Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 155

Tue, 04 Aug 2009

• 1. medieval jewish history (Shlomo Pick)
• 2. Re: medieval jewish history (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: some halachot of moser (Zev Sero)
• 5. ?????: medieval jewish history (Shlomo Pick)
• 6. Re: medieval jewish history (Arie Folger)
• 7. Re: A 9 Days Shower - The Navy to the Rescue? (Michael Poppers)
• 8. Re: some halachot of moser (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 9. halachot of Moser (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: we live in good times (Daniel Israel)
• 11. Who Wrote 2nd Luchos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: asara harugei malchut and mechirat yosef (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: asara harugei malchut and mechirat yosef (Arie Folger)

Arie wrote:

> 1) Mediaeval generally means between the fall of Rome in 476 (or even

earlier, from the split between the Eatern and Western Roman empire)

and the discovery of the New World in 1492. Jewishly, this is a very

long period. When we use the adjective Mediaeval, we often think

Rishonim, but this period includes not only the Geonim and Rishonim,

but also the Savoraim and even some of the Amoraim. Hence, it doesn't

mean the Midrash is particularly late.

 

Just to note:

       1.          

The issue of periodization of Jewish medieval history has been an issue for
the last 30-40 years.  See the article by haim Hillel ben sasson, in rezef
vetemurah, tel-aviv, pp. 359-378. his opinion is that jewish medieval
history starts with the rise of islam and arab conquests.

See also Jacob kate, mechkarim bemadaei hayahadut, ed. m. bar-asher,
Jerusalem 1986, pp. 209-225.

There is more by profs. C.z. dimitrovsky and moseh david heer.

I heard a lecture by the late prof. m breuer of the jewish history
department in bar ilan suggest other dates.

Almost no one views the Talmud period or even the post Talmud period as
medieval, especially in terms of rabbinic writings.

Then again, some ultra nationalists would suggest between 70 CE or 135 CE
and 1948..

The end of the period ranges from 1492 to 1648 to 1789.  Harvard university
holds that jewish medieval history ends with the French revolution. So does
Touro in Israel which is run by a  Harvard grad.

Shlomo 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090803/8e99e044/attachment-0001.htm>

I wasn't commenting on what should be called jewishly the Middle Ages,
but rather how most people use the word, likely including the Jewish
Encyclopedia of 1905, which was given as the source of the Wikipedia
article. The scholarly ruminations of the last 40 years were
irrelevant to those writing 60 years earlier.

Kol tut, --arie folger

On 8/3/09, Shlomo Pick <pic...@mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
> Arie wrote:
>
>> 1) Mediaeval generally means between the fall of Rome in 476 (or even
>
> earlier, from the split between the Eatern and Western Roman empire)
>
> and the discovery of the New World in 1492. Jewishly, this is a very
>
> long period. When we use the adjective Mediaeval, we often think
>
> Rishonim, but this period includes not only the Geonim and Rishonim,
>
> but also the Savoraim and even some of the Amoraim. Hence, it doesn't
>
> mean the Midrash is particularly late.
>
>
>
> Just to note:
>
>        1.
>
> The issue of periodization of Jewish medieval history has been an issue for
> the last 30-40 years.  See the article by haim Hillel ben sasson, in rezef
> vetemurah, tel-aviv, pp. 359-378. his opinion is that jewish medieval
> history starts with the rise of islam and arab conquests.
>
> See also Jacob kate, mechkarim bemadaei hayahadut, ed. m. bar-asher,
> Jerusalem 1986, pp. 209-225.
>
> There is more by profs. C.z. dimitrovsky and moseh david heer.
>
> I heard a lecture by the late prof. m breuer of the jewish history
> department in bar ilan suggest other dates.
>
> Almost no one views the Talmud period or even the post Talmud period as
> medieval, especially in terms of rabbinic writings.
>
> Then again, some ultra nationalists would suggest between 70 CE or 135 CE
> and 1948..
>
> The end of the period ranges from 1492 to 1648 to 1789.  Harvard university
> holds that jewish medieval history ends with the French revolution. So does
> Touro in Israel which is run by a  Harvard grad.
>
> Shlomo
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* How did Psalm 30 Land in the Morning Service
* Testing the Efficacy of Prayer

