Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 149

Tue, 28 Jul 2009

• 1. Re: rofeh mumcheh (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: rofeh mumcheh (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Lo Ra'inu Eino Raya ==> Blanket Heter (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Three Weeks and Private Aveilus (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: evidence by a bird (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: evidence by a bird (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: rofeh mumcheh (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: bathing during the 9 days (Joshua Meisner)
• 9. Re: bathing during the 9 days (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 10. Re: Lo Ra'inu Eino Raya ==> Blanket Heter (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Re: Lo Ra'inu Eino Raya ==> Blanket Heter (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Lo Ra'inu Eino Raya ==> Blanket Heter (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 13. amoraim and aggada (David Riceman)
• 14. Re: Three Weeks and Private Aveilus (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 15. Sad Story: Let's Talk Tachlis (Daniel Israel)
• 16. tisha baav is a moed (Eli Turkel)
• 17. Re: Three Weeks and Private Aveilus (Rich, Joel)
• 18. learning kinnot (Eli Turkel)

Eli Turkel wrote:
>     I have heard many times from R. Zilberstein that the definition
>     today of a rofeh mumcheh is one certified by the health ministry.
> 
> 
> That makes no sense either.  It's like saying that "the definition
> today of an opera singer is a fat person".  There are indeed many
> opera singers who are fat, and non-opera-singers who are lean, but
> there is no necessary correlation between the two traits.>>
> 
> 
> Are you disagreeing with R. Zilbersetin that the health ministry defines
> today who is rofweh mumcheh of the gemara instead of the bet din

Since when did a bet din have anything to do with defining that?
Do you imagine there was some sort of licensing of doctors then?


> The gemara clearly differentiates between rofeh mumcheh and any person
> who caims he knows medicine

Yes, there is an objective difference between an expert and a not-so-
expert.  It's got nothing to do with whether some "authority" has
graciously given one a "license" to practise.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                    - Margaret Thatcher

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:15:25AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Yes, there is an objective difference between an expert and a not-so-
: expert.  It's got nothing to do with whether some "authority" has
: graciously given one a "license" to practise.

Actually, it seems clear from the that "mumcheh" here means "licensed", not
expert. Thus, the Tosefta's case is one the beis din had already declared
a mumcheh. The AhS similarly assumes that BD is confirming the findings
of a review board.

-Micha

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:07:23PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: Yes, that's pretty much what I've been taught. Except for the "after
: Shas" part. I think it would be more accurate to say that new issurim
: (and new chiyuvim) stopped at the closing of the Sanhedrin - or the Beis
: Din Hagadol, or however you want to refer to the Halachic Legislature.

Except that the Rambam explains Ravina veR' Ashi sof hora'ah in terms of
chasimas haShas having a universal acceptance which is effectively the
same thing as a beis din hagadol.

I don't know when the Rambam believes real semichah ended. It might even
be he felt Ravina veR' Ashi had it.

Last, there is indication that the Ravina of chasimas haShas was R'
Ashi's grandson, not his usual bar pelugta. That would explain Mar Berei
deR' Ashi's presence in the shas, even lefi haRambam (who seems to
ignore the savoraim).

I am currently listening to a series of shiurim by R' Meir Triebitz on
the subject at
http://hashkafacircle.com/shiurim/category/history-development-of
-the-talmud/

To be frank, I think RMT often places too much confidence on his
own chiddushim. Something I too am very often guilty of with far
less justification than he has. And then building structure atop
structure. However, the shiurim are exposing me to sources and questions
I never would be thinking about otherwise.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I have a fundamental problem with RYBS's assumption that the 3 Weeks, 9
Days, and 9 beAv itself parallel shiv'ah, sheloshim and shanah rishonah
in reverse order.

But first, the less fundamental issue is that they don't actually
parallel. Does shaving during the 3 weeks, even accoreding to his own
pesaq, depend on people telling you you need a shave? And it is
permissable to eat meat and less than intoxicating amount of wine during
shiv'ah.

Second, leshitaso, 12 chodesh is NOT aveilus, but rather kibbud av
va'eim! Which is how he explains why losing a child, which is far more
painful, ends at sheloshim.

The fundamental issue is that it rooted in his belief that Judaism has no
ritual, and therefore even minhagim and hanhagos tovos must fit halachic
categories. Minhagim, definitionally, are grass-roots practices. (In
previous discussions of Hil' Mamrim pereq 2, I tried to show that even
leshitas haRambam, a minhag differs from a din derabbanan in that a
minhag is first nishpasheit, and only afterwards gets the rabbinic nod
of post-facto approval.) Why would we think the masses would stick to a
halachic form?

