Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 112

Mon, 31 Dec 2007

• 1. Re: New king (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 2. Re: "Sometimes Chutzpah is Praiseworthy" (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 3. Re: "Sometimes Chutzpah is Praiseworthy" (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Sometimes Chutzpah is Praiseworthy (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 5. Re: Lashon Hara about non-Jews (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 6. Re: irrational anti-Semites? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 7. charging ribis to a Jew / non-Jew (Kelmar, Michael J.)
• 8. Lashon Hara about non-Jews (Kelmar, Michael J.)
• 9. Re: Lashon Hara about non-Jews (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Home Rule (Rich, Joel)
• 11. New King (Kelmar, Michael J.)
• 12. Re: Having a boyfriend equivalent to being married? (Micha Berger)

R'n TK:
When there is a machlokes in Chazal that has halachic implications, we are
not entitled to personal opinions.? You can't follow Bais Shammai re Chanuka
lights, for example, just because that appeals to you.? You have to follow
halachic process and ask shailos etc.
?


Not sure that's true. See Rashi, Chagigah 3b (on top), and the Hakdamah to
Yam Shel Shlomo on Bava Kama (also, IIRC the Hakdamah to Chullin). 
Akeidas Yitzchok (Sha'ar 12) and R' Dessler (volume 3, page 353) are also
pertinent.


KT,
MYG

> R'n Toby Katz wrote:
> "When a child says something bold and brassy but the father loves what
> the
> child said and thinks it's bright and delightful, the father is not
> upset with
> his daughter -- he is pleased and delighted with her wit and chachma!"
R' Rich Wolberg:
> Sorry, but that doesn't cut it! A parent child relationship should be
> one of
> respect and to allow a child that type of behavior is a poor parental
> example.
> That's the same "cute" mentality of allowing a child to call the
> parent by the
> first name which is against halacha.


Brazenness, to a large extant, is determined by social mores, context, tone
and expression. I don't see how we can reach back some three millennia to
try to determine if Miriam was brazen, even should we wish to do so. This is
even harder for those who would suggest that the dialogue recorded in
Midrash and Gemara is not necessarily an exact set of quotations.

KT,
MYG 

On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 06:21:20AM -0500, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: Brazenness, to a large extant, is determined by social mores, context, tone
: and expression. I don't see how we can reach back some three millennia to
: try to determine if Miriam was brazen, even should we wish to do so. This is
: even harder for those who would suggest that the dialogue recorded in
: Midrash and Gemara is not necessarily an exact set of quotations.

Given the latter point, that we aren't dealing with exact quotes, I
would think you would only have to reach back 2 millenia. Chazal tell a
story (historical or not, to nod to that conversation) and hold it up
as complimentary behavior on Miriam's part. The question would be
understanding Chazal, not Miriam.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

These are some quotes from Daas Torah pages 558 -562 dealing with the 
issue of chutzpa and spirituality

*
*

    *Maharik**[i]* <#_edn1>*(12:62):* There are some rabbis who want to
    dominate their students more than is appropriate and they assert
    that whoever has been a student even as a child is forever
    subordinate to them and can never disagree with them in any issue.
    They claim that this is true even if the student has become their
    equal or even their superior in learning because they assert that
    the main factor is where the relationship started not where it is
    now. They furthermore assert that even if the rabbi has clearly
    erred or behaves incorrectly, that disagreeing with the rabbi is the
    same as contradicting G?d and other such claims. The answer to this
    that even if the student is forever subordinate to his teacher as
    these rabbis assert, nevertheless is quite obvious that that is only
    in relationship to honoring him by standing up for him or ripping
    his garment irreversibly in mourning for him. But concerning matters
    of Heaven e.g., he saw his teacher err in halacha which is a chilul
    HaShem?there is no requirement to honor his teacher. This can
    readily be seen in the many examples in the gemora such as the
    events with Rabban Gamliel (Berachos 26b)?


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


??"?: ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ?????, ?? ?? ???? 
?? ???? ????, ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??? 
????? ???? ???? ???, ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?? 
?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?????*, ??? ?? ???? 
????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? 
?? ????? ?????? ?????? ????*, ??? ???? ??? ??"? ?????. ??? ????? ??? ??? 
????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??????, ???? ????? ?? ???? ?"? ???? ??? ?????? 
??"? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????, ?"? ??? ???? ??? 
?????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? 
??? ????? ?????, ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? 
??? ??? ?????? ???? ???. ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? 
???? (?? ??, ?) ??? ????? ??? ????? ??"? ??"? ???? (?? ??, ?) ????? ??? 
????? (?? ??, ?) ????? ?? ???"? ?"? ?????, ???? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ??? 
??? ????? ???"? ?"? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??. ?"? ????? ??? ????? 
?????...

