Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 173

Fri, 21 Aug 2009

• 1. Re: following mesorah (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: lo plog (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: inconceivable-- Ben Sorer uMoreh (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: lo plog (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Re: lo plog (Zev Sero)
• 6. assur to go to the Kotel on Shabbat? (Ben Waxman)
• 7. tefillin RT (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Mesorah (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Mesorah (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: saves a life, or a Jewish life? (Simon Montagu)
• 11. Re: lo plog (Daniel Israel)
• 12. talmud Torah (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: Mesorah (Rich, Joel)
• 14. Re: Mesorah (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Mesorah (Daniel Israel)
• 16. Re: talmud Torah (Daniel Israel)
• 17. Re: Qaddish and Women (Chana Luntz)
• 18. K'lalei Rambam (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 19. Re: assur to go to the Kotel on Shabbat? (Micha Berger)

Eli Turkel wrote:
>  In a Teshuvah, the Rambam (Sheilos
> V'Teshuvos HaRambam, Blau Edition, Chelek 2 Siman 289) also writes
> that Rav Hal Gaon himself wore Tefillin with the Parshiyos in the
> order that they appear in the Torah, and he asserts forcefully that
> this is the Halacha, as he rules in his Mishneh Torah (Hilchos
> Tefillin 3:5). The Ra'avad, however, both there (Ibid.) and in a
> Teshuvah (Sheilos V'Teshuvos Tamim De'im Siman 79), disagrees and
> accepts the other view.

The Rambam is a more interesting case: his mesorah was like RT, and
from bar mitzvah until the age of 18 that is what he wore.  Then he
became convinced that the halacha was like Rashi, so he changed his
tefillin.

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

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 05:45:38AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
[R Eli Turkel:]
:> More generally in some cases we say X is different than Y and so the
:> prohibition of Y does not apply and in other cases we say lo plog

: imho this is a specific case of a more general question - is the
: halachic process reproducible?

Is this a question -- I thought the answer was clearly "no". E.g.
gezeiros. There are gezeiros for some cheshashos that are real
stretches, and yet nothing protecting things that nowadays are often done
incorrectly. (Hand clapping on Shabbos vs amirah le'aqum for tzarkhei
rabbim, as an example.) I think the only way to understand which things
get a gezeirah is to assume that in practice at the time when there was a
Sanhedrin that /could/ make a gezeira, those were the things that people
actually did err on.

Another problem is that the halachic process is non-deterministic, and
thus what people actually chose to do, and how a particular poseiq
happened to see the options, does end up being why we hold one way and
not the other.

E.g. It's not that Beis Hillel's pesaqim are more correct, it's that
they became current in the larger school that showed kavod to the other
school. The history ended up shaping the flow of halakah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is capable of changing the world for the
mi...@aishdas.org        better if possible, and of changing himself for
http://www.aishdas.org   the better if necessary.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

Michael Makovi wrote:
>>> Which chachamim?  Bear in mind that the halacha accepted by everybody
>>> until about 1800 was that one may *not* do so, and *not* to worry about
>>> eivah.

> Let's change that 8 in 1800 to a 9. Mishnah Berurah 330:8,
> [....]
> Later, Hatam Sofer notes that whereas in Abbaye's time, the gentiles
> would accept the excuse, this is not so today

The Chasam Sofer was well before the MB.


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

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 05:45:38AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
[R Eli Turkel:]
:> More generally in some cases we say X is different than Y and so the :> prohibition of Y does not apply and in other cases we say lo plog

: imho this is a specific case of a more general question - is the
: halachic process reproducible?

Is this a question -- I thought the answer was clearly "no". E.g.
gezeiros. There are gezeiros for some cheshashos that are real stretches,
and yet nothing protecting things that nowadays are often done incorrectly.
(Hand clapping on Shabbos vs amirah le'aqum for tzarkhei rabbim, as an
example.) I think the only way to understand which things get a gezeirah is
to assume that in practice at the time when there was a Sanhedrin that
/could/ make a gezeira, those were the things that people actually did err
on.

