Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 190

Wed, 21 May 2008

• 1. Re: Haarama (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Rosh Hashanah 32b There's Hope For Everyone (Micha Berger)
• 3. HHH - Matzah - Kashe on Sephradic Practice (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: Rosh Hashanah 32b There's Hope For Everyone (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. Re: Rosh Hashanah 32b There's Hope For Everyone (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Lying to protect the simple of faith (Richard Wolpoe)
• 7. Re: A Reminder for All of Us (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. Mitzvah Haba'a BeAveira (Kayza Zajac)
• 9. Re: haaramah (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Re: kofoi tova (Richard Wolpoe)

Marty Bluke wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote that according to Tosafos pruzbul could work even if
> shemitta is even d'oraysa.
> 
> This is actually an interesting machlokes rishonim.
> 
> The gemara asks on Hillel
> "u'mi ika midi d'md'oraysa mshamet shviis v'hiskin Hillel d'lo m'shamta:
> 
> How could Hillel create the takana of pruzbul when the torah says that
> the loan is canceled?
> The gemara answers:
> "amar Abaye b'shviis bizman hazeh d'rabbanan"
> 
> Abaye answers that pruzbul only works if shemitta is d'rabbanan.

Not according to Tosfos.  According to Tosfos the gemara's question
is not how Hillel had the power to do this, but how he dared to.
The pruzbul works on a ha'arama, which prevents the Torah's purpose
from being fulfilled.  The Torah says the loan is cancelled, how dare
Hillel enable and encourage people to evade that?  It should be like
the first type of ha'arama that RJR listed, like bringing in your
grain through the roof, and every BD should refuse to have any part
in it.  To which Abaye answers that nowadays Shmitah is derabbanan,
and so Hillel had the right to evade it.  So it's not that pruzbul
only *works* if shmitah is derabbanan, it's that pruzbul is only
*ethical* if shmitah is derabbanan.

According to this view, the efficacy of the pruzbul doesn't depend on
hefker BD (in other words Tosfos learns Rava's answer like the Rambam,
that he's explaining how the rabbanan could institute shmitat kesafim
nowadays, not how the pruzbul works in the first place).


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

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 05:02:14PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
:> 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?

: Assuming:
:> Chazal can't be wrong.

Not quite. Although that's what I said.

What I mean was: Any answer Chazal reached using halachic process
correctly isn't wrong. Even if they did so using bad science. It might
be a good pesaq for a case that in reality may never arise (such as
the kashrus of dirt-mice), or a binding chumrah for which the reason
we have doesn't fit the data. But it's correct in the sense of being
binding.

In any case, we have no way of assessing halachic process well enough to
2nd guess them.

I said "Chazal can't be wrong" in a discussion of derashos according
to the Rambam, who holds that they were constructive. (As in the next
sentence.) Unless they made a technical error in the derashah, they
derived a valid pesaq from the pasuq. That pesaq BECOMES law by their
authority; we don't say they mis-guessed Hashem's intent. As I wrote,
since Hashem doesn't err, He didn't leave in His Torah the tools to
construct a law He wouldn't approve of.

And no one knows the technical limitations of derashos anymore -- one
of the reasons (perhaps the lack of Sanhedrin is a 2nd) we don't in
practice make new ones even lefi haRambam.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 30th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  result in holding back from others?

Some [all?] Sephardim do not make Hamotzi on Matzah EXCEPT on Pasover since
they do not consider it LECHEM but LECHEM ONI.

The problem?
The Mishan/Haggadah with the questions equate year 'round teh eating of
Hametz uMatza - which presupposes that they are equally valid for kevia's
S'eduha all year Round. FWI I actually heard this quoted from a Sephardic
Hacham.

And FWIW - the thread on Lechem Happanim seems to support the Matzah=Lechem
equation, too.

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/20080520/7b27cf23/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> And no one knows the technical limitations of derashos anymore -- one
> of the reasons (perhaps the lack of Sanhedrin is a 2nd) we don't in
> practice make new ones even lefi haRambam.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger


Except that

   1. The Taz created a new Halacha of davening Arbis after Tzeis becuase of
   Temimos
   2. The Maharil created the concept of sinlges not wearing Tzitzis due to
   semuchos of Gedillim and Ki Yikach ish isha...

Most of the Bavli era lacked a Sanhedrin anyway yet drashos AFAIK still took
place..



-- 
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/20080520/4c58494d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 09:24:29PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: > And no one knows the technical limitations of derashos anymore -- one
: > of the reasons (perhaps the lack of Sanhedrin is a 2nd) we don't in
: > practice make new ones even lefi haRambam.

