Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 315

Thu, 04 Sep 2008

• 1. Re: damage by children (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 2. Re: KSA, MB, AhS, Chayei Adam and other codes (Micha Berger)
• 3. "Hashem" as God's name (Yonatan Kaganoff)
• 4. Re: KSA, MB, AhS, Chayei Adam and other codes (Zev Sero)
• 5. Reciting L'Dovid HaShem Ori (Cantor Wolberg)
• 6. Re: NASA, Dead-Sea Scrolls and G-D's holy name (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. Qumram (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Appearance vs. Reality (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 9. Re: Appearance vs. Reality (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: "Hashem" as God's name (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: KSA, MB, AhS, Chayei Adam and other codes (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Qumram (Micha Berger)

> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 09:59:28AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
> : what is the halachik responsibility of parents who are visiting
> : someone and the smaller children cause damage in the house?

R' MB: 
> Is BB 5:9 (ie 87b) relevent? Someone who sends his son to the store with
> some money to get some oil, and the child breaks the jug on the way home
> and lost the change (a case my mother might remember well...): if the
> son held the family's jug and the storeowner filled it, he is patur;
> otherwise, the chakhammim require the storeowner reimberse (R Yehudah
> does not).


BK 8:4 (87a -
http://74.125.45.104/custom?q=ca
che:IEsSgmQohVEJ:www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l4
108.htm+%22%D7%A4%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%AA%D7%9F%22+%22%D7%A8%D7%A2%D7%94%22&
hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us or http://tinyurl.com/68yfp7) would seem to be
relevant. 

KT,
MYG

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 12:41:26AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: > My question is the opposite. If one does read from a klaf why does
: > the Gra say one should say a beracha.

: The answe is AIUI is that the GRA does NOT base himslef on MINHAG but on the
: authority of Maseches Soferim to which the GRA subscribes as obligatory -
: just like Bavli

Yes, according to the Gra, violating Mes' Soferim is like violating any
other conclusion of Chazal, which he considers a show-stopping
consideration.

Just keep that in mind when we get to a point below. I'm laying
groundwork...

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:38:10PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Ask yourself the following questions and contemplate their implications:

I find there is no one issue in your list we didn't discuss already more
than once.

Your basic fallacy is in your first question:
:    1. Based upon Torah Principles:
:       1. Do we want a subjetvie or objective ps'aq?

Something in between. A heuristic drives you to a particular subset of
the possibilities without requiring you reach any particular one. There
are constraints on possible conclusions without forcing any particular
one from that set.

The fact that you can say "where he feels his predetermined heuristics
bring him" means that you aren't using the word "heuristic" the same way
I am. A heuristic is less deterministic than an algorithm. A typical
"min-max" chess playing heuristic won't always produce the same move
in response to the same position. However, if the computer sacrifices a
queen without getting ahead in the game, you know it isn't "minimizing
the maximum loss" which defines that type of heuristic.

In pesaq, being heuristic means weighing pros and cons. But the pros
must be pros as defined by the Torah, the cons must similarly get their
significance from the Torah and precedent, the options one chooses from
can't violate the basic rules, and one must be self-consistent. And thus
a machloqes over which factors are weightier can give poseqim a range of
values to assume for how important each factor is, but a range isn't
anarchic license.

It is that which distinguishes O from C. (That, and a number of C
responsa abuse sources to prove the opposite of their actual thesis. Eg
the abuse of "koach deheteira adif", or more specific examples like
Silverman's use of the Rama's teshuvah about Moravian stam yeinam.) C
is not weighing pros and cons based on halachic precedent and Torah
values, but based on creating a synthesis, a "Halakhah which responds
to changing times *and changing needs*." (from Abelson's intro to Emet
V'Emunah, a/the C position paper, available at the USCJ web site at
<http://tinyurl.com/5ou56o>, emphasis mine). They use the process to
reach the goal (cf pg 21). And the decisor is immersed in an academic /
objective / abstract understanding of Torah, lacking the skills an O
rabbi should gain through shimush. The system includes both hard and
soft rules; knowing how to apply those soft rules is an art that requires
a feel, and can't be taught academically.

