Richard Wolpoe wrote:

> Is the Medinah really saying that wehn you DO you park there you are 
> subject
> to a fine, but is it is not assur per se.
>
> I guess you could say it is almost like a lav hanitak l'asseh.

One type of parking ticket is for parking by a hydrant, or blocking a 
building entrance,
either of which might lead to public endangerment. So I lean toward the 
"it's assur"
argument (#2) rather than the "it's something for sale by the municipality"
argument (#1).

Elly 

What is the source for the claim that Ashkenazi practice came from Eretz
Israel and Sephardi practice came from Bavel?  My impression has always
been the opposite. 

Take 2. A side effect of moderating is losing track of where the
conversation was up to at the time of the post in question vs. things
I remember from skimming the emails for moderation problems. So, now
that I think I know what we're talking about, another thought came to
me.

RZSero wrote:
> The mitzvah is "that he not stumble on wood or stone" by attempting to
> navigate in the dark.  Therefore AIUI it applies to the person who's
> responsible for the maintenance of the rooms, i.e. the baal habayit,
who
> is by millennia-old tradition obligated to delegate it to his wife.

Is it on the gravra of the baal habayis, or on the cheftza of the
bayis itself? Difference being: If it's on the baal habayis, why
wouldn't mitzvah bo yoseir mibeshlucho make that minhag unlikely to
get started?

Side issue: The reference to eitz va'even is interesting, as the idiom
is from the issur AZ. Add to that that stumbling is taken figuratively
in lifnei iveir, and I see a vertl emerging. Something about the need
to make mitzvos enjoyable lest someone be led off the derekh. In
counterbalance to simple ana avda dQBH compliance to din.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 101
***************************************

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..."