Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 180

Tue, 13 May 2008

• 1. Re: Court retroactively revokes conversions (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: Kohain Shaliach Tzibur (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: Why is the tooth different from all other body parts? (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Why is the tooth different from all other body parts (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 5. Re: Education - was RAYK and the end of chol (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 6. Re: Kohain Shaliach Tzibur (Danny Schoemann)
• 7. Re: Kohain Shaliach Tzibur (Danny Schoemann)
• 8. Re: Education - was RAYK and the end of chol (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Yom ha'atma'us etc. (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Rosh Hashanah 32b There's Hope For Everyone (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Education foir Women (Shoshana L. Boublil)

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>
>  Came Rav Parness [not RRW!} and said if the propsetive Ger  says: "I
> > accept but K know the flesh is weak and I  might or am likely to sin..."  ka
> > mashma lan it is still an OK kabbalah.
> >
> [...]
>
> > What this Ger is saying is he accepts Mitzvos but realizes that  he is
> > subject to human frailty and  if if is for Te'avon he is OK. That is the
> > hiddush here.
> >
>
> But this is not a chiddush.


Qeustion:
do ANY of your cases below  address teh case of the kabbalh itself being
qualified by a  discleaimer of  human frailty?

If yes, than ein ahchi name this is no hiddush.  {it's not mine it's rav
Parness's and he never siad it was a hiddsuh anyway - just peshat]

however, I failed to notice any mention of a qualified kabbals ol mitzvos,
if that is the case it is indeed a hiddush, because devarim shebelev einan
devarim


>  Every ger knows that he is likely to sin,
> and probably has a good idea of which sins he's likely to have the most
> difficulty with.  He's accepting the *yoke* of mitzvot, the obligation
> to keep them, not guaranteeing that he will actually do so, all of the
> time.  Note the language of the lecture a ger is given: "yesterday if
> you broke Shabbat or ate chelev you did nothing wrong, but now if you
> do so you will be punished with stoning or with karet."  This implies
> that both we and he accept that he's likely to be nichshal, and what
> he's accepting is that if he does so he'll be punished, just as every
> Jew is.  Essentially he's choosing a Jew's Genenom over a goy's Gan
> Eden, "baasher tamuti amut vesham ekaver".
>
> There's a teshuva in IM dealing with this exact question: a woman
> admitted years after her conversion that *in the mikveh* when she
> was accepting the yoke of mitzvot she intended to do an avera, once.


as above devarim shebelev einan devarim
I am adressing a declaration of weakness not a THOUGHT of weakness.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/


>
> RMF ruled that this wasn't a problem, because she knew and accepted
> that what she intended to do was an avera, and that she would be
> wrong to do it, and intended after that one occasion never to do it
> again.
>
> What's not acceptable is if he doesn't accept this, and thinks he
> continues to have the right to do these things.  And one sign that
> this might be the case is if he appears to make no effort at all to
> keep them, even immediately after the conversion.  If he goes straight
> from the BD to Red Lobster, it's pretty obvious that his promises were
> lies.  But if he restrains himself for a while, and eventually gives
> in and guiltily sneaks off to indulge his taavah, that makes him no
> different than any Jew with a yetzer hara.
>
> (OTOH if he goes directly from Red Lobster to the BD, that's a sign
> that he means the promises he intends to make.  I knew a ger who on his
> way to the mikveh stopped off somewhere for one last fling.)
>
> --
> Zev Sero               S
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080512/0ede2012/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> Henry Topas wrote:
>
> > Can someone please inform me as to the sources for halacha l'maaseh in
> > cases when a Kohain who is the Shaliach Tzibur for Yom Tovim (Galus) gets to
> > the Duchening.  Does he remain Shaliach Tzibur or does someone call out the
> > psukim and he, too, joins in some fashion in duchening.
> >
>
> See MA 128:31
>
> What I have observed actually done is that the ShaTz duchens, while
> someone else prompts, even when there are other Cohanim.  I have not seen
> the ShaTz leave his place and go up to the duchan with the other Cohanim;
> rather, what I have seen done is that he turns around in his place.
>
> --
> Zev Sero



Ditto but I do not get this. AIUI, the only tiem a Shatz Kohain ducahns is
in the  absence of other kohanim. There was a ba'al Msuaph in  Yamim Nora'im
in Hartford who was the sole Kohein and he  turned around to duchan  while
another  prompted. I do not recall when he washed his hands [probably before
Musaph]


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080513/e526cb84/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:36:59PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: Does anyone know WHY the detached tooth doesn't cause impurity?