Micha

======================================

Don't think so - that would be reproducible - i.e. if we knew what the
practice at the time was, we would come up with the same result.  I'm
talking about examples where in case A we say Lo Plug but not in B which
seems the same "stretch".  Even more recently (where your explanation would
be less likely) why do we sometimes see  poskim saying things like, "in
this case we're choshesh for the deiah of X" wheras in other cases X is
dismissed as a daas yachid?



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.

AIUI "lo plug rabanan" doesn't mean that the rabanan *can't* make
distinctions, but that they don't have to make every distinction that
could conceivably be made.  When they make a takanah they can build
exceptions into it, if they think of them and think it appropriate to
exclude them, but at some point they can decide "OK, no more exceptions
to this rule, we're done", and one can't then come along and make ones
own exceptions.  But for this to apply there has to have been an actual
takanah, where they could have made (more) exceptions and chose not to.


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

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3763033,00.html

What is the actual issur here?

Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090820/692f3e0d/attachment-0001.htm>

RET

http://www.tzemachdovid.org/thepracticaltorah/bo.shtml

among those who agree with Rabbeinu Tam are
Rabbeinu Chananel, Rav Sherira Gaon,
Rav Hai Gaon,
 and the Rif;
the Rashba (Sheilos
V'Teshuvos HaRashba attributed to the Ramban Siman 234) cites Rav
Saadyah Gaon as concurring as well.

On the other side, the Rashba himself (Ibid.) concludes that Rashi 's
order is correct, adding that
Rabbeinu Yonah and the Ramban held that way too;
the Sefer HaChinuch
(Mitzvah 421) also accepts this position, ..."

This question is somewhat rhetorical

Given this how can we make a bracha on any given sheeta of Tefillin?

OR
IOW via what mechanics can we defitively settle this post-Tallmudic
dispute decisively enough to overcome "s'feiq brachos lehaqeil"?

KT
RRW

If RSZL has any authority WRT the discussion of the CI from an
impact-on-halakhah POV, it's because of the "R", not the "Prof".>>

I am not sure how one subdivides the person. His opinions are not
segregated by title.
R Prof Leiman is not a professional rabbi or posek.

How about Sperber who in addition to be professor is also a rabbi of
a shul in the old city of Yerushalayim. Interestingly he writes that his
congregants are more conservative (small c) than him and wouldn't
allow some of his heterim in the shul.

In general I didn't understand the post of Micha. An academic discussing
a gemara or a shita in the rishonim does not expect to affect psak.
He is writing in his field and why would one expect it to affect a
different field.
I dont think that Haym Soloveitchik intends to change any piskei halacha in his
analysis even though he was a rebbe in YU.

On a personal level I have read many of the books on Jewish customs/history
bu Sperber, Auerbach,Ta Shma, Grossman and others and have found that
I learned a lot
from them and they have even affected my learning of gemara.

As a trivial example I am disturbed by people asking a contradiction between
different tosafot in different masechtot without realizing that they
may have been
written by different people.
Knowing something of the history of how tosafot were composed and how
they entered
our printed editions could affect how one relies on our versions
versus a tosafot
haRosh or manuscript data.
A famous example is women reading megilla. From the printed tosafot it
is not clear what they are referring to. However from Tosafot haRosh
it is clear that they prohibited
women reading for men and not other women.

In summary when I learn or teach I frequently will bring in historical
information (just did that in the discussion about Baba Butra and the
bet hamikdash in Baba Basra)
Doesnt mean that I would change halacha according.
However that doesnt diminish a historical analysis.

BTW there are claims that the Rambam did change psak if he felt that the
answer of the gemara was dechuka.

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 09:21:03AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> If RSZL has any authority WRT the discussion of the CI from an
:> impact-on-halakhah POV, it's because of the "R", not the "Prof".
: 
: I am not sure how one subdivides the person. His opinions are not
: segregated by title.
: R Prof Leiman is not a professional rabbi or posek.

