Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 177

Fri, 28 Aug 2009

• 1. Re: Rambam (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: gezerot of Sanhedrin (Micha Berger)
• 3. Ch. Adam and AhS (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 4. shechiyanu on vegetables (M Cohen)
• 5. Re: Ch. Adam and AhS (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: shechiyanu on vegetables (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: [Areivim] being friendly (Celejar)
• 8. Re: Bat Melech (Celejar)
• 9. Re: Kashrus of a Restaurant Under the Supervision of its Owner (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 10. a womans places is in the home (Eli Turkel)
• 11. organ donations (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: a womans places is in the home (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 13. Re: surgery and transplants (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 14. Third and Final Temple (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: [Areivim] Third and Final Temple (Celejar)
• 16. Re: a womans places is in the home (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 17. Kol kevudah: a woman's place is in the home (Celejar)
• 18. why did yaakov bow down to eisav 7 times???? (Harvey Benton)
• 19. Shehechiyanu (Allen Gerstl)

RRW asked for where the Gra discusses the Rambam's methodology (and
how he related to the Y-mi where the Bavli had sevara, not a quoted
pesaq). It's at OC 335.
It will be interesting to contrast with RRW's source, the Bach on
the Rambam's attitude toward shaqla vetarya: EHE 6.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 05:28:03PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: As to whether one needs a sanhedrin for gezerot that is very controversial
: and goes back to the controversy on why halachot in the Gemara and Mishna
: are binding. Rambam seems to explain that simply it was accepted by
: all of Israel.

I spoke specitically of legislation: gezeiros and dinim derabbanan. It's
unclear there are any new gezeiros in the gemara, never mind any in the
small window between R' Hillel II or R' Gamliel IV and chasimas hashas.

That's different than asking how pesaqim about the interpretation of
existing dinim are binding. I think the Rambam only discusses pesaq in
the context of the authority of shas, not taqanos.

: Hence gezerot after that time are less binding though many gezerot of the
: geonim were accepted. Rabbenu Gershon who lived later had less power.

This presumes that the power to make takanos existed at all in his day.

: BTW I am not completely convinced of the difference between a prohibition and
: a cherem. Certainly the cherem is binding whether one wants to or not and
: would be enforced by a bet din.

A cheirem is based on kavod harav, not lo sasur. A rav has the power to
tell the kehillah to shun anyone who berates him, or who is in siruv.

Rabbeinu Gershom can therefore sneak in an almost-taqanah by saying that
anyone who does X, Y and Z despite his will is pogeim bekevodo, and thus
is the subject of a cheirem. That's inferior to making a new derabbanan,
even within the qehillah of his talmudim and their talmidim and offspring.

Another, more Brisker, chiluq, is that the person who reads someone
else's mail would be the cheftza of the cheirem, the people who are
supposed to shun him are the gavra'im.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

I cannot recall the last time I saw the Aruch Hashulchan quoting either
the Chayei Adam or Chochmas Adam

Since the Ch. Adam was from Litta, I might have expected him to quote
him more

Does Anybody know the history there?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

see http://tinyurl.com/m8ej2a

mordechai cohen

I cannot recall the last time I saw the Aruch Hashulchan quoting either the Chayei Adam or Chochmas Adam

Since the Ch. Adam was from Litta, I might have expected him to quote him more

Does Anybody know the history there?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

_______________________________________________
BI CD search indicates 6 quotes from Chayei adam  and 2 from chochmat.
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.

M Cohen wrote:
> see http://tinyurl.com/m8ej2a

>> [purporting to present the Magen Avraham's view]:
>> Therefore the Rabanan decreed that we do not recite Shehecheyanu
>> on *any* vegetable (even ones that are not stored away).  Even
>> though there are some types of *fruit* that are also stored, most
>> fruits are not. Therefore the Rabanan upheld the requirement to
>> recite Shehecheyanu on every new fruit.

The Magen Avraham doesn't even hint at any such thing.  "The Rabanan
decreed"?  Which "Rabanan"?  When did they decree it?  If the Rabanan
decreed something, how is it that the BY never heard of it?  There was
never any decree, and there is no "lo plug" that all fruits have a
shehecheyanu and all vegetables do not.   In fact we do *not* say
shehecheyanu on those fruits (e.g. nuts) whose old and new seasons
can't be told apart, and we *do* say it on those vegetables in which
the new season can be easily distinguished from the old.  In fact the
MA says explicitly that one says it on the new crop of grain when it
is eaten cooked rather than in bread, since the difference between the
new crop and the old is readily visible.  The MB cites Mor Uketziah
disputing this, on the grounds that although the fresh grain looks
different it tastes the same; however on kitniyot, which both look and
taste different when fresh, he agrees that one *does* say it.