: Except that
:    1. The Taz created a new Halacha of davening Arbis after Tzeis becuase of
:    Temimos

Not a derashah. "Temimos" is being translated.

:    2. The Maharil created the concept of sinlges not wearing Tzitzis due to
:    semuchos of Gedillim and Ki Yikach ish isha...

We're discussing the creation/discovery of new deOraisos (lefi
haRambam). Does the Maharil claim this is deOraisa? I don't think wearing
tallis is deOraisa altogether -- it just "looks bad" when saying parashas
tzitzis not to have them.

I also am under the belief he was finding a heter for an existing
anomolous minhag, not interoducing new, anyway.

But this is an aspmachta, not a derashah.


We're also discussing whether they can be wrong, or if they define
"right". This is a tangent; which is okay if it doesn't leave the first
issue unresolved.

: Most of the Bavli era lacked a Sanhedrin anyway yet drashos AFAIK still took
: place..

We have discussed this in the past. The gemara discusses the end of
gezeirah shava (that has no mesorah), it was early tannaim. The Tosefta
then takes out the possibility of anything but qal vachomer. The later
tannaim themselves state that it ended before their day.

Perhaps the same answer, asmachta, applies here.



In any case, Rebbe dies in 220 CE R' Hillel II died in 385, Ravina died
in 399. (Rav Ashi lived until 427, but the gemara persumably had to be
written when both were alive.) So, by the narrowest definition, there
were 180 years of amora'im, of which only 14 didn't have a Sanhedrin.

However, aside from the mesorah about R' Hillel heading the last Sanhedrin
which is why they had to make the calendar, historians generally believe
his son R' Gamliel IV headed the last generation of the Sanhedrin until
he was killed by Theodosius II (for building new shuls) in 425. After
the writing of the gemara.

The Rambam may be dating the end of the Sanhedrin similarly when he
discusses the authority of sha"s and mentions it being endorsed by
the Sanhedrin. (However, he rests the authority on "nispasheit lekhol
Yisrael", not this point, so one needn't accept it to accept the Rambam's
model of halakhah. This is relevent when discussing the SA, which was
nispasheit -- most of its pesaqim -- but no Sanhedrin. Then again, maybe
the SA was directly related to the attempt to restore the semichah,
and that really was what Maran Bet Yosef was trying to do???)

114 years of the gemara's era was post-Sanhderin. But since the technique
was lost before the compilation of the Tosefta, it's not overly relevent
to our discussion.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 31st day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      results in harmony and balance?

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 04:44:26PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> : 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.
>
> Pewrhaps I'm thinking of the wrong source, but it's not a derashah, it's
> peshat.
>
> Tosafos is a hapax legamenon, and its translation was lost. Chazal used
> comparison to other languages to try to recapture its roots, and got
> "two pairs", ie four. Pulling in another language isn't on anyone's list
> of middos shehatorah nidreshes bahem, but it is a tool used by linguists
> to decode words.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger
>

I could be wrong but IIRC the Mishna calls a ttoefs as a tachshit a woman
wers on her forehead -and has nothing to do with the #4, which seems to
suggest the meaning was known and the 4 was probably some kind of drushy
asmachta.

Like Pri Etz Hadar - being derived from the Greek Hydra [Ben zom iirc]
because it grows on Water


-- 
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/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080520/2df1fbb9/attachment.htm>

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:32 PM, <cantorwolberg@cox.net> wrote:

> The following is an appropriate quote during Sefira and right before
> Lag B'Omer:   The Gerer Rebbe said: "When one learns the Torah, prays much
> and begins to think 'I am truly pious: I overlook nothing in the performance
> of my mitzvot,' such a person transgresses the mitzvah: "Do not be seduced
> by your heart nor led astray by your eyes.' Let such people look at the
> Tzitzis and be reminded who they are."
>
> During Sefirah we are obviously in a period of semi-mourning. I must say
> that because of a few (fortunately, only a very few) of our colleagues have
> sent me very insulting and hurtful comments. Not that they would care, but
> this has caused me "mourning."  I'm mourning the sinas chinom which has
> persisted throughout the ages and unfortunately doesn't seem to abate.
>
> I sincerely thank those of you who have offset some of the cruel remarks
> sent me.  For you the term Rachmonim b'nei Rachmonim truly exists.
>
> Kol tuv.
> ri


The problem with the Talmiddim of Rabbi Akiva is that they lacked respect
for each other.
Now there are 2 possibilities:

   1. That we have learned our lesson and that we  DO RESPECT each other -
   2. Or we are back to square one

Unfortunately for many the pop-psychology book* I'm OK You're OK* nailed the
concept that dissing others is a sure sign one lacks self-respect.  This is
a form of psychological projection and has been articulated by Hazl as "kol
hapoesil - bemumo poseil" so that modern pop-psychology can often be trace
to Talmudic wisdom . This one does not require any kvetching to pull it off.