It's not something simple like people lose hair, fingernail clippings
and teeth in the normal course of things?

(IOW, I would think your question is a particular sign of the times,
when there are people who die with all of their teeth.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?

R' Wolberg quoted a Gemara about tumah:
>  The exceptions to this rule are the teeth, hair and fingernails
> and toenails that have become detached from the corpse.

and then asked:
> Does anyone know WHY the detached tooth doesn't cause impurity?

I was unaware of this halacha until you posted it, so I really have no
authority here, but just from the other examples -- hair, fingernails,
toenails -- here is my guess: All these are body parts which normally
become detached from the body after some amount of time, so I suppose they
are not really considered human enough to be m'tamay, at least not after
they've been detached from the corpse.

I freely admit that hair and nails are detached FAR more frequently than
teeth are, but still, I can't think of any other body part which is ever
detached at all. (Except for maybe tiny bits of skin after an injury. And
here's an interesting question: Suppose feces comes out of the corpse: Is
it m'tamay? My guess is that it would not be, but that this is so obvious
that the gemara did not bother to list it with the teeth, hair and nails.)

Another possiblity is that even prior to the person's death, these body
parts are not considered alive, and so without any cessation of life in
those parts, questions of tumah don't even begin. My understanding of
modern medical science is that teeth are much more alive than hair or
nails, but I can see how Chazal might not have seen it that way.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click for free home mortgage rates from top companies. 
http://thirdpartyoffers.ju
no.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3m36j8867VbVu6EJvNIuLlp3hDh7iw2tqXfeWJWbbBQuJHlg/?c
ount=1234567890

R"n Toby Katz wrote:
> The original point was that amaratzim tend not to be careful
> with halacha, and that halachic observance and yiras Shamayim
> improve with more Torah learning. (Torah meaning Talmud.)
> However, this is only true for men.  For girls and women, it
> is enough to learn halacha and hashkafa.  They do not /need/
> to learn Gemara in order to have yiras Shamayim and dikduk
> bemitzvos.

You seem to be saying that men DO need to learn Gemara in order to have
yiras Shamayim and dikduk bemitzvos, and that if men do not learn Gemara,
they will lack yiras Shamayim and dikduk bemitzvos.

I disagree very strongly. To whatever extent it might be true that
"amaratzim tend not to be careful with halacha", it is *not* because of
insufficient gemara learning; it *is* because of insufficient halacha and
hashkafa learning.

In fact, I cannot imagine how it could happen that increased gemara
learning would lead to a generalized increase in dikduk bemitzvos. At most,
it could lead to a increase in dikduk of the specific mitzva being
discussed in the gemara one is learning. For example, if one is learning
Gemara Shabbos, that would lead to a greater appreciation of Hilchos
Shabbos, and so to a greater care of what Hilchos Shabbos requires of us.
But how would it lead to being more careful about Hilchos Brachos, or Bein
Adam L'chaveiro?

I would also concede that learning gemara can lead to a generalized
increase in Yiras Shamayim, but in my experience this only occurs when one
comes upon an unusually interesting explanation of some pesukim. (A turning
point in my life was a gemara in Sukkah, involving three pesukim which
seemed to be both superfluous and contradictory at first glance, but the
gemara very carefully picked them apart and showed how each was necessary,
as each revealed a different piece of the halacha. [I remember it being
about "hechsher l'kabel tumah", and a key phrase was "kee yutan".] Whatever
lingering doubts I had about the divinity of the Torah were forever washed
away by that piece of Gemara.) But such gemaras are few and far between,
and similar experiences can be gotten from other seforim besides gemara. (I
remember a Kli Yakar in Sefer Shemos which went on for about 3 pages,
discussing the pesukim used for the Answers To The Four Children which
appear in the Hagada, and contrasting i
 t to how they appear in the Chumash.)

