Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 95

Tue, 11 Mar 2008

• 1. mitzvot and sins cancel (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Unwrapping the second (or third Sefer Torah) (Danny Schoemann)
• 3. Re: Unwrapping the second (or third Sefer Torah) (shomer_torah@comcast.net)
• 4. Re: Unwrapping the second (or third Sefer Torah( (D&E-H Bannett)
• 5. Re: history (Michael Makovi)
• 6. dalei dalim (Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org)
• 7. Re: Mitzvot and sins cancel each other, or not (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: Unwrapping the second (or third Sefer Torah( (Zev Sero)
• 9. schechtworthy (Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org)
• 10. Re: schechtworthy (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Sefer HaChinuch on why 2 weeks Nidah for a girland only 1 (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: schechtworthy (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: schechtworthy (David Riceman)
• 14. Shechting animals upside down (Marty Bluke)
• 15. Re: dalei dalim (Jacob Farkas)
• 16. Re: O attend R wedding = kosher eidim? (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: daas torah & history (Micha Berger)

I was basing myself mainly on the Gemara, and brought the MY L'ravcha
D'milsa. In any case, can you provide a source that Tzedakah cancels out
Aveiros?>>

Certainly teshuva cancels out sins.
There is much discussion of the Rambam who talks about weighing sins
versus mitzvot
to determine who is a tzaddik. He then stresses that one should do
teshuva between Rosh
Hashana and YK. Many ask the question why do teshuva - just do more mitzvot.
According to MYG the simple answer would be that teshuva cancel
aveiros while mitzvot
don't. While a reasonable answer it is not the only answer given. So
it would seem that
not everyone agrees.
Another question in the same Rambam is why is tzedaka any better than
any other mitzvah in outweighing aveirot.

-- 
Eli Turkel

> after the Hagbah of the first sefer Torah, the second sefer Torah which was
> on the Bimah not be uncovered until the first one was fully dressed.

> Would anyone here know of a source for this hakpada?

SA OC 147:8: On days when there are 2 seforim you must not open nor
remove the mantel of the 2nd Sefer (because we don't do Mitzvos in
bundles [MB]) until the first is rolled up (with it's mantel [MB])

- Danny

Join my Halocho a Day group http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2387884087

"R Davidovich" <raphaeldavidovich@gmail.com> wrote: 

> after the Hagbah of the first sefer Torah, the second sefer Torah which was
> on the Bimah not be uncovered until the first one was fully dressed.  And
> the same insistence was applied to the third Sefer after the second one was
> lifted.

> Would anyone here know of a source for this hakpada? 

Ayen Shaare Ephraim (I don't have it available right now). This is mefurash
there mita'am ain osin mitzvos chavilos chavilos. With the usual
unneccessarily prolonged "Mi Sheberach's", this should not be an issue of
tircha d'tzibura at all. If it is, the opportunity to be mechanech a
kehilla about kavod hamitzvos with a few seconds of delay is well worth it.

The same hakpada is common on a one-sefer Shabbat.  One 
doesn't start the b'rakha of the haftarah before the sefer 
is covered.

As the one-sefer Shabbat is the most common, I would guess 
that the hakpada between sefarim on a multi-sefer Shabbat is 
a development from the more common.

k"t,

David 

This thread started on Avodah, but traversed to Areivim, but my
comment has brought it back to Avodah. I will quote the comments from
Arevim, followed by my comment that has returned it to Avodah"

I (Mikha'el Makovi) said:
>>> I've never understood the objection, for example, to a certain Chumash
>>> narrative being stam history. If it has a lesson, yofi, but if not,
>>> what's the problem? Suppose there were no lessons to learn from the
>>> Avot and Imot - do you think that then you could dispense with their
>>> history? ...

R' Eli Turkel said:
>>  Not just Chazal... Look how paltry the biographies of the avos and
>>  Moshe Rabbeinu are. Missing decades in Avraham's life... not even his
>>  re-discovery of monotheism is covered. Large chunks missing from
>>  Moshe's life. No description of the majority of the time in the
>>  midbar.
>>
>> Or to rephrase Micah Chumash is not a history book or a science book

I (Mikha'el Makovi) responded tongue-in-cheek:
> Okay, so G-d disagrees with me too. Don't stop me now, I'm on a roll!

Now I will add:

But then I remembered Rav Hirsch to Bereshit perek tet, about Canaan's
sit with Noach, Rav Hirsch says that Canaan himself did nothing, but
that in retrospect, at matan Torah, we already knew Canaan's
licentiousness and sinfulness, and it is understandable, in
retrospect, given what Ham did; the mention of Canaan in Bereshit
there is then a historical retrospective by Moshe (okay okay, at G-d's
behest as Redactor!).

Now, Rav Hirsch explains all this saying that we had a TSBP of
history, not only halacha.

If I take this idea of his a bit further, we can say
that b'vadai, many things were not written in the Torah, but orally
they were still transmitted - not only halacha, but history too! You
think that Avraham's descendants didn't have stories of Avraham's
life of tzidkut, told by Avraham to Yitzchak to Yaakov etc.??!! Heck,
moreover, Avraham probably told a lot of mundane stories about funny
thing that happened when he watering his camels, and...