*Berachos**[i]* <#_edn1>*(19a):* Shimon ben Shetach informed Choni 
HaMagel: You deserve to be excommunicated and were you not Choni I would 
in fact excommunicate you. But what can I do since your relationship to 
G?d like a son who ingratiates himself with his father so that his 
father does whatever he wishes. The verse: /Your father and mother 
should be happy and she that gave birth to you should rejoice?/applies 
to you.

*Taanis**[ii]* <#_edn2>*(23a): *During a period of drought people asked 
Choni HaMagel to pray for rain. He prayed and yet no rain fell. He then 
drew a circle and stood within it in the same way that the prophet 
Chavakuk had done. He said to G?d: Master of the Universe, Your children 
have come to me because I am like a member of Your household. I swear by 
Your great name that I will not move from here until You have mercy on 
Your children! A small amount of rain started to fall. His students said 
to him: We look to you to save us from death and this rain is only 
enough to release you from your oath. Choni then proclaimed: This is not 
what I asked for?I wanted rain strong enough to fill the cisterns, 
ditches and caves! A violent rainstorm began with each drop the size of 
opening of a barrel? His students said: We turned to you to save us from 
death but we think that this rain will destroy the world. Choni then 
said to G?d: I didn?t ask for this type of rain but rather rain of 
blessing and bounty. Then the rain started falling normally until all 
the Jews in Yerushalayim were forced to go on the Temple mount because 
of the rain. His students then said: Master, just as you prayed for rain 
to fall you should pray for the rain to stop? He said to G?d: Master of 
the Universe: Your people Whom You redeemed from Egypt are not able to 
endure either too much good or too much bad ? May it be Your will that 
the rain stop and that there be relief for the world. Immediately the 
wind started to blow and dispersed the clouds and the sun shone? R? 
Shimon ben Shetach sent him a message. ?If you weren?t Choni, I would 
have placed you under the ban? But what can I do to you since your 
relationship to G?d is like a spoiled child before his father who grants 
all his wishes? The verse of ?Let your father and mother be glad and she 
that gave birth to you rejoice??applies to you.


*Sanhedrin**[i]* <#_edn1>*(105a): *Chutzpa?even against Heaven?helps. We 
learn this from Bilaam who had been told not to go with the king?s 
messengers and then was eventually told to go with them. Chutzpa is 
sovereignty without a crown?

*Yerushalmi Taanis**[ii]* <#_edn2>*(9:1): /But let every man and beast 
be covered with sackcloth and let them cry strongly to G?d? (Yonah 3:8). 
/*What does ?cry strongly? mean? It means chutzpa in prayer conquers a 
good man and surely G?d.


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


???? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???. ??? ?? ??? ????? 
?????? ??? ???? ??? ...

*[ii]* <#_ednref2>* **??????? (????? ?.) *?????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? 
???? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??"? ?? ?????? ????? ??? 
?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ????.

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


???? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? 
???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? 
????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????

*[ii]* <#_ednref2>* **????? (??.):* ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? 
???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????. ?? 
???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ... ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? 
??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? 
????? ?? ????. ?????? ????? ??????. ???? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? 
??????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????. ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? 
????? ????? ??????. ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????... ???? ?? 
??????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? 
?????. ??? ????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????. ???? ?????? ?? 
???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??????. ???? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ????? 
????? ???. ...???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? 
?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???????... ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? 
???? ???? ?????. ??? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ????... ??? ?? ????? 
?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ... ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? 
???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ... ????? 
????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???????...

>  
> **

>  Charging interest from a goy might
> result in (or come from) feelings of cruelty, selfishness etc.  
Actually the Netziv in his haskoma to the Chofetz Chaim's Ahavas Chesed 
says that lending with ribis is in fact a chesed. And thus the Torah is 
preventing us to doing chesed without money by prohibiting ribis. 
Therefore it would seem that the prohibition has nothing to do with midos.