Nor is what the book quotes from the MB about radishes, etc. any
chiddush of the MB.  If they'd just looked above at the Ba'er Hetev
they'd see the same thing, quoted in the name of the Perisha!  It's
a davar pashut me'od, since the Rabanan we *do* know about are the
ones in the gemara, and they said that we *do* say it on pumpkins.

BTW, what I wrote about potatoes is explicitly in the MA: the only
reason we don't say shehecheyanu on them is that they're stored
from year to year, and one can't tell the new crop from the old.
If they weren't stored, then we would say shehecheyanu.  ("New
potatoes" are not fresh potatoes from the new season, but rather
baby potatoes dug up before they have time to mature.)

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

[From Areivim, as per moderator request.]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:12:44 -0400
Joshua Meisner <jmeis...@gmail.com> wrote [on Areivim, cited with
permission]:

> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Yitzhak Grossman <cele...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> > Beruriah famously called R. Yosi Ha'Geleli a 'shoteh' for asking her
> > "be'ezeh derech nelech le'Lud" rather than "be'ezeh le'Lud", based on
> > the interdiction of "al tarbeh sihah im ha'ishah"
> >
> > Eruvin 53b -
> > http://hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=3&;daf=53b&format=text
> >
> 
> 
> RYH Henkin discusses this maamar Chazal in Bnei Vanim 4 ma'amar 4, and (in
> the introduction to a long discussion where he suggests a drastically
> different read of the sugya) cites Yabi'a Omer (6, O.Ch. 13:5), who applies
> the Levush at the end of O.Ch. regarding greater habituation to women as a
> reason why we don't follow Bruriah nowadays.

Thanks for the reference; it's available here:

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20023&;st=&pgnum=103

Yitzhak
-- 
Bein Din Le'din - http://bdld.info - *** Note change of address ***
http://bdld.info/2009/07/19/by-any-other-url/
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

[The question arose on Areivim as to the existence of early sources for
the interpretation of the verse "kol kevudah bas melech penimah" as
meaning that "a woman's place is in the home".]

How about Gittin 12a?  The Gemara there clearly understands it to imply
that a woman's place is in the home, so this is not some sort of recent
derash.

Yitzhak
-- 
Bein Din Le'din - http://bdld.info - *** Note change of address ***
http://bdld.info/2009/07/19/by-any-other-url/
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:59:18 -0400
David Riceman <drice...@att.net> wrote:

...

> The second is more abstract.  Laws of agency (shlichus) in the US are 
> very different than those in halacha.  So, for example, the firm of 
> plumbers I employ is bonded, and I don't need to check each plumber 
> individually for expertise and capacity to reimburse me for drastic 
> errors.  But in halacha if he makes a mistake the head of the firm can 
> simply shrug off the problem by saying to his employee "litkuni 
> shdartich v'lo l'avtuni".  There is no practical way in halacha to run a 
> large firm.  So the major kashrus agencies, with dozens of employees we 
> don't know personally, can run only in a non-halachic legal system.

I agree with your basic point, that a principal can generally disclaim
responsibility for his agent's misconduct, as I've written here:

http://bdld.info/2008/09/17/the-villainous-valet/

However, your conclusion, that "there is no practical way in halacha to
run a large firm", doesn't follow.  It is certainly possible to
establish contractual liability of the owner for his worker's
misconduct.  Of course, the arrangements would have to be carefully
constructed by an expert in Hoshen Mishpat to avoid problems of
asmachta and possibly other concerns (just as a legal contract should
be reviewed / crafted by a legal expert), but I see no reason why this
should be impossible in principle.

Yitzhak
-- 
Bein Din Le'din - http://bdld.info - *** Note change of address ***
http://bdld.info/2009/07/19/by-any-other-url/
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

I << So, could someone please point out to me the first time that
&quot;Kol kevuda
 was used to mean that women stay home?
; AFAIK, the meaning is that a King's daughter's beauty is internal, her soul
(rather than the outer layer of riches etc.)  This compliments the Eishet
Chayil saying: &quot;Sheker HaChen... Isha Yir'at HaShem Hi TitHallal
;
Any sources?