I wrote:
> > Now of course the modern approach is that one should delay 
> marriage, 
> > at least until one has had time to complete university and 
> hence have 
> > (for both parties to the marriage) the tools to earn a reasonable 
> > parnassa without having to deal with the birth and raising 
> of children 
> > during that period of study.  What is your view on this?  
> This change 
> > is not, like the legal age of marriage, forced upon us in quite the 
> > same way.  Some of the financial scandals, however, that you are 
> > decrying, certainly risk being aggravated, do they not, if people 
> > marry before they have a chance of completing university, 
> and hence risk struggling to provide a parnassa for their
> > families when they have them?    Pros? cons?

And RDR replied:
 
> While I basically agree with the thrust of this post, I'm 
> puzzled that you characterize this approach as "modern".  See H. Deoth
5:11.

The modern aspect of this approach is  the "for both parties to the
marriage".  The Rambam is,  when he mentions "adam" only refering to the
male of the species.  In many societies that indeed was the model - in fact
as late in my husband's parent's circles in Egypt that was indeed the model
- there was typically an age gap of at least 10 years between the husband
and wife, because the husband needed to build up his parnassa first, but a
woman needed to be married off as soon as possible.  And then he molds her.

The aspects of modernity that I was referring encompasses both the idea that
women are expected to bring in a significant portion of the parnasa of a
marriage, and also that this level of age discrepency within marriage (and
the power embalance that that contains) is not to be encouraged.  A society
where a woman might reasonably expect to be married off to a man who is at
least her mother's age is not a modern society.

It is of course an alternative model to consider in RMB's grappling with
modernity.  Indeed my mother-in-law thought that that is precisely what her
sons ought to have been doing, and was not keen (should we say) on her sons
dating women of around their own age.  My husband certainly didn't listen -
but one way of dealing with the problem I have identified is to go back to
precisely this model.

> David Riceman

Regards

Chana

Chanoch (Ken) Bloom wrote:

> Note that after the moser has already reported his intended target(s)
> to the government, R' Basri rules that the moser's fate must be
> decided by the beit din, so our discussion of how to handle a moser is
> largely academic

You're assuming that he has already told everything he knows.  If he's
smart he'll have held something back so he'll have something to bargain
with in the future; if there's reason to believe so, and that he intends
to reveal that later, then the status of mosser is still active.  Also,
his intention to testify at his victims' trials may mean that he's still
a mosser, depending on what would happen if he were unable to testify.



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

Don't quite understand you. The first part of midrash rabba to bamidbar has
been shown to be provencal, medieval and late. Tanchuma is not medieval but
according to mainstream jewish periodization to be from the classical
period, or Talmudic - post Talmudic period. 
You're correct, the scholarly ruminations of the last 40 years were
irrelevant to those writing 60 years earlier, but are relevant to us, and
one should wean himself from using an outdated encyclopedia.  Just because
it's on the web doesn't make it an authority any longer.
Kol tuv
shlomo

-----????? ??????-----
???: arie.fol...@gmail.com [mailto:arie.fol...@gmail.com] ??? Arie Folger
????: Monday, August 03, 2009 8:45 PM
??: Shlomo Pick; avo...@aishdas.org
????: Re: medieval jewish history


I wasn't commenting on what should be called jewishly the Middle Ages,
but rather how most people use the word, likely including the Jewish
Encyclopedia of 1905, which was given as the source of the Wikipedia
article. The scholarly ruminations of the last 40 years were
irrelevant to those writing 60 years earlier.

