Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 184

Fri, 16 May 2008

• 1. Re: Dancing on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: When Things Are Only MAYBE Assur (Micha Berger)
• 3. Male and Female Gemstones !? (SBA)
• 4. Re: Education foir Women (Michael Makovi)
• 5. The Transmission of Kabbalah (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Lying to protect the simple of faith (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 7. Re: Tfillin?chol hamoed (Celejar)
• 8. Re: Court retroactively revokes conversions (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Ta'am of eating matzah (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Education - was RAYK and the end of chol (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Male and Female Gemstones !? (T613K@aol.com)
• 12. Re: Male and Female Gemstones !? (Micha Berger)

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:44:42AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: >  Please see the article "Clapping and Dancing on Shabbos" at
: > http://www.cckollel.org/html/parsha/vayikra/shemini5763.html
: > The author, Rabbi Weinrib, learns full time in the [Chicago Community]
: > Kollel.

: BUT
: I heard a Rabbi who is a Phd explain this w/o all of the frumkeit
: implications
: In places like Spain dances used to fabricate home-made castinets whilst
: dancing, it was  the WAY they danced to make a rhythmic sound with a
: home-made instrument - while in France no one danced with castinest So
: Tsaofos indeed saw this G'zeira as irrelevant.

As RAWeinrib writes, the notion that dancing here only includes dancing
to produce a rhythm (with or without castinets) can be traces back to
the Y-mi. Tosafos not holding like the gemara, and sure enough it fits
the Y-mi.... Now where did I hear that one before?


On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:53:12AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: If  Micha's model of fuzzy is good, then feminists would have far more
: resonance in claiming it is a form of misogyny for poskim to feel
: constrained from solving the Aguna issue. OTOH, if you say precedent IS
: BINDING, then poskim would have had an objective reason for not complyingto
: Aguanh advocates all along....

I dealt with this case in our original discussions.

A straight textualist would find nothing wrong. He has no reason to assur.

A minhag avos-nik would either say that there is no minhag and thus it's a
reshus, or that there is a minyag against. How does one assess an absence?

An aggadic value person would either bolster the women's AYH or that it
destroys notions of tzeni'us, of Yahadus being about the rest of life
rather than shul, issues of the frustration of such a derekh, since full
equality is impossible (dayenes?), etc...

I don't see this as relevant to the distinction between our positions.

I also disagree with your impression that the majority today are in the
third camp. The 19th century was dominated by Isms, and (aside from
Brisk) was when halakhah was shaped by those considerations. During our
lifetimes, it's the textualists who have been dominating pesaq. And
textualists without koach deheteirah produce chumrah-of-the-month.

: is Boolean per se, but that either precedence is binding or it isn't.   If
: it isn't, or even if ti is only PARTIALLY binding then then eis la'asos!

And if it's taken they way you would, close down the Beis Yaakov's. It's
provably not all-or-nothing.

: And  poskim would have more than yir'as Shamayyim impelling them to free
: agunos, it would be tsa'ar ba'alei Chayyim of the highest order!

This is a return to "if you don't have all, you have nothing". A fuzzy
system differs from anarchy. But that just returns us to the circular
debate.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 25th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          taking control too extreme?

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 07:32:04PM +1000, Meir Rabi wrote:
: It is noted by the Acharonim that when the Gemara discusses questions to do
: with transfer of non-Kosher flavour, there is no suggestion that a
: connoisseur be employed... Why not?
: And perhaps we can ask ...                   how can we have a debate in the
: Gemara about matters of verifiable fact?

: It is therefore proposed that it is not absolutely known if the flavour has
: or has not been transferred...

I was bothered by the first question, and by the absurdity in claiming
that Ashkenazim think the entire volume of the pot is of that which
would give flavor to the substance in it. It is akin to your question
about a kezayis being consercutibely dunked in 1 million pots. There
can't possibly be a physical trace -- taste-giving or not -- that is
sufficient to prohibit.

But I fail to see how casting the question as a safeiq explains our not
hiring a taster.