In summary, I think it is pointless to suggest what men derive from gemara,
and why women don't need it. Suffice it to say that men have an obligation
of Talmud Torah, and need to learn it all, even the parts that have no
practical use, while women do not have that mitzvah, and so they only need
to learn whatever is necessary to be a good Jewess.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Save on Cell Phones. Click Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.ju
no.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3nRN1yHEJhGpM4V3Yjlv1Fj0KUOwEthAQ1j2628o3WlqqSS2/?c
ount=1234567890

>What I have observed actually done is that the ShaTz duchens, while
>someone else prompts, even when there are other Cohanim.  I have not seen
>the ShaTz leave his place and go up to the duchan with the other Cohanim;
>rather, what I have seen done is that he turns around in his place.

This seems the common practise in Israel, though the ShaTz needs to
"move forward" during Retzei. They also usually go wash their hands
before starting Chazoras ShaTz .

The Kitzur SA (100:17) says that if other Cohanim are present, the
ShaTz simply remains quite while somebody else takes over; though he
prefers that a Cohen not get into this situation at all.

I've seen ShaTz-Cohahim being careful not to separate their legs - and
hop forward and spin around.
I've also seen ShaTz-Cohanim step forward and turn around normally. In
both cases they were TC.

In Ma'ayonay Hayeshu'o Hospital (Bnai Brak) there's a Yekkishe minyan.
I was once there on Hoshano Rabbo and the ShaTz (a TC and one of the
leaders of the Cong.) was the only Cohen present.
He stepped up (3 steps) to the platform in front of the Aaron Hakodesh
and duchened.
He then stepped down back to the Omud.
This would match KSA 100:17, where it also says he can rely on his
Netilas Yodayim from before davening.

- Danny (HaLevi).

> What about removal of shoes?

To the best of my recollection the Cohen-ShaTz has always removed his
shoes before starting Chazoras-haShaTz and davened in his socks. That
is definitely the local custom.

- Danny

On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 03:39:13PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: What I have noticed with many [not all] women is that they chafe at Talmudic
: style argumentation. for them perhaps the Shulchan Aruch makes more sense

This doesn't distinguish between environmental and innate differences.

I believe, although have no airtight argument, that the gemara does
speak of innate differences when writing "nashim daatan qalos" and
"binah yeseirah nitenah lahem".

The reason for this inclination of mine is that da'as is related to
the ability to pasqen, as per the original meaning of "daas Torah" vs
"daaso" (Chulin 90b). And since women are barred from hora'ah regardless
of societal roles, it would be clean and neat to say that we identified
the innate difference that causes their ineligability.

Also, we see from the gemara in chullin that da'as is a means by which
one reaches conclusions, not only the conclusion. This usage appears to
be different than that in nistar, but so be it.

I am not returning to ground trod in v10, Nov 2002. (And before
that back in v1n1 and v4.) But I think this exact point was made in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n048.shtml#10>, although I did
more analysis of the terms for thought since.

So, what is the difference between da'as and binah? Speaking RSRH,
binah is the ability to build (livnot) and to make distinctions (bein)
and thereby use the known to derive (deductively and inductively,
respectfully) new information.

Da'as is a learned means of reaching a conclusion.

Thus, having lighter, more mobile, da'as, is the flipside of having more
binah. Creative thought with fewer a priori rules about how to deduce.

Gemara is about learning a mode of thought. And I think that drives
RRW's observation. It's simply an unnatural (yet far from impossible)
use of a woman's intellectual strenghs.