I know that; I grew up around the corner from his home and we davened
in the same small shul, after all. Which is why I wrote "if he has any",
to distinguish from the CI (to pick another name from the discussion.

I'm having a disagreement with someone who believes that without a
Sanhedrin, halakhah is a science, and therefore an academic's opinion
carries equal halachic weight in his eyes as somoene who thinks in the
modes that grew up alongside the material as part of the mesorah.

You appear to agree below that a "Rabbi ... PhD" would slide into two
different modes of thought depending on the context. Whether he "expect[s]
to affect psak" (or at least his own behavior) or not. And I agree that
of course, since they're both from one mind, each informs the other.

However, in terms of *authority* being a great academic doesn't make
one an authority in rabbinic mode thinking. And therefore, if RMM wants
me to care about what RZSL says for the sake of a disscussion that is
about what the halakhah is, then the R' is the relevent title -- and
that difference is itself part of the conversation.

....
: In general I didn't understand the post of Micha. An academic discussing
: a gemara or a shita in the rishonim does not expect to affect psak.

My entire point is just that the two are distinct.

And so, RMShapiro's book about who believed what had no impact on whether
I wwould use wine handled by someone who only believed a subset of the
ikkarim. (I think RMShinnar and I disagree over whether the 13 ikkarim
were acceptd to an extent that they are halakhah; not on this point,
if they were.)

To return to where this thread began... RMM wrote in v26n121 quoting
RMShapiro's article on how Brisk could't be the intent of the Rambam.
His conclusion from that quote was that RMShapiro was jutifying Brisk's
authority on basically deconstrutionist grounds. I spent some time
thinking about academia, deconstructionism and how halakhah works, and
re-started the discussion explaining how I thought mesorah, being an
Oral Culture (even if not actually entirely oral anymore; the caps are
to denote my use of a buzzword), differed. In short, because the
tradition on interprettion, the culture of the batei midrash and beis
medrashes is part of the general flow. One therefore isn't left with
the dichotomy of original intent vs personal encounter
(deconstructionism).

I then continued that this basic error, viewing a pesaq as a stand-along
point to understand in one of those two terms, pulls one away from the
modality of thought that produces halakhah. RET, you find this point so
self evident, my saying so confused you. However, it seems clear to me
from my discussion with RMM here and on Nishma Blog (in response to a
entry by RMM) that RMM does not. And, after all, look at his usual pool
of sources cited here on Avodah. Do they reflect an awareness of the
significance of the difference of expertise in the two disciplines?

...
: In summary when I learn or teach I frequently will bring in historical
: information (just did that in the discussion about Baba Butra and the
: bet hamikdash in Baba Basra)
: Doesnt mean that I would change halacha according.
: However that doesnt diminish a historical analysis.

I consider it dimished in the sense that it's not the ikkar qiyum
hamitzvah of talmud Torah for the same reasons that it doesn't influence
pesaq. Not less important than studying science qua maasei Hashem.

...
: BTW there are claims that the Rambam did change psak if he felt that the
: answer of the gemara was dechuka.

I think more that the Rambam pasqened according to pesaqim more than
sevaros. Therefore, the Gra writes that if the Bavli had a shaqla
vetarya that concluded some peshat, but the Y-mi had an explicit "Amar
Ribbi ..." the Rambam would follow the Y-mi. Which would rule out his
following 98% of the dechuqos on those grounds.

How much the Rambam believed that halakhah is a science is a different
discussion. I think RMM would be closer to incorrect if we were all
following the Yad rather than the SA and Mappa. But that's for a later
post.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Michael Makovi <mikewindd...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > It sort of depends on the precision of the translation. Is it "as though
> > he saved all of humanity" or "all of the people" [ie the Jewish People]?
> > You quote the latter.
> >
> > R' Micha
>
> Of course, if anyone knows Arabic, please speak up; the website from
> which I quoted the Koran in English also has the original Arabic on
> the same page.
>

It would be an exaggeration to say that I know Arabic, but I know how to use
an Arabic dictionary, and "all of humanity" seems to be the correct
translation of "alnas aljamia`" (nas is cognate to Hebrew enosh and Aramaich
nash).