"It is a mitzva to lend money to those who need it. Even though it is a 
rational obligation nevertheless there are aspects of statute to it as 
well. Therefore the halacha of lending does not coincide exactly with 
what man thinks is the correct thing. The distinction between the 
rational and the Torah view of lending occurs in relationship to the 
prohibtion of charging interest. For example a person who has money that 
he can't spare and thus he is not able to do the kindness of lending to 
those in need of the money - unless he can charge ribis. From the point 
of view of a rational human being it is a great chesed to lend as well 
as mitzva to lend with the appropriate ribis and thus both he and the 
recipient benefit from the loan. Nevertheless the Torah prohibited us to 
lend money with ribis under any circumstances. Thus the Torah is 
prohibiting us from doing the chesed.


???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????. ???''? ???? ???? ???? ??''? ??? ????? 
?''?. ??''? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??''? ??? ????? ???? ???? 
????. ??''? ????? ????? ???. ???? ??? ????. ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? 
???. ????? ???? ?????? ??''? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? 
????. ???? ???? ???? ??? ?''? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ?? 
??? ?? ????? ????????. ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?''? ????? ???? ??? ???? 
????. ??''? ?''? ?????? ?????? ?? ????.

>> There is also an additional phrase in there, "they might /join our enemies
>>   and fight us/, and then leave." It still doesn't make clear exactly what
>> Pharaoh's concern was.
>>     
There is much discussion in the academic literature of the Hyksos who 
were a semitic people who were in Egypt about the same time as the Jews. 
Some theorize that at one time these semitic peoples were accepted and 
even ruled in Egypt but that there was a change in the political 
climatic and they were viewed as a threat to the native Egyptian 
population. The argument is therefore that both the Jews and the Hyksos 
were alien forces whose increasing numbers and influence were a threat 
from within the Egyptian society. At the same time there were Hyksos and 
their allies who lived outside of Egypt. Therefore there was a second 
danger if they would overcome the control the Egyptians had over them 
and escape to join the outside enemy. Thus there is nothing irrational 
about the fear. There was an internal threat in numbers and an external 
threat which their escape would exacerbate. There is also no need for 
psycho-historical analysis.

Daniel Eidensohn

R' Micha Berger wrote: "WRT ribis, the pasuq implies what the difference
is when taking ribis from a Jew vs taking it from a non-Jew. It uses the
word "achikha". It's not that ribis is inherently immoral, it's that
brothers don't charge brothers interest."

Fahr vos nisht?  Do brothers not charge brothers 5 cents for a gum ball?


Also, I do not know what the phrase "inherently immoral" means.  Please
provide some hesbir.

R' Zev Sero wrote: 

"Charging interest and failing to return lost property are not negative
actions, which come from or could engender bad middos.  They are the
normal way we should expect to interact with strangers... And if someone
has been careless enough to lose something and you were lucky enough to
find it, why on earth should you expend time and energy to track them
down, and then give it to them?  What have they ever done for you, that
you should do them such favours?"  

The Torah permits me to keep the aveida even when there is no particular
carelessness on his part (for example, the band of his $20,000 gold
watch broke which can happen to anyone), and the Torah permits me to
keep the aveida even when there is no tircha on my part to return it (it
was my next-door-neighbor's watch, who has been a shabbos goy for me a
hundred times and lent me his lawn-mower).

"This isn't a bad midah, it's a normal balebatishe midah."

Mi amar?  Chopping off heads is a normal baalebatishe midah in some
places.

"Speaking LH, though, seems like something negative."

OK, I agree.  But it sounds very touchy feely to me.  The Torah allows
an Isha Yafas Toar b'kishrei milchana.  So maybe the Torah allows a
person to vent his taavah for blabbing about people so that he should do
it in a permitted way and not about Yidden.  Who knows?  We didn't write
the Torah.  We don't need to be m'chadesh new issurim.

 


"This isn't a bad midah, it's a normal balebatishe midah."

Mi amar?  Chopping off heads is a normal baalebatishe midah in some
places.

"Speaking LH, though, seems like something negative."

OK, I agree.  But it sounds very touchy feely to me.  The Torah allows
an Isha Yafas Toar b'kishrei milchana.  So maybe the Torah allows a
person to vent his taavah for blabbing about people so that he should do
it in a permitted way and not about Yidden.  Who knows?  We didn't write
the Torah.  We don't need to be m'chadesh new issurim.
==============================================================

Midot in general can be very touchy, feely.  You might find "Does Jewish
Tradition Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakha?" by R'AL of
interest (I think it's reprinted in "Leaves of Faith"

KT
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

 
The gemara and poskim use differing terms to describe what at first
glance seems to be the same thing(e.g.)
zayin tovei hair
bnai hair
manhigei hair
parnas
 
Is anyone aware of any distinctions made between these?