Erich Fromm put it this way V'ahavt leric'acha kamocha pre-supposes
self-love. [*The Art of Loving*].  Let's alter the term to self-respect or
perhaps better self-acceptance. One who accepts oneself is unlikely to
reject others [unless perhaps they are thoroughly evil]


-- 
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/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080520/335ebf36/attachment.htm>

On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 16:06 -0700, avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
wrote:
> 
> Similarly, today a friend had a question: a (male) friend of hers had
> just broken up with his girlfriend, and he was somewhat inconsolable.
> He indicated he needed a hug, and she replied that she is shomer
> negiah, but he insisted again. She in the end hugged him, but asked me
> what I thought. I replied that if one views it as a case of mitzvah
> (shomer negiah) versus averah (negiah), then obviously she did nothing
> but a pure averah. But if one views it as one mitzvah (comforting the
> sick, needy, distraught, pained, etc.) versus another mitzvah (shomer
> negiah), it's suddenly not so clear-cut, and perhaps, based on his
> level of neediness, there's a hava amina to permit what she did. But I
> later wondered, wouldn't this be a mitzvah haba'ah ba'averah?

Well, for starters, I think there is the issue of Lav vs Assei.

In this case, however, I think there is also a larger issue that I think
needs to be addressed.  Try this scenario:  Her friend said he needed a
hug and she responded that she can't because she's "touched out".  Would
he be right in insisting, and would anyone expect her to give in?  What
if she had a sensory disorder or just a bad sunburn that made hugging
physically painful?

In other words he simply is not respecting her boundaries - "I want what
I want, and I don't care what it means for you to give it to me." What
other issurim will she be over to accommodate him?  

-- Kayza

>
> Don't banks factor credit ratings into the mortgage costs?  They certainly
> do for Home Equity Loans [helocs]

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:

> relative to the amount you want.
> Of course a rich person has a better chance of getting
> a multi-million dollar loan (at least until the subprime crisis) that
> a poor person has of getting a few thousand dollars. However,
> that is more "connections" then economics.
>
>

Eli Turkel
>

RRW: Crdit Ratings have to do with rates of interest also NOT just the
probablity of acqiuring a lona

But it's not a profit-making venture, so from where is the "investor" to be
paid his capital and dividend?
Zev Sero

Real este is the largest industry in th US. I fail to see how it is NOT a
busineswith a profit. Simple homeowners invest in real-estate all the tie,
jsut as they do in their 401(k)'s etc.

If a family cannnot afford a hourse they rent. Mortgages are almost ALWAYS a
factor of investment. I frankly don't know anyone who thinks otherwise.

One of my students is a rabbi and he is moving to another state whth a
3-year contract, H e INSISTS on buying his own home EVEN THOUGH THE SHUL
OWNS A HOUSE!

I warned him that in 3 years he could lose his shirt becuase of the
high-leveraged nature of mortgages, but he told me his family are
real-estate mavens and they know the risks plus the market is low.

When I took my shtelle in Wash.IHeights we bought a co-op and promptly lost
a fortune as real-estate makets dipped.  It took about 10-11 years to break
even and at no time did we consider that the co-op was NOT an investment
because we could have rented at the outset

So I fail to see how a mortgage or Home equity lone is NOT an investment
loan. It's like buying stock on margin. except the SEC requires 50% for
stocks and most mortgages only require 20% down which is much more highly
leveraged


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/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080520/8cadbd59/attachment.htm>

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Ben Waxman <ben1456@zahav.net.il> wrote:

> In the Igrot Moshe HM 2:29 Rav Moshe writes that if someone were able to
> obtain extra funding for a yeshiva through false claims, such an action
> would involve sins suchs as stealing, lieing, geneivat da'at, khilul Hashem
> and disgracing the Torah and its believers, and that there is no heter in
> the world for such an action. Further, anyone who would do such a thing is a
> rodef.
>
> Ben
>
>  From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
>>
>> There is no chilul Hashem because no normal person cares about the
>> law just because it is the law.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
>

Interesting. I overheard 2 rabbis from a local Yeshiva high school who were
registering a phone in the dorm as a home phone even though it was an
institutional phone and I questioned the eh tics of this.

I asked my own LOR is this a case o G'neivas Da'as, iow representing the
phone for personal use instead of institutional use.

He said NO it is not G'nievas Da'as it is MAMASH G'neiva.  It's like an a
adult buying a child's discounted ticket by lying about one's age.


-- 
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/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080520/2f52dcc5/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 190
***************************************

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..."