The translations of the Koran that I own also translate it this way: "he who
saveth a life shall be as though he had saved all mankind alive" (J M
Rodwell 1909); "hamehhaye [nefesh] ke'ilu hehhya et kol ha'adam yahhdav" (Y
Y Rivlin 1987)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090819/fc1251f4/attachment-0001.htm>

Zev Sero wrote:
> AIUI "lo plug rabanan" doesn't mean that the rabanan *can't* make
> distinctions, but that they don't have to make every distinction that
> could conceivably be made.

I thought it was past tense, that is, "the Rabbanan didn't distinguish." 
  The point being that this is an observation of what the Rabbanan 
actually did, rather than the statement of a principle.  The Rabbanan 
were able to establish gezeiros as they saw appropriate, and we are 
simply observing the various cases of lo plug, where they didn't make a 
distinction, and trying to postulate a rule.  Given that various 
gezeiros were made by different rabbanan, it is not clear that there 
needs to be one.

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

<<I consider it diminished in the sense that it's not the ikkar qiyum
hamitzvah of talmud Torah for the same reasons that it doesn't influence
pesaq>>

Micha brings up a different point that is not completely clear.
What defines Talmud Torah
examples

learning dikduk?
learning Jewish history especially about talmud scholars
learning academic studies of talmud - eg Urbach, E. E., Ba'alei
HaTosafot (The Tosafists)
or perhaps academic articles that study a sugya instead about people
Using game theory to explain a sugya - Aumann
also http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2008/06/10/how-game-
theory-solved-a-religious-mystery/

using probability theory to explain Rov and a sugya in kinnim
astronomy for studying kiddush hachodesh and related issues
studies of what was in bet hamikdash/mishkan

I have heard from RYBS that learning gemara on a rabbinic law is a kiyum
of the biblical mirzvah of talmud torah -  is this obvious?


-- 
Eli Turkel

 

: In summary when I learn or teach I frequently will bring in historical
: information (just did that in the discussion about Baba Butra and the
: bet hamikdash in Baba Basra)
: Doesnt mean that I would change halacha according.
: However that doesnt diminish a historical analysis.

I consider it dimished in the sense that it's not the ikkar qiyum hamitzvah
of talmud Torah for the same reasons that it doesn't influence pesaq. Not
less important than studying science qua maasei Hashem.

...
=========================================================
Would you agree that the implication of this approach is that HKB"H doesn't
care as much about the results as he does about the process and asks us to
exclude from our considerations facts or approaches that one normally would
take into consideration in trying to find objective truth.

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.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 09:13:51AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Would you agree that the implication of this approach is that HKB"H
: doesn't care as much about the results as he does about the process and
: asks us to exclude from our considerations facts or approaches that one
: normally would take into consideration in trying to find objective truth.

Sort of, although I disagree with the phrasing. It's not so much a neglect
of objective truth in favor of the process as much as the process and
our immersion in it (and thus subjective) being the truth in question.
Objectively, it's all approximations of the Mind of G-d, Divrei E-lokim
Chaim. Halakhah is man creating a model of that, via the system.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 03:42:35 -0600 Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> 
wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 09:21:03AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
>: In summary when I learn or teach I frequently will bring in 
historical
>: information (just did that in the discussion about Baba Butra 
and the
>: bet hamikdash in Baba Basra)
>: Doesnt mean that I would change halacha according.
>: However that doesnt diminish a historical analysis.
>
>I consider it dimished in the sense that it's not the ikkar qiyum
>hamitzvah of talmud Torah for the same reasons that it doesn't 
influence
>pesaq. Not less important than studying science qua maasei Hashem.