My answer (discussed here ad nauseum, but the list demographics shifted
since, so I hope it's worth reopening) was more radical and went in an
entirely different direction. If it can't be about physical tastables,
then let's not look at physics.

The word "ta'am" has a meaning other than "taste". "Ta'amei hamitzvos"
"Mai ta'ama?" etc... If you assume "nosein ta'am" refers to how people
are expected to think of the object, all three questions evaporate. The
question is no longer easily measurable, being an about not only
psychology, but presumptions about preferred psychologies.

(Kind of like the difference between a new pot, and the family's
stewpot. Not exactly the same, since a brand new stewpot is pareve,
but it's closer to my intent than determining "flavor".)

: Just imagine we have one Kezayis in our hand which is chopped into several
: pieces. Before us are 10 pots. With our eyes closed or the lights off the
: Kezayis handful is (inadvertently) thrown towards the nest of 10 pots. We
: verify that all the pieces fell into the pot/s, i.e. none are found on the
: floor. Are all the pots Kosher, none?

This case is one of safeiq, not shiur or ta'am, and therefore looks very
different than the serial dunk.

But, FWIW, I gave birur in general the same treatment. It's not a
determination of what happened, it's a determination of how people relate
to the effects, given that we don't know what happened. (With or without
"culpability" for not knowing.)

Thus, even though we know that a knife used for chopping bones most
likely became pasul for shechitah then, not when checked, the state of
the knife remains until it's actually checked. This parallels our default
assumptions: When you see someone sitting in a room, and you return 10
hours later and they are sitting in the same spot, don't you instinctively
wonder why/how they could just sit there for 10 hours? The more likely
possibility that they too left and returned only comes as an afterthought.

And this notion that halakhah refers to reality-as-experienced as opposed
to an objective reality would also explain the kashrus of microscopic
mites.

It's not about what's really out there, or even how the intellect
responds, but the impact of reality on the instinctive level. After all,
isn't the point of halakhah to hone us into better tzalemi E-lokim? What
then does unobservables matter to the basic tafkid? And the unobserved
that could have been in our realm of experience isn't treated as a fact,
it is treated as a collection of doubts. We pasqen on how we wonder what
this thing might be.

Unlike when it was experienced, and we invoke "kavu'ah" rather than
safeiq.

2 chatichos shuman confused with 1 of cheilev produces three kosher pieces
of meat. The only machloqes rishonim is whether we rethink things when
they all get unified into a single stew.

Even though someone who ate two of them in sequence statistically has
a 2/3 chance of having eaten meat that is physically cheilev, it's
irrelevent. He ate two pieces of "meat people think of as 'probably ok'".

Thus, I would be unifying the serial dunker with safeiq, but on a more
abstract level than saying serial dunking is an instance of it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 25th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          taking control too extreme?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 25th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          taking control too extreme?

An interesting Rabenu Bachaye that I came upon last week - on Kapos
"Temarim".

(Rashi writes that Kapos is "chaser vov - lomad sheino ela achas" ie, we
only require a single Lulav.)

Rabenu Bachaye refers to the word "Temarim" - loshon rabim, and explains
"...umilas 'temarim' - lefi shehem shenayim - zochor unekeiva. 
V'im lo yinteu ken, lo yichyu. 
Ki bechol haminim kulom - gam betzemochim gam bedomem - motzinu bederech
hateva zochor unekeva". (V2, p 72)

The Shaarei Aharon explains 'bedomem' - 'kavonoso be'avonim yekoros' =
gemstones.

This is new to me. Anyone know more about this?

SBA 

> 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>
>
> Shoshana L. Boublil

Reminds me of the story of the poor woman who took a chicken in with a
kashrut question. The rabbi saw it was unquestionably treif, but he
knew the poor woman could not afford it. So he replaced (unbeknownst
to her) the chicken with a kosher one, and told her that it was a very
very difficult she'ela, and that if she ever ever had such a chicken
again, she shouldn't rely on the his present heter.