That said, there are bad O rulings, mistakes that need correction (in
the Gra's opinion, there were many). However, we have a process of peer
review, and eventually over time we get these things right.

Similarly, that is why there can be a to'eh bidvar mishnah or a mesechtes
Horios.

:    4. Re: Algorithimics
:       1. In which post did  I ever propose an algorithmic solution to p'sak/
...

Numerous times, including two lines later in this same post. To wit:
:       3. If Algorithmics is off-limits please describe the techniques
:       ascribed to:
...

In all these cases there are exceptions to the rules. That this is true
for the SA's "beis din" is well known and discussed on Avodah often.

This indicates that the SA meant it as a "soft rule", a heuristic
"something to be weighed very very heavily", but still, can be violated
when sufficient other reason exists.

Unlike actual nimnu vegamru, a vote taken of a BD of people sitting in
the same room. In which case, there is a hard rule about gadol mimenu
bechokhmah uveminyan; although even there, measuring chokhmah and counting
talmidim will lead to differences of opinion and gray area.

...
:    1. Search or scan the Major Posqim ? Tur, BY, SA, Rema, MB Ahs Etc,.
:                                                               i.      Do
: they frequently  use terms as sniffim to build a case?
: OR
:                                                             ii.      Do they
: use terms like Rov Posqim, Rov Acahronim , Maskanas Haposqim etc.[e.g. see
: Maggid Mishneh Rambam Hilchos Shabbas 5:1]

In establishing a theoretical halakhah, or in applying it to metzi'us?
The former is the establishment of factors to be weighed far more than
actually having a case in which to weigh them. Codes discuss senifim far
more than discuss how they interact. That's why I pointed you to shu"t
(in particular, RIM's survey), not codes.

As RnCL wrote back on Nov 9 2007
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol24/v24n049.shtml#01>:
> I don't think I disagree with your analysis that part of psak is
> heuristic with factors having to be weighed. The point is that you cannot
> weigh factors if you don't start with the case and then look at what
> applies (ie factors). If you start where RAF seemed to want to start -
> with philosophical principles that you formulate in the abstract as a
> consistent guide to life and upon which you believe you now need to act,
> you are almost certainly going to miss many factors, (and often and most
> likely the human cost factor as the human cost is borne by the shoel or
> by society, not so much by the posek) in your analysis.

Returning to RRW's latest post on the topic:
:    2. Re: Acceptablity
:       1. IF posqim are right simply because they are popular than how is
:       that ANY different than schectherian Cahtolic Israel?

Because Schechter had no constitutional law. Therefore, his definition of
Catholic Israel became circular. The law is decided by the norms of the
observant community and he defined the observant community based on who
followed the law. By those criteria, assume R is within the observant
community and you can prove they are because by that definition they
follow the practices of much of the so-called-observant community. (The
"much" who are themselves, the former R.)

Again, after 11 months it seems clear to me that you're confusing
heuristic with anarchy.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I have been looking for some time into the origins of the recent use of "Hashem" as God's name in colloquial speech.
?
For an example, my two year old says that I am going to shul to daven to
"Hashem".? I was told that fifty years ago, an Orthodox Jewish child would
say that he davened to "God."
?
At this point the use of "Hashem" to refer to God is fairly ubiquitous in English speaking Orthodox circles.
?
Does anyone know when this began?? And when it became the de facto way of referring to God?
?
Yonatan Kaganoff


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080904/263d84f7/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha Berger wrote:
 
> Yes, according to the Gra, violating Mes' Soferim is like violating any
> other conclusion of Chazal, which he considers a show-stopping
> consideration.

Question: Did the GRA believe that Mes' Soferim was actually written
before chatimat hatalmud?  Or did he consider its authors among Chazal
for another reason?

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

For those who have the minhag of not saying tehillim at night, what do  
they do for Ma'ariv L'motzei Shabbos regarding Yoshev b'seiser as well  
as the many excerpts (k'seder) from Psalms 90:17, 22:4, 78:38, 86:5,  
119:142, 68:20, 46:8, 84:13, 20:10, 30:13, 9:11, 55:19, 30:12, 29:11  
and 68:5-6?