I agree with your overall point, but I think it is a complex one to 
argue, in part because the lines are not a sharp as you draw them

To take a (hopefully good) concrete example.  I heard somewhere 
that R' Ya'akov Kamenetsky would use a thalet rather than a dalet 
in the echad of shema.  Leaving aside the reliability of the story 
(my chavrusa asked two of his grandsons, one thought it was 
plausible, the other dismissed it), it is clear that the reason 
this is interesting, assuming it is true, is because of RYK's 
status as a posek, not his status as an academic.  In that sense I 
am supporting your thesis.  If I want to know historically what the 
actually ancient pronunciation was RYK is not an authoritative 
source, I would rather speak to an academic expert in linguistic 
archeology.  OTOH, if I am interested in halacha l'ma'aseh, RYK is 
a very significant source, regardless of what the historical truth 
is.

OTOH, to the best of my knowledge, there is very little purely 
halachic material on which one could decide to use a thalet.  It is 
consistent with certain halachic sources, such as the SA's ruling 
that it needs to be drawn out.  And it is consistent with Temani 
pronunciation.  But I would suspect that any posek considering such 
a position is being informed by academic scholarship, not by a 
mesorah for that idea.  Ain hachi nami, they are using the academic 
scholarship to raise the issue, and then filtering it through the 
mesorah to reach a conclusion.  In that sense it is similar to a 
rav asking an MD about a medical shaila.  But it does blur the 
lines your are drawing.

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

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:13:02 -0600 Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> 
wrote:
><<I consider it diminished in the sense that it's not the ikkar 
qiyum
>hamitzvah of talmud Torah for the same reasons that it doesn't 
influence
>pesaq>>
>
>Micha brings up a different point that is not completely clear.
>What defines Talmud Torah
>examples
>
>learning dikduk?

AFAIR, Rambam at least says this one explicitly (I don't remember 
where).

As far as your other examples, one can be m'kayim the mitzvah of 
talmud Torah with many different things, but that doesn't mean they 
are all equal ikkar.  (I heard b'shem one RY that for talmidim at a 
certain level, Gemara w/ Rashi is bitul Torah.)  Can't the same be 
true of your examples?

I guess the nafka mina would be a case where the halacha depends on 
something being TT.  I would think all of these would be assur on 
9Av (but one could argue because of general inappropriateness 
rather than TT).  Which of these would work for osek b'mitzva patur 
min hamitzva?

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

 

RDI writes:

> But, if it was instituted originally for a yasom, who cannot
> act as sha"tz, and it was originally instituted as a single 
> sayer, then we see that it either is not a davar 
> shebikedusha, or it is a special exception of some sort.  If 
> a katan can lead it, why not an isha?  
> Unless, as I say above, it was not instituted for katanim, 
> but for am haratzim- in which case we should posken today 
> that a katan can't lead (does anyone hold like that?).

Well the Rema in the Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah siman 376, si'if 4 states
explicitly that it was instituted for the katanim, so obviously no.  

The Shut of the Meharil in siman 28 which is one of the key sources for this
Rema  was written specifically to address the following question - "The
great of the generation asked ... and also the reason why it is called the
Orphan Kaddish.  And why minors say this kaddish since it is a d'var
shebekadusha."  His answer is that it was metaken specifically for katanim,
and that katanim can say it, because it is not a chova.
 
> Just thinking "out loud".
> 
> --
> Daniel M. Israel
> 

Regards

Chana

I am researching the issue of Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. The Rambam AFAIK
is silent

I once recall that the Rambam leaves certain "gray" areas as undecided
by simply not discussing them

Any further information on either

How the Rambam works with these cases
OR
What the Rambam's true position was - would be helpful

Gut'n Chodesh
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 05:31:14AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3763033,00.html
: What is the actual issur here?

Psiq reishei, questionably nicha lei, on the indicator lamp on the
security camera.

:-)BBii!
-Micha


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 173
***************************************

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..."