How about Gittin 12a?  The Gemara there clearly understands it to imply
that a woman's place is in the home, so this is not, as you seem to
think, some sort of recent derash. >>


lost the relevance.
The gemara is saying that one can't expect a woman to go to a strange city
and find a job. Certainly until recently women did not travel by themselves=
 and work in strange places.
What has that to do with staying home all day and not going out.

RAL has a study on women lighting chanukah candles. The Chatam Sofer
defends women not lighting because it was done at the edge of the yard and
women didnt go outside. RAL rejects that on the grounds that it is
inconceivable that women never went even to the doorway of the local
yard (chatzer).

Eli Turkel

halachic organ donations

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3764753,00.html

-- 
Eli Turkel

How about a bar-ilan cd search of shas, midrashim, and posqim?

Does ROY have anything to say about this?

KT
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 15:27:29 +0300
Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> 7. Malbim on prohibition to remarry one's wife after she has been
> remarried (based on Sifre)
> and divorced&quot; . To prevent a case where a rich man offers money
> to a poor man
> to divorce his wife which he will marry under the understanding that later
> the rich man will divorce the woman and she can return to her poor husband.
> Of course after living with the rich man she is no longer interested in the poor
> ex-husband. This can lead to jealosy and then to bloodshed
> 
> Thus the Torah is teaching us that it is despicable for a rich man to coerce a
> poor man with an offer of money to do activities he wouldn't want to
> do otherwise

I don't think that this is a fair reading of Malbim.  As you yourself
note, his focus is not on the "despicability" of the rich man's
"coercion" of the poor man by tempting him with money and making him an
offer that he can't refuse; rather, it is clear from both his language
here as well as the context of his entire discussion there that the
objection is to the poisonous consequences to marital relationships
attendant on wife-swapping, which he suggests can ultimately result in
bloodshed, something very familiar to any student of literature, with
its many analyses of love triangles and romantic dysfunction.  I don't
think that an extrapolation to offering a poor man money for his organ
is quite warranted.

Yitzhak
-- 
Bein Din Le'din - http://bdld.info - *** Note change of address ***
http://bdld.info/2009/07/19/by-any-other-url/
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

R' Martin Brody asked on Areivim:
> Can anybody give me the source for this idea, please?
> For example not only did Julian offer to rebuild, but Hadrian made a promise
> too, neither time bringng Messianic excitement. (Bar Kochba came after
> Hadrian failed to keep his promise)

I'm not sure how that parenthetic sentence works, since it would seem to
be that BK was a reaction to crushed dreams. Messianism was in the air,
why not because the talk of the third bayis put it there?

R' Rafi Goldmeir replied (also on Areivim):
> I asked (I among a couple of other people) Rabbi Richman from the Temple 
> Institute whether the Third Temple will be the final temple.
> He said two things:

> 1. Who says the next Temple will be the third? There were a few previous 
> attempts, even successful to varying degreesm to build Batei Mikdash in 
> different time sin history. So the next one might not be #3, but might 
> be 4, 5, or 6. I dont remember the time periods he mentioned (the 
> conversation was a few years ago), but he mentioned a couple.

> 2. There is no source that says the Third Temple will last forever and 
> not be destroyed. So it might not be the final Temple, just like the 1st 
> was not nor was the second.

> Hopefully it will be, and hopefully it will be soon.

See RSRH on parashas Shemini. Leshitaso, the next beis hamiqdash with be
the eighth:
    Sinai
    Gilgal
    Shilo
    Nov
    Gid'on
    Bayis Rishon
    Bayis Sheini
and Bayis Shelishi, bb"a!