Mikha'el Makovi

I just received a link to this
<http://www.torahlab.org/download/shomer_emunim.pdf> in my email
box. 27 pp.

> The Transmission of Kabbalah
> Introduction to Shomer Emunim Hakadmon
> Translated by Rabbi David Sedley
...
> A PROJECT OF TORAHLAB
...
> Foreword
> Shomer Emunim, also known as Shomer Emunim HaKadmon, by Rabbi Yosef
> Irgas was first published in Amsterdam in 5496 (1736). It is written in
> two sections and explains the basic principles and concepts of kabbalah
> in the form of a dialogue. Written as an introductory book for beginners
> in kabbalah, it also provides a history of the development of kabbalah
> as well as the importance of its study. In 5725 (1965) Rabbi Yitzchak
> Stern, Rabbi of Givat Shaul, republished Shomer Emunim in Jerusalem with
> several introductions. His first introduction traces the history of the
> transmission of kabbalah, based primarily on pieces taken from the text
> of Rabbi Irgas. Rabbi Stern thenwent on to update this history to the
> modern era.The following is a translation of that first introduction.

It includes claims such as:
> The crumbling of the foundation of the spiritual status of the Jewish
> people began in that time when the Concealed Torah disappeared and the
> Zohar was buried and hidden. The Concealed Torah was a sealed vision;
> there were very few individuals who merited receiving the kabbalah by
> word of mouth, to such an extent that there was noone who could properly
> understand even those books of Concealed Torah that remained such as
> Sefer Yetzirah and others.

> Darkness reigned in those difficult times and hid the world of Jewish
> thought from a large numbers of the Jewish people. The science-philosophy
> of both the Greeks and the Arabs began to take the place of kabbalah. All
> difficult questions of divinity were answered in the light of philosophy,
> and the Jewish philosophers made the Torah fit in with this type of
> science-philosophy. Philosophy was considered as if it were the hidden
> part of the Oral Law. Some Jews went so far as to switch beliefs and
> put philosophy, which is fabricated wisdom from a nation which does not
> believe in the Torah of Moshe, in place of the Concealed Torah....

> Rav Hai Gaon, who was one of the few at that time who merited to receive
> the Concealed Torah, was extremely angry with this kind of thinking,
> and he wrote strongly against it...

> From the time of the Gaonim onwards, the kabbalah and the Concealed
> Torah continued to disappear, and through the passage of time faded
> away. Eventually even the greatest of Sages, such as the Rambam, thought
> that it had been completely forgotten. The Rambam struggled to explain
> how a whole section of Torah could have been forgotten. This is what
> he writes:...

And of course in this history, the Rambam learns Qabbalah at the end of
his life, too late to modify his writings. The event is credited as
something the Abarbanel writes he heard. Moreso:
> The Abarbanel concludes: "There is no doubt that these things that he
> heard at the end of his life were words of kabbalah".6 Rav Irgas had a
> manuscript from the Rambam in which he wrote deep and hidden secrets
> to his students. From what is written in this letter it is clear how
> devalued philosophy had become in the eyes of the Rambam after he merited
> to receive the true kabbalah. He writes there, "most of my life I was
> confused with examining existence... based on philosophy, and with their
> signs... the ways of logic confused the mind and troubled it. But with
> true kabbalah the paths are free of stumbling blocks and this is the
> path of the prophets. This is how they achieved knowledge of the future,
> and were able to do miracles outside nature".

As for the restoration... If the Rambam erred, who do you think will be
given key role in correcting the error?

...
> In those days, when all of Spain, Provence and the surrounding countries
> were steeped in philosophical investigations, a holy genius, Rabbi Avraham
> ben David, lived in the city of Poshkira in Provence. He is also known
> as the Raavad who wrote the glosses on the Rambam. With great dedication
> he studied the Concealed Torah....

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 25th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          taking control too extreme?

On Sun, 4 May 2008 19:24:01 -0400
Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:03:45AM -0400, Michael Makovi wrote:
...