So perhaps the Torah only wrote the bare essentials, but I'd bet that
there was a lot more history of relevance that unfortunately got lost
along with so much more lost mesorah.

Mikha'el Makovi

1. in re korban oleh v'yored, what did those  too poor for dalei dalim do?

2. why were so few korbanot oleh v'yored?  didn't that mean all other 
korbanot would be gauranteed to have people too poor to attain kapara?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080310/5c87a7e0/attachment.htm 

Shayna Livia Korb wrote:
> Do you mean in the gemara in Rosh Hashana? (16b - 4 things overturn a 
> decree - tzedaka, tzeaka, shinui shem, shinui maaseh)
This is hardly a clear source.  See H. Tshuva 2:4.

David Riceman

D&E-H Bannett wrote:
> The same hakpada is common on a one-sefer Shabbat.  One doesn't start
> the b'rakha of the haftarah before the sefer is covered.

I thought that was so that the people doing hagba and gelila would be
free to listen to the haftara.  AFAIK there's no hakpada not to open
the sefer from which the haftara is to be read until the sefer Torah
is fully dressed.

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

seen on a  newsletter---  A shochet that watches television is violating 
Biblical prohibitions. While this casts aspersions on his trustworthiness, 
he should not be removed. He must be first warned to cease from such 
behaviour (Shevet Halevi YD 2).


q-is this a generally accepted disqualifier?  does the OU use this 
criteria?  are there people that wouldn't eat from tv-shchita?

what other professions does tv disqualify?

wouldnt this be an edah related issur  [ like  matza shruya], since many 
jews would not hold that this is true?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080310/ff9bf4bf/attachment-0001.html 

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 04:09:11PM -0700, Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org wrote:
: seen on a  newsletter---  A shochet that watches television is violating 
: Biblical prohibitions. While this casts aspersions on his trustworthiness, 
: he should not be removed. He must be first warned to cease from such 
: behaviour (Shevet Halevi YD 2).

: q-is this a generally accepted disqualifier? ...

Assuming TV today is problematic -- and I could make a strong argument for
it -- I fail to see a deOraisa. With that factual issue (the postulate)
in question, I can't reach the next step.

This does toucheon my open question about Raba b"b Chana's barrels.
Rav (BM 83a) tells him he has to not only return the mashkon and be
mocheil the price of the barrels of wine, he had to pay them. "Lema'an
teileikh bederekh tovim, ve'orchos tzadiqim tishmor." (Teh' 2:20)

There is a chiyuv to walk the derekh tovim ve'orkhos tzadiqim.

How do you define being an avaryan WRT to these hazier "be moral"
imperatives?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:48:01PM -0500, Michael Poppers wrote:
: In Avodah Digest V25#71, R'Micha responded to CRW:
:>> That's not the reason that I teach.  A boy is one week and the reason
:>> for 2 weeks for a girl baby is because of the potential life that girl will
:>> eventually give birth to.  Hence, the extra week is added for the girl.

:> A coomon theme in Tazria (Ki Sazria?) issues of parashah sheets...
:> If anyone saw a primary source, I would appreciate the mar'eh maqom.

: and R'Micha then talks about RSRH.  Well, see RSRH on 3-12:4&5, last
: paragraph, re the shvua'yim.

RSRH doesn't use this idea, but a slight variant of it.

He insists there is a connection to milah, since the chumash interrupts
the discussion of tum'ah to mention milah. RSRH says that boys have a
lesser task of willfull submission (pretty much his definition of avdus,
although he doesn't use the word here). Thus, having a simple symbol
is sufficient. Women, however, have a much harder task, and the mother
requires more preparation before training her daughter for this role.

IOW, it's not about loss of potential, it's about having a greater lesson
to learn. Kedarko beqodesh.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org wrote:

> seen on a  newsletter---  A /shochet/ that watches television is 
> violating Biblical prohibitions. While this casts aspersions on his 
> trustworthiness, he should not be removed. He must be first warned to 
> cease from such behaviour (Shevet Halevi YD 2).

>> q-is this a generally accepted disqualifier?  does the OU use this 
>> criteria?  are there people that wouldn't eat from tv-shchita?
>> what other professions does tv disqualify?
>> wouldnt this be an edah related issur  [ like  matza shruya], since 
>> many jews would not hold that this is true?

It's a question of poretz geder.  In a community where TV-watching is
not accepted, someone who does raises questions about his yiras shomayim,
and a shochet's yiras shomayim must be beyond question.  The same applies
to shaving or trimming, and in an earlier era even to wearing galoshes!
Someone whose community regards these things as normal is just behaving
normally, and no question need be raised.

R' Elchonon Loebenstein was a shochet in Melbourne for many decades.
He was one of the Dunera Boys, and when he started shechting for the
L community in Melbourne some were concerned because he trimmed his
beard.  They wrote to the LR, who replied that since he came from
Germany where this was normal, it did not cause any problem at all
with his shechita.