Perhapos this also explains their gravitation toward parshanus, which
doesn't involve as many blinders in terms of "correct modes of
deduction".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 09:31:03PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: My Rav Kookish rabbi said, "150+ of those years were Tzadukim, and yet
: we celebrate Jewish independence!" (Notice the connection to today's
: rulers?)

RASoloveitchik pointed out the Rambam at the beginning of Hilkhos Chanukah
(3:1) which lists the things that Chanukah is about:
    vegavru benei Chashmonai hakohanim hagedolim
    vehargum,
    vehoshiu yisrael miyadam,
    vehe'emidu melekh min hakohanim,
    vechazrah malkhus leYisrael yeser al masayim shanah --
    ad hachurban hasheni.

The Rambam makes a point of telling you the malkhus was /never/ kehalakhah
even from the beginning, and yet part of Chanukah is celebrating having
the autonomy we did.

RAS then went on to show the connection between Chanukah and Sukkos
(as seen by Beis Shammai assuming that the paros of mussaf for Sukkos
should indicate how to light neiros, as well as seifer haMacabiim), both
are about geir vetoshav, discuss at length what geir vetoshav means,
why this associated Chanukah with bayis sheini and qidshah le'asid lavo,
and finally his opinion on the then-recent (months old) Oslo agreement.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 09:36:14PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: I've extended this to say that the Torah doesn't even legislate for
: chu"l at all, in the first place, except to say that it is a chiyuv in
: chu"l as a remembrance and preparation for when we are redeemed.

You're repeating your assertion without addressing my objections.

:> ...
:> As proof, look at your own sources: There is a chiyuv, keeping it is your
:> own problem. Saying they weren't designed for chu"l...        is very
:> different than saying that observance has no real role there (short of
:> keeping the memory alive). The Dor 4 is simply saying that nothing is
:> in there to make chu"l specific loopholes. Which actually presumes that
:> the Torah is concerned with Shabbas in chu"l bifnei atzma.

:> 2- But to draw the parallel, the chiyuv in EY and chu"l of ve'ahavaa
:> lerei'akha would be identical, just that in chu"l feasibility is your
:> problem, not G-d's or the Torah.

:> Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

And restating it doesn't change that. It's not just that you're going
beyond the D4, the D4 speaks of observance being equally meaningful, but
the halakhah being more difficult to apply. Turning that into less
meaningful is simply a different idea.

To repeat: Your argument wold mean that a Jew in chu"l couldn't eat the
meat butchered from a shechted animal whle it was still quivering. The
halakhah is not so.

New point: Pesach sheini explicitly includes benei chu"l.

And why worry about YT sheini shel galiyos, if it's just a reminder atop
a reminder of a mitzvah that is really only in EY (where there is only
one day)?

The Ramban on Vayiqra 18:25 quotes the Sifri that the purpose of mitzvos
is not merely to be a reminder, but also to prepare us for the ge'ulah in
ways beyond "merely" knowing what to do. IOW, leshitaso (and presumably
this is the intent of the other rishonim who quote this Sifri), qiyum
in chu"l is to repair that faults that got us into chu"l, and qiyum in
EY goes beyond that.

WADR to "common knowledge" among the DL crowd, it's not quite peshat in
the Sifri, and thus not of the rishonim who cite it.

It would also seem leshitaso that if one believes that galus is a
spiritual state (such as galus Yavan, which was while we had bayis
sheini), why wouldn't the same be true of doing mitzvos within EY
bizman hazeh!

...
:> Also, how could we not be expected to love every tzelem E-lokim? Would
:> it be possible to have full ahavas Hashem and not love that which is
:> similar to Him? AFAIK, that's not how love works. It's just that this
:> love happens not to be /this/ chiyuv.
:> R' Micha

: But then why make a chiyuv to love your neighbor? If the fact that G-d
: created man is enough to tell you to love the gentile, then it's
: enough to tell you to love the Jew. What I'm troubled by then, is why
: there's not an explicit chiyuv on either both or neither. It's the
: disparity that troubles me.