> : 1a) Rather, then, Rambam is saying that no deliberate additions were
> : made after Moshe...
> 
> Or even semantic accidental changes. Cheseiros and yeseiros, or variations
> in the spelling of "petzua daka", may change the kashrus of a seifer,
> but unless you have a beis din ready to derashin a din from that pasuq,
> they won't make a stitch of difference.

Minhas Hinuch (#613) tries to argue your claim, that we assume accuracy
even with regard to haseros ve'yeseros as long as they are semantically
significant, but he runs into trouble with the word 'totafos', since
according to Rashi, the Gemara's D'rashah of the four Parshiyos of
Tefillin is based on the plene spelling of the word in Parshas Ve'haya
Im, whereas we have it deficient.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On Mon, 05 May 2008 00:15:48 -0400
Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

...

> "Rav tanna hu upalig", but Amoraim were still allowed to argue with Rav.

Tosfos seem to understand that those Amoraim who disagree with Rav, or
at least those who frequently do so, do not accept that Rav was a
Tanna:

"[Rabbi] Yohanan did not consider Rav a Tanna, for he disagrees with
him all over"

(Kesuvos 8a s.v. Rav)

> - Zev in Singapore

Celejar
--
mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email
ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:54:09PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: do ANY of your cases below  address teh case of the kabbalh itself being
: qualified by a  discleaimer of  human frailty?

I have a more balebatesha problem than:
...
: 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

Someone who did qabbalah while being meya'eish on their ability to do
a mitzvah, even in the excitement and newness feeling of the geirus
itself, may never properly see if their pessimism is justified. There
is a difference between someone who is too weak to avoid some issur,
and someone who decided they were too weak and therefore have in mind
not to try.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 25th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          taking control too extreme?

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:49:47PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
:> When a mitzvah is an os, does it stand on its own, or does HQBH presume
:> we know the history? And how much history beyond what we're given in the
:> Torah?

: HBKH was talking to the dor hmidbar they got the message. The message was
: forgotten.
: The entire point says 2 things:
: good news There was a G-d talking to Refugees from Egypt who understood
: Egyptian metaphors
: bad news: later speculation lost he simple points and  was either
: darshaening or rationalizing. But as we several of Rambam's hypotheses in
: the Moreh have proven true.

Then what kind of os is it if for the majority of its history no one
knows what the symbol signified?

...
: The followed orders.  Ta'amei hamitzvos were never a big deal re:
: performance. Think of parah Adumah.

Which is why I specified a mitzvah the pasuq describes as an os. A
mishpat could be just without us understanding how. A choq is generally
understood (not necessarily by RSRH) as a mitzvah we can not understand
the function of. But an os is a sign, a symbol. What is a symbol if the
people can't figure out what it signifies?

:> I find it hard to believe that a mitzvah ledoros depends on something
:> from Egyptian culture that is not ledoros and not even mentioned in
:> the chumash.

: Self evident to those who grew up in Egypt. That was the original intended
: audicence....

Ch"v -- the original intended audience was the entire history of the
Jewish people! The mitzvah was given ledoros, not to one generation.

: The Hinuch did not like the Ramabm's points either.  But there is a great
: deal of evidence to support that the main thrusts fof many hukkim were
: simpmy anti " ma'seh eretz mitzaryim and  eretz k'na'an."

: I am sorrow that this paradigm shift leaves you uneasy, but as I posted
: about 10 years ago, Rav Sa'adyah Gaon already posited that over time hukkim
: will be seen as more and more rational...

I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the reverse -- mitzvos
that are not described as chuqim that are being described as representing
things most of the people doing the mitzvah wouldn't have figured out.

I would expect an os to be able to relay its own meaning, or HQBH would
tell us the meaning explicitly ("ki sheishes yamim asah H'...")

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 25th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          taking control too extreme?

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:58:37AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: > Which is why the bulk of the AhS is finding textual support of pesaqim,

: I am not sure precisely what you mean - iow this is fuzzy to me - but this
: does not appear to be based upon any hard statistical evidence...