Kol tut, --arie folger

On 8/3/09, Shlomo Pick <pic...@mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
> Arie wrote:
>
>> 1) Mediaeval generally means between the fall of Rome in 476 (or even
>
> earlier, from the split between the Eatern and Western Roman empire)
>
> and the discovery of the New World in 1492. Jewishly, this is a very
>
> long period. When we use the adjective Mediaeval, we often think
>
> Rishonim, but this period includes not only the Geonim and Rishonim,
>
> but also the Savoraim and even some of the Amoraim. Hence, it doesn't
>
> mean the Midrash is particularly late.
>
>
>
> Just to note:
>
>        1.
>
> The issue of periodization of Jewish medieval history has been an issue
for
> the last 30-40 years.  See the article by haim Hillel ben sasson, in rezef
> vetemurah, tel-aviv, pp. 359-378. his opinion is that jewish medieval
> history starts with the rise of islam and arab conquests.
>
> See also Jacob kate, mechkarim bemadaei hayahadut, ed. m. bar-asher,
> Jerusalem 1986, pp. 209-225.
>
> There is more by profs. C.z. dimitrovsky and moseh david heer.
>
> I heard a lecture by the late prof. m breuer of the jewish history
> department in bar ilan suggest other dates.
>
> Almost no one views the Talmud period or even the post Talmud period as
> medieval, especially in terms of rabbinic writings.
>
> Then again, some ultra nationalists would suggest between 70 CE or 135 CE
> and 1948..
>
> The end of the period ranges from 1492 to 1648 to 1789.  Harvard
university
> holds that jewish medieval history ends with the French revolution. So
does
> Touro in Israel which is run by a  Harvard grad.
>
> Shlomo
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* How did Psalm 30 Land in the Morning Service
* Testing the Efficacy of Prayer


__________ NOD32 4301 (20090803) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

2009/8/3 Shlomo Pick <pic...@mail.biu.ac.il>:
> Don't quite understand you. The first part of midrash rabba to bamidbar has
> been shown to be provencal, medieval and late. Tanchuma is not medieval but
> according to mainstream jewish periodization to be from the classical
> period, or Talmudic - post Talmudic period.

I was replying to a post by RMB, without checking the content. He
simply reported that Wikipedia, which has for this article essentially
the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1905's text, says that Midrash Eile Ezkera
is Mediaeval. So I commented that that is a rather meaningless period
description, as almost all of Torah shebe'al Peh is Mediaeval, unless
it's modern or Mishna/Tosefta/Haggadah shel Pessach and a handful of
the earliest Midrashim. Everything else is Mediaeval. (all the more so
if you argue that the Jewish Middle Ages ended with Chmielnicki and
the concurrent Peace of Westphalia, or, kal vachomer ben beno shel kal
vachomer, if you count 'em 'till the French Revolution)

That is all.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* How did Psalm 30 Land in the Morning Service
* Testing the Efficacy of Prayer

In Avodah Digest V26#140, RRW wrote:
> Given Bathing for pleasure is restricted before Av 9, either all 9 days
or at least shavua shehol bo... <
The relevant s'if in SA OC is 551:16....

> The dilemma - how to stay "clean" w/o stepping on this restrction?
> The Navy Method to the Rescue
> A friend of mine served on subs and destroyers. The Navy needed to
preserve precious fresh water. He described the Navy shower as follows:
> Step 1: Pull a ring and water flows to  soak one's body
> Step 2: The sailor then lathers himself with soap w/o any water flowing
> Step 3: The sailor pulls the ring again and rinses off all of the soap
anddirt.
> (I'm guessing that Steps 1-3 might be repeated in an extreme case)
> Thus we have a shower technique that effectively cleans while minimizing
"hana'ah" <
LOL -- that's how I _normally_ shower (except that I utilize knobs rather
than a ring)!

I think the concept is, in the absence of mitzva-directed intent (e.g.
k'vod Shabbos), to do without.  What RRW describes is not "doing without"
but rather is the proper method for that place (minimizing water usage) --
I use it in general because of my approach to not wasting resources (a
similar approach on a smaller scale is to not keep the water running while
brushing one's teeth), and I would imagine that such an approach was
necessary not that many decades ago on land as well as on (or under) the
sea even in places which nowadays have improved water-supply and plumbing
facilities to the extent that the residents have forgotten what was meant
by "sitting in the shvitz" or heating water for the bath[ing ]tub.  The
bottom line is the same: whatever one is used to doing re r'chitzah (as
well as certain other activities) during a normal workweek when not driven
to do something lichvod a particular holy day or commandment, yeish nohagin
not to do it beginning at some point prior to 9Av.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090803/a98fa317/attachment-0001.htm>

Zev Sero wrote:
>
> The Ramo permits the *victim* of a violent crime to masser his
> assailant.  I'm not sure that other people are included in this heter.