And what about numerous counter-examples? The oldest minhag in the book,
klopping hoshanos, what halachic category does it fit? Circling the bride?
Why are qitniyos more chamur than chameitz itself WRT things baked within
18 min?

It seems that Judaism has ritual, in his sense of the word, even
Litvaks. And even if I understood his assumption about minhagim, how is
that a sufficient argument to change practice from the accepted to one
that fits his sevara? It's not a weighing of two shitos, it's pasqening
al pi aggadita, beliefs about the role and meaning of Jewish practice.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:31:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: how is evidence by a bird treated in halacha?
: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1102935.html

Wouldn't it qualify as an umdena? Hamotzi meichaveiro alav hara'ayah,
and I would think that the bird indicating he recognized the owner is a
ra'ayah.

-Micha

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:31:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: how is evidence by a bird treated in halacha?
: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1102935.html

Wouldn't it qualify as an umdena? Hamotzi meichaveiro alav hara'ayah,
and I would think that the bird indicating he recognized the owner is a
ra'ayah.

-Micha

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:15:25AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : Yes, there is an objective difference between an expert and a not-so-
> : expert.  It's got nothing to do with whether some "authority" has
> : graciously given one a "license" to practise.
> 
> Actually, it seems clear from the that "mumcheh" here means "licensed", not
> expert. Thus, the Tosefta's case is one the beis din had already declared
> a mumcheh. The AhS similarly assumes that BD is confirming the findings
> of a review board.

I haven't had a chance to look up all of the sources RET quoted
(especially since there are at least some typos in the list, e.g.
the relevant cite in Divrei Shaul is in YD 336, not 365), but it
seems to me just from looking at the Tosefta (which does *not* use
the word "mumcheh" but "uman", which leaves open the possibility that
it means not "expert" but "surgeon") that "reshut BD" merely gives
immunity from civil suits "mipnei tikun ha'olam"; i.e. it's a safe
harbour created by BD, in order to encourage the practise of medicine,
whereby a doctor has the *option* of getting a grant of immunity from
malpractise suits.  There's nothing to indicate that one may not
practise without taking part in such a scheme.

It's interesting that the Rambam doesn't bring this Tosefta lahalacha,
and the first to do so seems to be the Ramban (I *think* I've found
the correct place in Torat Ha'adam, but haven't had a chance to look
at it closely).

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Extreme Example:
>> Given that bigamy was an issue for R Gershom's era due to people still
>> fulfilling yibbum it was banned.
>>
>> But since we subsequently abandoned yibbum in favor of halitza - therefore
>> other bigamy is now OK!
>>
>
> Waitaminnit, where did you get the idea that ChDrG was motivated by a
> problem related to chalitzah?   If it had been, then ein hochi nami.


I agree with RZS's challenge on RRW's example.  EhE 1:21 even states
(despite the opposition of the Rema) that yibbum is an exception to the
takanah!

However, Beis Shmuel, citing Hagahos Maimoniyos, states that the reason for
the takanah was due to economic reasons, so perhaps RRW's point would still
hold.

- Joshua Meisner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090727/612ece10/attachment-0001.htm>

Yehoshua Meisner:
> However, Beis Shmuel, citing Hagahos Maimoniyos, states that the reason
> for the takanah was due to economic reasons, so perhaps RRW's point
> would still hold.

For now - I completely recant my previous remarks
Re: Yibbum and the cherem.

(FWIW I did know that Yibbum was exempt from the cherem.)

The problem is that I had a premise - based upon a factoid - that seems
to be completely unsupported in my Google Searches.

So apparently I relied upon an "urban legend" to draw a false conclusion.

I apologize for any confusion. And if I ever do find that alleged
"factoid" I will BEH revisit this.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 


I am currently listening to a series of shiurim by R' Meir Triebitz on the
subject at http://hashkafacircle.com/shiurim/category/history-development-of
-the-talmud/

To be frank, I think RMT often places too much confidence on his own
chiddushim. Something I too am very often guilty of with far less
justification than he has. And then building structure atop structure.
However, the shiurim are exposing me to sources and questions I never would
be thinking about otherwise.

-Micha

========================================
My review of the last shiur :His more general theory IIUC is that this
writing (and the prior oral tradition of shakla v'taria {give and take}) is
part of an ongoing process in which we (and all these before us) are not
focused on the actual original meaning of a text (or statement). The
statement is a jumping off point for gedolim to use their daas torah (and
R'Halivni doesn't understand this). Well, actually in the Q&A it sounds
a bit more complex .

I would love to hear others' take on his approach - it correlates well with Brisker Rambam interpretation?

She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

Micha Berger wrote:

> I don't know when the Rambam believes real semichah ended. It might even
> be he felt Ravina veR' Ashi had it.