The AhS spends more space explaining the origin of a pesaq than listing
pesaqim. That's anecdotal, but I've been averaging a se'if a day since Mar
2, 2005 (when the current daf yomi cycle began), and that's my impression.

: > even when it's clear that the conclusion is overwhelmingly whatever was
: > the usual practice in Litta.

: I mroe or less concur with this re: AhS but I do not quite feel he is more
: Litvish Centric than the  MB is Mussar-Centric.

A number of rashei yeshiva disagree. On my wedding day, RDLifshitz
told me to make sure to have an AhS in my home, since it represents
halakhah as it was practiced in Suvalk (where he was once rav, and my
greatgrandfather had a kloiz as well) more than any other seifer.

RSYW told NIRC talmidim something similar.
As had R' Hutner told his talmmidim.

The MB isn't so much mussar-centric as a textual survey of shitos that
post-date the SA tzuras hadaf. The CC even tells you that's his intent.
I would think a Mussar-Centric approach would have more of what I called
"aggadic values" -- sticking to baseline bein adam laMaqom when it
conflicts with bein adam lachaveiro, choosing shitos by which reinforces
middos one needs work on, etc... Mussar, like Chassidus, created pe'ulos
to fit the Ism.

The MB is more about collecting shitos and being machmir when the stakes
are high enough to warrant it, otherwise going with the majority (weighted
by accepted authority).

: Actuallyin framing the issues, the AhS is often Rambam-Centric and he often
: drills down from the Rambam into the salient debates.

But his maskanah is almost always as per minhag Litta.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 25th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          taking control too extreme?

 
 





From: SBA [mailto:sba@sba2.com] 
Sent: Friday, 16 May  2008 1:08 AM
To: 'areivim@lists.aishdas.org'
Cc: avodah
Subject: Male  and Female Gemstones !?

An interesting Rabenu Bachaye that I came upon  last week - on Kapos
"Temarim"....



....Ki bechol haminim  kulom - gam betzemochim gam bedomem - motzinu bederech
hateva zochor  unekeva". (V2, p 72)

The Shaarei Aharon explains 'bedomem' - 'kavonoso  be'avonim yekoros' =
gemstones.

This is new to me. Anyone know more  about this?

SBA 




>>>>>>
"For several hundred years it was believed that a Diamond had gender and  was 
labeled male or female based on its color, dark being male and light being  
female. There was even a belief in the mid-fifteen hundreds held by Francois  
Ruet that a male and female Diamond together could produce offspring."
 
I found that on a website devoted to birthstones.  Unfortunately it  had no 
further information on this point.


 
_http://www.gaiasjewelry.com/Jewelry_Gems.asp_ 
(http://www.gaiasjewelry.com/Jewelry_Gems.asp)  



--Toby  Katz
=============





**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family 
favorites at AOL Food.      
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080516/f7633bb9/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 01:03:19AM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
[RSBA:]
:> An interesting Rabenu Bachaye that I came upon  last week - on Kapos
:> "Temarim"....
:> ....Ki bechol haminim  kulom - gam betzemochim gam bedomem - motzinu bederech
:> hateva zochor  unekeva". (V2, p 72)
:> The Shaarei Aharon explains 'bedomem' - 'kavonoso  be'avonim yekoros' =
:> gemstones.

: "For several hundred years it was believed that a Diamond had gender
: and was labeled male or female based on its color, dark being male
: and light being female. There was even a belief in the mid-fifteen
: hundreds held by Francois Ruet that a male and female Diamond together
: could produce offspring."
: I found that on a website devoted to birthstones...

This would only be relevent if you believe that this notion orginated by
us (and Ruet took a Qabbalistic idea overly physically) or if the Ha'arei
Aharon was relying on "mada" as understood in his or R' Bachya's day to
explain RB.

But why couldn't RB simply be speaking of grammatical gender WRT domeim?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 26th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Netzach: When is domination or taking
Fax: (270) 514-1507         control just a way of abandoning one's self?


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 184
***************************************

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..."