I don't understand why you would think that possibly only the victim can 
report his assailant to the secular authorities. Aside from the fact 
that the source of the Rema explicity says otherwise.

*Maharach Ohr Zarua^ **(#142): ? * Therefore it would appear that while 
the victim of the beating is still angry at his assailant and he hasn?t 
calmed down by complaining to the secular authorities and he can not 
restrain himself from taking revenge ? either the victim himself or his 
relatives who are close to him   - as a result I am afraid that the 
perpetrator already has become wicked and that it is a minor thing in 
his eyes to beat him again and this will lead to murder. It is therefore 
not only the victim who is allowed to file a complaint with the secular 
authorities, but it is in fact a mitzva for everyone to report to the 
judge that Reuven hit Shimon. Therefore those who are filled with rage 
report the crime to the secular authorities so the situation will not 
escalate. And if this reporting to the secular authorities leads to the 
judge taking advantage of the perpetrator and taking away all his money 
? than the information is exempt. Because if he isn?t exempt then no 
person will attempt to save his fellow man from the assaulter. ... If 
the assailant is someone who regularly hits others and has done it 
repeatedly and openly ? and from his actions it is clear that he will 
beat up anyone who disagrees with him ? then it is a clear mitzva for 
every Jew to report him to the secular authorities and request that he 
be stopped. However if as a result of informing the secular authorities 
they mistreat him and take away all his money ? the informant is not 
liable. Whoever is involved in improper behavior or with non-Jewish 
women or with anything which might bring harm to the community ? if the 
community warns him to stop and he doesn?t listen ? it is permitted to 
inform on him to the secular government ? that he is doing disgusting 
things.

It seems clear from other sources that this ability is not limited to 
the victim

*Sema (C.M. 388:30)*:This that the abuser is not reported to the secular 
authorities is only when he is verbally abusive to the individual but if 
he causes financial loss and surely if he beats him or causes bodily 
suffering it is permitted to report him to the secular authorities as is 
stated in the Rema and the Darchei Moshe. 

If this is based on din of not standing idly by the blood of your fellow. The Rambam says:


*Rambam^ **(Hilchos Rotzeach 1:14):* Whoever has the ability to save 
someone and yet doesn?t - transgresses Vayikra (19:16): Do not stand 
idly by the blood of your fellow man. Similarly if one saw his fellow 
man drowning in the sea or being attacked by bandits or wild animals and 
he had the ability to save him himself or hiring others to save him ? 
and yet he didn?t save him. Or he heard that non-Jews or informers were 
plotting to cause someone harm and yet didn?t warn the intended victim. 
Or he knows that a non-Jew or influential person is upset with a fellow 
Jew and he has the ability to placate them and to eliminate their 
complaints and doesn?t placate them. And all similar situations which a 
person doesn?t save his fellow man when he had the ability to do so ? 
has transgressed the prohibition of ?don?t stand idly by the blood of 
your fellow man.?

If it is an aspect of rodef then again - all Jews are commanded to help

*Shulchan Aruch**^[1] * <#_ftn1>*(C.M. 425:1): *One who runs after 
another person to kill him and he is warned and yet continues pursuit ? 
even if the pursuer is a child ? all Jews are commanded to save the 
pursued by damaging a limb of the pursuer. However if that is not 
possible and the pursued can only be saved by killing the pursuer then 
he is to be killed ? even though the pursuer hasn?t yet killed the 
pursued. *Rema *If one breaks into another?s house to steal ? he also is 
considered a pursuer (rodef).  But if it is known that he only broke in 
for the sake of money and that if the owner resists he would not kill 
him ? then it is prohibited to kill him?. Someone who endangers the 
community such as being involved in counterfeiting in a country where 
the king strongly objects ? then he has the status of rodef and it is 
permitted to inform on him to the secular authorities?




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090803/820f5d98/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yadmoshe.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090803/820f5d98/attachment-0001.vcf>

Eli Turkel wrote:
>   R Broyde has an article on the
> subject in Journal of Contemporary Society 43
>
> In it his brings that the Tzitz Eliezer allows reporting crimes to
> western society governments based on the Arukh HaShulchan that todays
> governments do not kill criminals as bandits used to in the old days.