KT
Joel Rich
 
 
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071231/0ca7146a/attachment-0001.html 

R' Mikha'el Makovi:
"I can't learn anything from the Torah if
the Torah to me is a haze of conflicting shitot that I hold nothing
regarding them."


Maybe what you are saying is similar to what has been expressed as a
criticism of religious liberals:  "If anything can be true, than nothing
is true."

However, in Torah we have to concept of Eilu v'Eilu.  So when we
conclude, even only for ourselves, that one p'shat is THE correct one,
we cut off our ability to see the emes of the other p'shat.  That is
potentially dangerous, given our very limited understanding, and the
very great stature of Chazal, Rishonim etc.  We are speaking of the
Avos, of Yosef, of a period when Hashem's Hashgacha was such that there
were radical, open nissim.  So it would seem difficult to apply our
understanding of how kings normally behave, or our understanding of
human psychology normally operates.  Our basis of comparison may be
meaningful or it may be entirely meaningless.

There are places where later m'forshim show that both p'shatim in a
machlokes are correct (al pi p'shuto), even though it would seem that it
was a choice of "either or".  

Yes, as a few folks, reminded me off list, there are plenty of m'forshim
that choose one p'shat over another, or say p'shatim that contradict
Chazal.  But we need to use due caution when applying this idea.

On Mon, December 24, 2007 6:30 pm, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RMB Writes:
:> While the gemara speaks of kesheirim when saying "ein adam
:> oseh be'ilaso..." the Rambam omits the word.

: Sorry?  I don't know what editions of the Rambam you have, but my
: edition has him most definitely bringing the word (as I spelled out in
: my previous post on the subject see Vol 24, Issue 99 wher I quote
: Hilchos Ishus, perek 7 halacha 23.)

OTOH, see Geirushin 10:19. However, I can't again find which gemara
had mention of kesheirim.

So it would seem that while in this case, we can assume we're dealing
with "Yisraelim kesheirim", the Rambam applies the kelal even to
sinners.

:> What I was trying to day, with caps to show emphasis, was: I
:> think that RYBS's position inclines us to say that NEITHER
:> kind of chazaqah is a form of rov.
:
: Well I note that the Encylopedia Talmudit wants (at least at one
: point) divide the chazaka into three types, one of which was a chazaka
: m'ikara, one of which comes from the koach of rov and one of which is
: an even stronger form of anan ztadi....

I was simply presenting the ShSh's position, not being a baqi in what
else is out there. I don't recall anything different than the ShSh in
Shaarei Yosher, but that could just be that I wasn't paying sufficient
attention and just placed the new into the existing mental buckets.

: But the problem seems to me bigger than this.  Because the gemora I
: cited to you in Yevamos specifically says that chazaka only defies rov
: according to Rabbi Meir (where you can add the miut that he is
: choshesh for to the chazaka) and not according to the Rabbanan, who
: hold the principle that ruba v'chazaka ruba adif, a statement again
: brought on Kiddushin 80a  - which tosphos seems to bring on Yevamos
: there as a general principle....

The notion that this is only by a chazaqah demei'ikarah is the
aforementioned point of the ShSh. I'm not sure how my suggested
explanation for the ShSh makes the question any stronger.

We might even get into strange turf, that ein adam oseh be'ilaso and
and adam kasher meiYisreh be'ilaso are different kinds of chazaqah.
And we migh even say that R' Meis and the Rabanan are arguing as to
our very point -- whether ein adam oseh is a chazqah disvara or a
chazaqah demei'karah, and thus consequence differences WRT chazaqah
verov.

But bekhol zos, leaping back from ShSh to RYBS... RYBS's case was tav
lemeisav, not ein adam. He can't possibly hold that both kinds of
chazaqah (if he holds there are 2 kinds) override rov, since that
would go against the gemara. My sevara here does fail. We're left with
my other suggestion, that RYBS presumes that the typical modern woman
is in denial.


Perhaps now we can discuss the reverse game WRT Rav Moshe -- since he
holds "ein adam oseh be'ilaso" doesn't necessarily apply bizman hazeh.
Assuming the Rambam in Geirushin proves he doesn't limit the chazaqah
to kesheirim, and thus there is no precedent, it would seem IM is
saying that this limitation of the chazaqah is in response to new 20th
cent realia. So, why couldn't RMF say the same of tav lemeisav?

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 112
***************************************

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..."