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

Zev Sero wrote:
> It's a question of poretz geder.
But that's not a Biblical prohibition.

David Riceman

For a while now there has been a chumra that animals should only be
slaughtered when they are upside down so that the weight of the animal
does not push down on the knife.

This has led to methods like hoist and shackle which have come under
fire from animal rights groups.

In the latest issue of Mesorah
(http://www.oukosher.org/pdf/mesorah_23-96.pdf), R' Yisroel Belsky
writes "this practice (my addition: shechting when the animal is
upside down) is not mentioned in Shas, Rishonim, or Poskim". This is
all based on a diyuk in a Shach which he says is completely unfounded.
He, as well as R' Genack in the name of RYBS, point out that the
Rambam (Hilchos Shechita 2:7) makes absolutely no distinction between
if the animal is standing or not.

I am absolutely stunned by this. This practice of only shechting when
the animal is on it's back has become very widespread and has led to
many problems. To find out that it has no halachic basis is very
disturbing.

R' Belsky concludes with the following:

"I want to emphasize that it is very painful and misleading to make up
new opinions that are not mentioned in Shash and Rishonim based on
some diyuk"

R Saul Z Newman wrote:
> 1. in re korban oleh v'yored, what did those  too poor for dalei dalim do?

The amount required for Dalei Dalim was 1/10 of an Eifah of fine flour 
(3.65 pounds, if my math is correct). My guess is that it costs more to 
travel to Jerusalem (and/or Har HaBayis) than to finance the actual 
offering.

> 
> 2. why were so few korbanot oleh v'yored?  didn't that mean all other 
> korbanot would be gauranteed to have people too poor to attain kapara?

The Meforshim (Ramban, Ba'al Haturim, Da'as Zekeinim Uba'alei Tosefos) 
disagree over the reasoning why oleh veyored is applied to certain 
transgressions.

Ramban holds that it (Oleh veyored) is limited to scenarios where you 
intended to do something positive and ended up with a sin (Arriving at 
the Beis HaMiqdash forgetting that you were Tamei). Other Rishonim feel 
that whenever one derived any physical benefit from the aveirah, there 
is no option of Oleh veyored, and those sins that offer zero-benefit are 
subkect to Oleh Veyored

What is common in their opinions is that certain transgressions are so 
severe that you should have to pay full price. When we allow for Oleh 
veyored, we are being specifically lenient and offer cheaper 
alternatives, should cost be an issue.

Whether this is fair to people who have no means, yes and no. So long as 
the punishment for the crime is known beforehand, it might actually be a 
greater deterrent for the person without means, knowing that in order to 
receive Kaparah, he would have to spend outside of his means.

--Jacob Farkas

We don't hold like Tosafos, though. We presume very little to define
the eidim as a separate appointed kat. Even those who want, lechumrah,
to be chosheish for their shitah and make an explicit appointment of
the eidim would not invalidate the qidushin le'achar ma'aseh. It's not
ikar hadin.

We can't revive a rejected shitah for the sake of permitting agunos,
as it would also destroy numerous (the overwhelming majority) of
marriages.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, March 6, 2008 12:56 pm, R Eli Turkel wrote:
: Not just Chazal... Look how paltry the biographies of the avos and
: Moshe Rabbeinu are. Missing decades in Avraham's life... not even his
: re-discovery of monotheism is covered. Large chunks missing from
: Moshe's life. No description of the majority of the time in the
: midbar.
:
: Or to rephrase Micah Chumash is not a history book or a science book

RET's phrasing pointed out an interesting inconsistency in our debates.

WRT historical claims, eg the mabul, it was argued here that the Torah
isn't a history book, and therefore these claims aren't TSBP, and new
positions about them aren't "contrary to our prophets and sages" (to
paraphrase the Rambam).

However, WRT historical study of Torah itself, many of the same people
(eg RMShinnar) are arguing it /is/ talmud Torah?!

Of course, I have to explain the same thing in reverse, but in my
direction it's simpler. The Torah of history is "it" albeit not the
core topic; the history of Torah is "about it", albeit about the core
topic. It's not a study of (e.g.) halakhah, it's a study /about/ one
aspect of halakhah. A kind of study that, because it strives for
objectivity and keeping the topic external, never crosses the line to
become "it".

RRW and I had a long discussion (which eventually reached my blog)
which touched on why I think C was doomed to leave normative halachic
process. Among the primary factors is that halakhah requires weighing
factors, which in turn is a "feel" thing. C prises academic
scholarship IN PLACE OF normative talmud Torah. This is how Historical
School thought changed practice. Thus, they may know how to identify
the things to be weighed (although the few C responsa I've seen were
downright dishonest in this regard as well), but they perforce end up
weighing them using their own priorities, not priorities taken from
the Sinai culture. (Of course, without requiring belief in an actual
revelation in Sinai, they have no notion of a Sinai culture anyway.)

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 95
**************************************

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..."