And unless they go to bed early, what do they do regarding K'rias  
Sh'ma hamita with the excerpts (k'seder) from Psalms 19:15, 90:17,  
17:8, 121:8, 31:6, 10:16, 121:4 and 4:5?

I realize a distinction can be made between reciting the whole psalm  
as opposed to excerpts, but that still wouldn't explain Yoshev  
b'seiser which is done in its entity.

ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080904/17ad7af5/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote: 
> Actually, it should be of the manual laborer who pushed
> the button. No?

R' Moshe Gluck wrote:
> This is talked about - IIRC there are some who say that
> it has no Kedushah until someone reads it.

"No Kedushah until someone reads it" -- This sounds like a relevant factor if we're talking about Davar Mitzva; "hazmana lav milsa" and all that.

But we're talking about a level up from there: A written/printed word is a
question of Davar *Kedusha*. The kavana and actions of the one *making* the
object is critical. Surely no one would say that a Sefer Torah which was
properly written by a proper person with proper kavanos has no Kedushah
until someone reads it. In fact, the halachos of when a sofer cannot
correct his own error prove that the Kedusha already exists from the moment
of writing, even before he reads it and finds the error.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Criminal Lawyers - Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3oGdgkNuHSxfhsGCGsaPnY8KyIRkeNBmz89WwGu0WIhm06lM/

<<would think the Qumranim would fall under "seifer Torah shekasvo min",
even if the whole thing were in Ashuris.>>

It is still debated who lived in Qumram and wrote the dead sea scrolls.
They were defintely not Saducees. perhaps Essenes perhaps some other group.
It seems they went to Qumram because they considered the bet hamikdash
as being too much le-kulah.
I am not sure why they would be classified as minim.

BTW it was common in those days to write shem hashem in ktav ivrit.
It was assumed then tha that was the original script (not like TB)
and so while the general Torah was written in the new ktav ashurit the
shem hashem was in the original script.
Thus this was done to give extra kedusha to the writing. IMHO it
would certainly qualify today as having kedusha (I refer to the
original manuscript not the photographic copies which is a different
question).

A question for bar mitzvot - I have frequently seen on bar mitzvahs
during the week that the bar mitzvah boy gets an aliyah and someone takes
pictures. If the photo contains also the sefer torah and one can
see the shem hashem - does it have kedusha?
The photographer was thinking of the bar mitzvah boy near the Torah
not the content of the sefer Torah

-- 
Eli Turkel

One of the topics that comes up here every now and again is the idea that
in halacha, the way something appears could be more important than the way
it actually is. A common example of this is that if tefilin appear to be
not square, then it is pasul even if one measures and proves that it really
is square.

I came across another interesting example of this, which I'd like to share with the group for their comments.

Mechaber 78:1 -- One was saying the Shema and urine began dripping on his
legs - he must pause until until (2) the urine stops. Then he can continue 
- even if it got on his clothes and they are really wet (tofeach al m'nas
l'hatpiach) - because they [the wet garments] are covered by (3) an outer
garment.

MB 78:2 -- The urine: Even though his legs below are still damp from the urine, it is mutar.

MB 78:3 -- Outer garment: That is, the outer garment is not dirty. But if
it too got dirty, then for Shema and other Divrei Kedusha, he has to go and
remove that clothing, or at least cover the dirty area with some other
garment...

If I'm reading this right, then even though the person's leg is actually
wet from his urine, he can continue saying his Shema, provided that the
outermost garments are dry.

This is amazing to me. His body is dirty, but because he *looks* okay on
the outermost level, that's what seems to count most. If someone has an
alternate explanation, I'd love to hear it.

And the mussar implications could be even more mind-boggling...

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Criminal Lawyers - Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3oGdf0wZKd09sYMDJO0hgZIP847VXM5brN5AdoFeJ09EBBBw/

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 08:45:05PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: One of the topics that comes up here every now and again is the idea
: that in halacha, the way something appears could be more important than
: the way it actually is...

If you're discussing my theory, it's more the way something can appear
than how it actually does. You can't squint your eyes, say "I don't see
no bugs", and eat the strawberry.

That said, I don't think your example here would prove my theory:
: Mechaber 78:1 -- One was saying the Shema and urine began dripping
: on his legs...