A chiyuv that one develop a feeling of the brotherhood of Jews beyond
the general agape for all humanity. Makes sense to me.

(BTW, R' Yehudah's peshat in the pasuq is "rei'akhah" as in 7 berakhos's
"rei'im ha'ahuvim". It's a chiyuv to love your spouse! And we even follow
this lehalakhah, as it's the source of the issur against marrying someone
you never met. Even if R' Aqiva's peshat won the hearts and minds, I
have some perverse need to mention that there is another gemara pretty
much every time we discuss the pasuq.)

I also repeat my plea again: See RSS
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf>!


...
: We can even take this logic further. Imagine if a person wants to
: insist that basar v'chalav means davka a mother and her kid. I'd
: reply: if Chazal are correct, by way of kabbalah, then whatever you
: think the pasuk means is irrelevant. OTOH, if Chazal are wrong, and
: our maskil correct, then I'd simply reply that apparently...

Chazal can't be wrong. If you believe that derashos are constructive --
and amazingly include something halakhah lemaaseh even in the midbar! --
then it means their position DEFINES halakhah.

Asserting they were wrong would mean asserting that HQBH gave them the
tools to construct a law He would't have approved of. Does Hashem err?

...
: I use this logic not infrequently, which is part of why I love Rav
: Glasner and Rav Berkovits so much..

And why people keep on excusing you of being so far left as to be in the
gray area at the fringes of eilu va'eilu. You're (by your own admission)
going beyond even these sources.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?

> From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Education - was RAYK and the end of chol

> RYBS disputes your claim that Halacha can be properly understood from 
> 2ndary
> sources. GRA, Rosh have stated similarly on the record

> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 11:41 PM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:

>>   For girls and women, it is enough to learn halacha and hashkafa.  They
>> do not /need/ to learn Gemara in order to have yiras Shamayim and dikduk
>> bemitzvos.
>>
>> If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Actually, I think it's already VERY broken <g>.

One of the issues we've discussed time and time again is that many are 
taught that only a specific psika is correct and that's it.  Especially 
young women.  For example, many Ashkenaz young women don't realize that the 
majority of Sephardi Gedolim forbid wigs, and permit to leave a certain 
amount of hair revealed. This causes social problems (at the least), but 
that is not the worst of it.

When I teach a kallah, I like to teach from Taharat Bat Yisrael or from Rav 
Chaim David HaLevy's book.  Why?  B/c they are simple, direct and easy to 
understand.  But both books have an interesting phenomenon: they mention 
repeatedly "in xxx case, ask a Rabbi".  Why not just give the answer?

That's b/c when a person learns halacha from a book such as a Kitzur or 
Shemirat Shabbat etc., the book is finite and can't bring all the possible 
circumstances that may influence the actual halachic behavior in specific 
cases.  Many times, young women think that these books cover all options, 
and don't even bother to ask if there could be another possibility.

When you learn G'mara, you learn that even after a psak was rendered on an 
issue -- it's quite possible that a slight difference is circumstances or 
conditions, will create a situation where a different psak is rendered. 
This knowledge is not available, usually, to someone who has never learned 
any G'mara.

That is why when I teach a kallah, I make sure to say that there are many 
more halachot not mentioned here, and that even if she thinks she knows the 
answer of what to do, she should still go to a Rabbi, and I bring an example 
or two during the course of study to show how some information that she may 
not have considered important, could change the psika.

My father likes to tell the tale of Rav Shapiro of Jerusalem, who was 
approached by a woman when some milk fell into her meat pot.  Usually, the 
amounts involved would have made it clear that the meat and the pot were 
Assur.  But Rav Shapiro called in the milkman, closed the shutters and asked 
him: Okay, between you and me, how much water have you been adding recently 
to the milk?  As you can guess, the result was that everything was 
permitted.... <g>

That is the danger of teaching halacha as a finite thing found in specific 
books - you don't learn to ask questions, and you may be causing damage by 
not asking questions that should have been asked.

Shoshana L. Boublil





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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 180
***************************************

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..."