1. This makes no sense, since its premise - that the law of moser has
something to do with the government killing the victim - is patently
false.  Hamoser *mamon* chavero is no less a mosser.

So we have a machkloket Tzitz Eliezer and Zev Sero. I find it
very nervy to say he makes no sense


2. The Aruch Hashulchan absolutely cannot be relied on in this area;
his exaggerated flattery of contemporary government is transparently
designed to please the censor, and is so over the top precisely so
that the reader should understand that he doesn't mean it.  E.g. see
the title of the siman on hilchot gerut.   It's of a piece with the
siddurim that proclaimed "avinu malkenu en lanu melech *bashamayim*
ela ata"; everybody understood that the extra word was not to be said.

R. Bleich discusse this issue and disagrees with you.
So we have R. Bleich vs Zev



> R. Elyashiv concurs in a case of a robbery in the office of religious
> affairs. Informing the police will lead to an investigation which
> most likely will find one of the religious employees guilty.

And it may not.  Surely one is entitled to judge the religious employees
lechaf zechut, and assume them to be innocent and have nothing to fear.
Is there anyone who *would* call this mesirah?  Unless the fear is that
the police will pin it on an employee whether or not one is guilty, in
which case there is nobody who would permit it. >>

The case was where it was obviously an inside job. So R. Elyashiv also
disagrees with Zev


> R. Moshe Feinstein seems to allow informing the police only for
> violent crimes.

The Ramo permits the *victim* of a violent crime to masser his
assailant.  I'm not sure that other people are included in this heter.>>

However RMF does permit it. So now Zev also diasgrees with R. Moshe
Feinstein
Again read the article of R. Broyde before disagreeing with many of the major
poskim of our generation

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:46:37 -0600 Marty Bluke 
<marty.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The Minchas Chinuch is bothered by a number of questions.
>...
>He answers that the Navi never set a specific day for the fast 
only a
>month. That is why the pasuk only mentions months. After the 
churban
>bayis sheini, chazal decided to set specific days for the fasts.

Where is this M"Ch?  I'm curious, does he hold that before this it 
was not a ta'anis tzibur?

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

It always seemed Pashut to me that Moshe carved the 2nd luchos and HKBH
wrote on them

Then a rav gave a drasha that Moshe WROTE the 2nd luchos, too! I found
this far-fetched at the time. Today I find it completely untenable.

See parshas Eqev ch. 10:2-4 where it is clear that HKBH wrote on the
2nd Luchos.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

<<It is only Eile Ezkera that posits
the link with Mekhirat Yossef and a discussion on the subject with the
Roman emperor or one of his officials, that would require them to be
contemporaries.>>

From my original post I have other sources. Of course no way to know if they are
independent

Eli Turkel


>
> 2. Rabbenu Bachya = Bereshit 44:17, Bereshit 50:17, Bereshit 38:1
> Connects ketonet hapasim with a bodily punishment which ened up on the 10 sages.
> The word "anashim" appears 10 times n the parsha as a remez to the 10
> harugei malchut
>
> Yosef never gave mechila to his brothers and so they died in sin and
> so the need for the death of the 10 sages
>
> He then asks that only 9 brothers sinned since reuven was not in the conspiracy.
> He answers that the 10th brother is Yosef!!
> He caused the whole story by his behavior and so he also deserved a punishment
> Another answer is that Reuven was included because of the sin with
> Bilhah not the sin with Yosef
>
> 3. Tikunei Zohar p110
>
> The 10 harugei malchut were copies (diyuknayhu) of the sons of Yaakov
> Yosef was punished also in that he should have had 10 tribes from his
> descendants
>
> 4. R Chaim Vital parshat Vayeshev
>
> Reuven looked with ruach Hakodesh that the 10 harugei malchut were to
> be killed for
> the sin of selling Yosef by his brothers and G-d would avenge on them
>



-- 
Eli Turkel

None of the sources you quote are early. VEKML.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* How did Psalm 30 Land in the Morning Service
* Testing the Efficacy of Prayer


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 155
***************************************

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..."