These are paralleled by the 8 days of milu'im, and RSRH's entire symbology
for 8 as lemaalah min hateva -- beyond the week. Which would imply that
there will be one and only one more chanukas habayis. (To whatever extent
you find RSRH's shitah compelling.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:12:13 -0700
martin brody <martinlbr...@gmail.com> wrote [on Areivim, cited with
permission, moved here as per moderator request]:

> Can anybody give me the source for this idea, please?
> For example not only did Julian offer to rebuild, but Hadrian made a promise
> too, neither time bringng Messianic excitement. (Bar Kochba came after
> Hadrian failed to keep his promise)

This link (that I recently posted), and the pages it links to, are
probably a good starting point:

http://menachemmendel.net/blog/2009/08/19/julian-the-apostate-and-t
he-jews/

Yitzhak
-- 
Bein Din Le'din - http://bdld.info - *** Note change of address ***
http://bdld.info/2009/07/19/by-any-other-url/
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:39:37 +0300
Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:

[quoting me]

> How about Gittin 12a?  The Gemara there clearly understands it to imply
> that a woman's place is in the home, so this is not, as you seem to
> think, some sort of recent derash. >>
> 
> 
> lost the relevance.
> The gemara is saying that one can't expect a woman to go to a strange city
> and find a job. Certainly until recently women did not travel by themselves=
>  and work in strange places.
> What has that to do with staying home all day and not going out.

If you peruse the context of the thread, you'll see that I was merely
responding to RnSB's claim that "kol kevudah" refers to internal beauty
of the soul, as opposed to an outer layer of riches, and she
challenged us to provide a source for the interpretation that implies
that "a woman's place is in the home".

The exact extent of the sort of gallivanting the Gemara is
disparaging is, of course, debatable.

Yitzhak
-- 
Bein Din Le'din - http://bdld.info - *** Note change of address ***
http://bdld.info/2009/07/19/by-any-other-url/
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

[We are discussing, on Areivim and off-list, the early sources for the
interpretation of the verse "kol kevudah bas melech penimah".]

[An edited version of an email of mine:]

> How about Gittin 12a?  The Gemara there clearly understands it to imply
> that a woman's place is in the home, so this is not some sort of recent derash.

[Someone objected (off-list) that the Gemara's maskana seems to actually
be a rejection of the assumption of the hava amina that a woman's place
is in the home.  An edited version of my response:]

Yevamos 77a is another explicit source that derives the norm that a
woman's place is in the home from "kol kevudah".  [It is possible,
albeit implausible in my view, that there is also a dissenting
exegetical view there.]

Indeed, Hasam Sofer (Resp. EH II:99) also initially suggests that the
maskana of the Gemara in Gittin is a rejection of the principle of kol
kevudah (in the sense we are discussing here), but he proves from the
Gemara in Yevamos (which he considers to be an undisputed assertion of
the principle) that the maskana in Gittin is simply that although it is
certainly true that kol kevudah, this is still insufficient basis to
require the husband to maintain his wife in the circumstance in
question.

Additionally, we still have Rambam (Ishus 13:11 - the quote which
sparked this subthread) who does use the verse as a source for the
injunction against a woman leaving her home too often.

Yitzhak
-- 
Bein Din Le'din - http://bdld.info - *** Note change of address ***
http://bdld.info/2009/07/19/by-any-other-url/
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

does anyone know what this represents, and has it helped or hurt (or neutral) us through the ages......hb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090828/307c28a2/attachment-0001.htm>

On  Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:36:02 -0400
R Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Wrote:Subject: Re: [Avodah] shechiyanu


                      .      .      . 
>... The reason we don't say shehecheyanu on potatoes is not >that
>they're vegetables but that they;re stored all year; if >they
>weren't, we would. As the article you linked to says, it's >an
>explicit gemara that we do say it on pumpkins, since they >are only
>available in their season.

 

A question:

 

What of fruits and vegetables that are shipped in to your community from
various faraway places as they become seasonally available  at those
places, notwithstanding that they are seasonal crops, only available in
season wherever they grow and that do not store too well?  Thus, as an
example, kiwis are available throughout the year  where I live, however
they are brought in from Italy during summer in the Northern Hemisphere and
from Australia and New Zealand or from Chili in the Southern Hemisphere
during summer in the Southern Hemisphere. However although kiwis are thus
seasonal crops, they are available now throughout the year because of such
shipping.  In fact if you checked you might find that almost any crop that
is seasonal and does not store well might still be available.  Would we
thus perhaps require that the fruit or vegetable not be shipped in
throughout the entire year from such various locals and/or also that it is
not usually stored (and also what is the meanin
 g of "storage" need such be storage as a fresh fruit or vegetable or is it
 considered as storage if the fruit or vegetable is commonly frozen or what
 if it is available as a canned food?

 

KT
Eliyahu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090828/f361797e/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 177
***************************************

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..."