There is at least a hint in the Rambam that it continued down to his
day.  But he's unlikely to have thought Ravina and R Ashi had it, since
it can only be given in EY.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Micha:
> Last, there is indication that the Ravina of chasimas haShas was R'
> Ashi's grandson, not his usual bar pelugta. That would explain Mar Berei
> deR' Ashi's presence in the shas, even lefi haRambam (who seems to
> ignore the savoraim)."

There are literally books on this (see 2 below)

In shas Ravina and Rav Ashi bepashuts referred to Ravina I.

The first to change that to Ravina II is AFAIK iggeres der. Sherira Gaon.

But the meaning of sof hora'ah is quite disputed

Rambam
The simplistic model is the popular yeshivishe model. A virtual
Sanhedrin. Neat, clean, simple. Like Yigdal maybe too simple

To tosafos it's the end of an era, not the chasima of a text.
So contemporary texts that have amoraim are equally authoritative

Illustration bavli vs. Pesikta re: micha bas kushi and Tefillin and
Tosafos sham. (Rabbi Kanarfogel and I arrived at this conclusion from
a chat). That's why Tosafos goes outside Bavli a lot.




In wissenshaft land sof horoa'ah means something else - and the
first definitive work is Kaplan's redaction of babylonian Talmud.
(Probably somewhat passe by now)

As Rav Halivni would explain, "sof hora'ah" refers to the last to make
braisso style meimros (Apodictic).

After that Amoraim or Saboraim in the Gmara were quoted as part of shakla
v'tarya but not as speaking "hora'ah" in declarative pronouncements.

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


Re: transitiona eras.

Z'keinim:
Following Yehoshu'a
No new Zkeinim could be minted. (Probably Zkeinim refer to survivors
from Moshe rabbeinu's lifetime)

Sof tannaim means that after Rebbe's death no new Tannaim were minted -
But those still alive were grandfathered in EG Rav

Sof Hora'ahmeans that following the deaths of Ravina and Rav Ashi
No new Amoraim were minted. The survivors were also grandfathered in.

Thus eras have gray "eras". :-), it is not an abrupt ending.

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


RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

There's a clear stylistic distinction between the way Tannaim and 
Amoraim explain halacha.  Is there an equally clear distinction in 
aggada? How would you describe it?

Admittedly this is complicated since all the separate aggadic 
collections we have are from EY; in Bavel aggada was included in Talmud 
Bavli.  So ... how much of this stylistic distinction is due to geography?

David Riceman

Micha:
> (In previous discussions of Hil' Mamrim pereq 2, I tried to show that
> even leshitas haRambam, a minhag differs from a din derabbanan in that
> a minhag is first nishpasheit, and only afterwards gets the rabbinic
> nod of post-facto approval.)"

FWIW this is the pattern with the shuman haggid

At first Rav Ashi notes it's a minhag based upon yisroel am qedoshim
not to eat it.
Theen Gmara itself treats it as a derabbanan (actually a daf earlier)

Even though it's originally a minhag Rambam treats it as an issur Derabbanan

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Over and over we seem to have the same discussion on A/A.  Some Jewish 
is accused of something (generally these discussion come up when the 
accused is frum).  One side goes through any contortions to be dan 
l'chaf zechus, regardless of the possible impact of the wrongdoing.  The 
other side cries, "Chillul HaShem," assuming that what is reported in 
the paper is basically true.

The unfortunate reality is that dealing with public reporting of 
wrongdoing by Jews is a shailah that comes up far too often, and it is 
not clearly dealt with in Sefer Chofetz Chaim, or in any other sources I 
am familiar with.  I think it is important for us to deal with it on a 
basic halachic level, rather than hashing through the same ad hominem 
arguments every time.

First, let's clarify what we are talking about.  When we read something 
in the newspaper, there is rarely much we can do about it, at least 
directly.  If a frum person is a judge or a police officer, he will 
encounter difficult shailos, which make a fascinating study, but which 
are theoretical do most of us, so I won't raise them here.

In those rare occasions when we are in a practical position to help (for 
example, someone personally reports to us information about a wrongdoing 
by someone whom we are in a position to intervene to stop), clearly we 
need to collect the facts, and then do what we can.  Preferably speaking 
to a Rav first, and, for those time critical cases, reviewing the 
appropriate halachos so we know what to do.  The basics for this 
situation are covered in Sefer Chofetz Chaim.

What about the most common case?  We read in the paper that a certain 
Jew is accused of wrongdoing.  We have no personal involvement, and 
there is essentially nothing we can do.  How should we respond?