: This is amazing to me. His body is dirty, but because he *looks* okay
: on the outermost level, that's what seems to count most. If someone has
: an alternate explanation, I'd love to hear it.

Kibud (perhaps as opposed to kavod) is all about pomp and
circumstance. One can argue that WRT being mekhabeid the Borei, appearance
IS substance in a way that isn't true in general.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
micha@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 11:30:35AM -0700, Yonatan Kaganoff wrote:
: I have been looking for some time into the origins of the recent use of
: "Hashem" as God's name in colloquial speech.

This might be a simple Areivim question. Have you determined which came
first, "Hashem" or writing "H'"?

: For an example, my two year old says that I am going to shul to daven
: to "Hashem". I was told that fifty years ago, an Orthodox Jewish child
: would say that he davened to "God."

And before the war, his Yiddish speaking father would have said "de
Aibishter" (the Most High).

Someone asked me by email to translate "Hashem". I went with "<[insert]
the name [of G-d here]>". The surrounding angle brackets to make it
clear I was giving instructions to the reader.

Also related is an observation I made here recently that "qiddush hasheim"
and ch"v its reverse refer to "hasheim", G-d's reputation, not "Hashem" as
a qinui. One can't change G-d by adding to or removing from His Qedushah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
micha@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:04:37PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Question: Did the GRA believe that Mes' Soferim was actually written
: before chatimat hatalmud?  Or did he consider its authors among Chazal
: for another reason?

The Gra studied girsaot, so he knew things like how recent the mesechtos
qetanos were. I would also take it for granted that he also knew that
the Rosh said it was a late work. And that Soferim in particular is
different in forms published with the Bavli and with the Y-mi.

I think the Gra considered them liqutim of divrei Chazal, even if compiled
by geonim. In the case of Soferim, recompiled; much of it already appeard
in Mes' Seifer Torah, although only the parts about being a sofeir; not
the last section from which he got the pesaq about making a berakhah on
megillos or the list of special shirim shel yom.

Peeking up after checking the JewishEncyclopedia.com:
Academics also acknowledge the use of EY idiom, rather than that of
Bavel. However, they attribute ch 6-9 (which is all about writing sta"m)
to the baalei mesorah of Teveriah.

They also conclude from things like the lack of sources (thus showing
no need to pin onto an earlier authority) that most of the book is early.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
micha@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 12:19:32PM -0700, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> I would think the Qumranim would fall under "seifer Torah shekasvo min",
:> even if the whole thing were in Ashuris.>>

: It is still debated who lived in Qumram and wrote the dead sea scrolls.
: They were defintely not Saducees. perhaps Essenes perhaps some other group.

But they were certainly minim of some sort. In the MMT is presented
the position attributed in the gemara to the Tzeduqim, that tum'ah can
not travel from the keli sheini up the irui to be metamei the liquid in
the keli rishon. It is recorded as an argument and a discussion in both
sources, allowing us to see the dispute from both sides.

They also had a calendar that required all years have an even number of
weeks, as did the Tzeduqim of Rabban Gamliel's day. (Which is why they
were faking testimony about seeing the moon, an explanation of the Tzeduqi
"mimacharas hashabbos" -- the 2nd day of Pesach was always to be Sunday,
and even Easter always being on a Sunday may be a legacy of this.)

So, perhaps the Issiim shared this lenient position, but given their
attitude toward taharah, I doubt it. More likely they were some small
breakaway from the Tzeduqim that simply wasn't big enough for Josephus
to bother mentioning.


I am not sure I agree with RZS's speculation. For "min" to refer to the
early Xians in particular, one would have to explain why their attitude
toward sheimos or the One to Whom they refer are unique among the sects.
Trinitarianism wasn't an issue yet. In fact, there is no indication
that anyone in the original Jewish churches (Notzerim, Evyonim, James'
friends in J-m) were trinitarian.

Is belief in a dead but human messiah that different of a hashkafic
divide than the Tzeduqi lack of belief in an afterlife?

For that matter, in the days of the tannaim, most Jewish Xians were
still obeying Tzeduqi or (lehavdil) Perushi law.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
micha@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Unknown shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 315
***************************************

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..."