The basic halacha is obviously that we must be dan l'chaf zechus, and 
assume the person is innocent.  Or, at least, that the accusation is 
exaggerated, that there is some innocent reason for the action, etc. 
However, this same obligation applies to all parties.  Meaning we also 
must be DLZ on the accuser, the police, the newspaper, etc.  (For the 
time being, assume everyone is Jewish.)

So is that it?  It would seem that this takes care of everything, all we 
need to do is internalize that we really have no reason to come to a 
conclusion about the vast majority of the accusations we hear.  However, 
I would suggest there are some other considerations.

First, while it may not be important to draw a conclusion regarding each 
individual, it is important to know how prevalent true versus false 
accusations are collectively.  We do need to be informed as to whether 
accusations against Jews broadly reflect anti-Jewish attacks (which we 
need to defend ourselves against, and which would have consequences for 
whether, for example, dina malchusa dina applies in that place) or 
reflect real problems in the Jewish community (which obligate us to try 
to fix ourselves).

Second, if when speaking to others (non-frum or non-Jewish) we always 
turn a blind eye to Jewish wrongdoing, this itself is a chillul HaShem. 
  In certain cases it may be possible to explain the concept of DLZ, in 
general if we always respond, "I don't believe Ploni is guilty," it 
sounds like we have no midah of tzedek.  Again, we have to find a way to 
reflect a realistic evaluation of the news media and the criminal 
justice system (with all there flaws, but also their real value) in our 
speech, without being oveir DLZ.

Third, I would like to hear some sources as to at what point, if any, 
media reports or decisions of a secular court in a just country can 
constitute enough evidence to overcome DLZ.  E.g. CC 8:7 talks about 
someone being established as a rasha based on reports, but is clearly 
not referring to witnessing first hand or the decision of beis din. 
Clearly the halacha does not require us to be DLZ to the point of being 
stupid.

Fourth, I want to point out that, as far as the case that sparked this 
thread, sometimes DLZ is not saying that the person didn't do what he 
was accused of, but that there is some mitigating factor.  In that 
light, saying someone has clinical psychiatric problems sometimes is 
being DLZ.

Finally, much of the recent discussion on Areivim centered on 
conflicting reports attributed on one side to a frum person, and on the 
other side to an aino-dati.  Leaving aside the question of whether the 
description of one side as not frum was fair, even in such a case, it is 
not black and white that we accept any statement of a frum person over 
that of a non-frum person.  First of all, from CC 3:7-8, it would seem 
that if the evidence of wrongdoing is very strong, one is not required 
to be DLZ m'ikar hadin, but should try to not be convinced of 
wrongdoing.  Second, even on a person who is a mumar, and who is outside 
of amisecha, it is therefore permitted to believe LH about them, and 
there is a mitzvah to be m'vazeh them for the purpose of keeping other 
from imitating them.  (I'm deliberately leaving out the whole tinok 
shenishba issue.)  However, there is no mitzvah to be dan l'chaf chov. 
In absence of a mitzvah of DLZ, one presumably falls back on common 
sense to evaluate their actions.  So in the case of conflicting reports 
from a frum and a non-frum person, it would seem that if the evidence is 
equivocal, one should be DLZ on the frum person (although if there is a 
way to view both positively, this would generally be preferrable). 
However, if the evidence looks much better for the non-frum person, it 
would seem to me it is entirely appropriate to suspect the frum person.

At least, that's how it looks to me.  I think this is a very important 
topic, and welcome further careful discussion of these halachos, 
especially if anyone is aware of sources.

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

I have always been bothered by the characterization of tisha baav as a
festival (moed)
which is certainly not pshat in the pasuk

The fact that in the future tisha may be a festival would seem to be
irrelevant to today.
Besides the gemara says that all fast days are festivals in times of
peace and we
still say tachanun on other fast days (not YK)

RYBS has a different explanantion that we dont say tachanun on tisha
baav because
it is a day that G-d doesnt answer our pleas.

Can someone please explain better the more standard explanation that tisha baav
is considered a moed.

kol tuv

-- 
Eli Turkel

 
You might listen to  http://www.yutorah.org
/lectures/lecture.cfm/736304/Rabbi_Yona_Reiss/Aveilus_Yeshana_and_Aveilus_d
'Rabim_(Yarzheit_Shiur)

Rabbi Yona Reiss - Aveilus Yeshana and Aveilus d'Rabim (Yarzheit Shiur)

For a more detailed analysis of the sources for R'YBS.

She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

RYBS used to give discussions on the kinnot all tisha baav which is the
basis of the recent book

A friend complained that one should not learn even kinnot on tisha baav
they are meant to be said even if not understood.
Intellectualing them violates limud torah on tisha baav

any opinions?

-- 
Eli Turkel


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 149
***************************************

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..."