Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 196

Wed, 30 Sep 2009

• 1. R Elyashiv and crocs on YK (Cantor Wolberg)
• 2. Re: psak and rationality (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Wanted Sources on Critical thinking in English (Shmuel Weidberg)
• 4. Re: a community taking seriously the text of piyutim it says (Shmuel Weidberg)
• 5. Re: lulav on shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: R Elyashiv and crocs on YK (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: psak and rationality (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: psak and rationality (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: psak and rationality (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 10. Re: psak and rationality (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: "Hashem" as God's name (David Riceman)
• 12. Re: a community taking seriously the text of piyutim it says (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: psak and rationality (Rich, Joel)
• 14. toiveling/electrical (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 15. Re: psak and rationality (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: toiveling/electrical (Simon Montagu)
• 17. RSRH on Hallel (Yitzchok Levine)

According to his reasoning, R' Elyashiv says that there should not be  
a level of comfort.  The following is a quote from the article:
"His reasoning behind the ruling is that they are too comfortable, and  
thus don't provide the level of suffering one should feel on the  
holiday."

Since when are we supposed to cause additional suffering on Y"K --  
especially involving footwear. The reasons for no leather have nothing
to do with comfort.  According to his ruling, sneakers should also not  
be allowed. Sneakers, for many, including myself, are extremely  
comfortable!
More comfortable than leather shoes.

Y"K is not a day of mourning. I would like to understand where this  
idea of suffering comes from. There is sufficient suffering from  
fasting and from
confessing our aveiros.

ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090929/c17744c0/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 7:50pm EDT, Cantor Wolberg wrote on a different
thread ("R Elyashiv and crocs on YK"):
: Y"K is not a day of mourning. I would like to understand where this  
: idea of suffering comes from. There is sufficient suffering from  
: fasting and from confessing our aveiros.

"Ve'inisem es nafshoseikhem", which is defined by 5 inuyim, one of which
is the one in question.

As I said, it depends on whether you define inui as suffering, or define
"inui" as a chalos sheim and then define the ta'am hamitzvah from the
5 things prohibited.

The parallel question: Why do we raise the question of the purpose of
the mechitzah not being served by a 10 tefach partition, rather than
defining the purpose of the mechitzah *given* that a 10 tefach soreg was
enough to define the furthest limit of approach for nachriim in the BHMQ,
and thus it would seem here too?

This is akin to the question RAM asked about the number of teeth. On
Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:16pm GMT, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: For example, my understanding is that the word "giluach" has different
: meanings for men and for women. The act of scraping away facial hair
: with a blade is called "giluach" for a man, and therefore it is assur
: because the Torah prohibited "giluach". But that same act is not called
: "giluach" on a woman, and since "giluach" is what the Torah forbade,
: a woman is allowed. Similarly, it is possible that some of those white
: things in a Jewish mouth are called "teeth" while the same things in
: a non-Jewish mouth are not called "teeth". Or maybe vice versa -- did
: that gadol say what the different numbers are?

Do we know the halakhah is based on a false difference in the number of
teeth, or are we defining "teeth" in two different ways, based on what
the halakhah implies?

WRT the alleged pesaaq by two rabbanim about Shabbos elevators, I don't
have that question. We are told that the engineering came first.

I wouldn't so much say that the pesaq is "wrong" (although I believe I
did yesterday) as much as it would apply to a different device than the
Shabbos elevators actually in use.

I say this in parallel to Chazal's dirt-mice. It's not that they pasqened
incorrectly, they pasqened the status of a creature their contemporary
natural philosophers thought existed, and if you ever find a mouse
that arises aboigenically from dirt, it really would be kosher -- they
were correct.

I must confess I really do not have much emunas chakhamim when it comes
to things found on pashkevilin. They too rarely actually reflect the
words of the chakhamim named, and when they do, it's inaccurate. To
the point that even after the statement was independently confirmed,
I still harbor suspicion.

Bringing the matter back to the question of trusting a poseiq who says
such things about the number of teeth in a Yehudi vs a nakhri... He
may be using mamarei chazal to justify his daas Torah, and thus it's
post-facto reasoning.

Pesaq more often comes down to the rules of authority rather than the
determination of truth.

And the CI held that the Torah was determined during the middle 2
millenia, and any errors in science were siyata diShmaya in producing
the Torah we have. In which case, the poseiq would be correct in working
as if the statement is true even if he knows it isn't.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:20 PM,  <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My daughter is writing a paper on "critical thinking in religion"
> She wants only "frum" sources - preferably with English

http://tora.us.fm/tnk1/kma/qjrim1/pti.html
pesi yaamin lechol davar - mishlei 14:15

Regards,
Shmuel

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Michael Poppers
<MPopp...@kayescholer.com> wrote:

> ** Chaq zichronos _v'qolos_ eser/the measure of remembrance _and of Shofar
> tones_ is ten **;

I think the ten kolos can refer to the:
tekiah shevarim-teruah tekiah
tekiah shevarim tekiah
tekiah teruah tekiah

If you count the shevarim-teruah as two kolos we blow ten kolos by all
the berachos.

Regards,
Shmuel

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:31pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote:
: 1. How can ther be a makhloket between Bar Hedya and Ravin whether Hoshana
: Rabbah actually falls on shabbat - its a factual question. Furthermore
: why rely on these people coming from EY. Even the Babylonians eventually
: found out when RH was and hence Hoshana Rabbah (and in fact Hoshana Rabbah
: on the 21st most communities knew in time). Of course we know that with
: the fixed calendar Hoshana Rabbah cannot fall on shabbat like Bar Hedya.

When was "lo ad"u Rosh" instituted? Is it possible that the calendar
was being modified during the third generation of amora'im?

If so, it would ansert both of RET's questions.

They needed testimony from maaravah, because that's where the calendar
work occurs.

AND, Ravin wasn't arguing with Bar Hedya, he was giving a later snapshot
of the changing of the rules then in progress.

Bar Hedya knew how to be poteir chalomos. Abayei and Rava would go to
him. I couldn't get dates on his life, but Abayei was niftar before Rava,
in 339 CE. Rava was niftar in 350. I also couldn't find dates on Ravin,
but his father was R' Adda, making him Rabbah's brother. Rabbah was niftar
slightly before then, in 330. This means that both Bar Hedya and Ravin
returned from Maaravah with their respective reports some time in the
same generation.

Under Rabbi Yehudah, who led from 300-300 CE -- the time in question,
al pi re'iyah was a formality. Rabbi Yosi, also the same generation,
is the one who told Benei Bavel to stick to their minhag avos.

I would therefore argue that these reports were about a system in flux
as they worked on tightening it.

Rabbi Hillel (330-365 CE) was the one to publish our current rules. This
was during the rule of Constantius y"sh, who made it impossible for the
Sanhedrin to meet regularl. (One year, the Sanhedrin of that era was
forced to add a second Elul as they couldn't meet in time for Adar. This
is historically interesting since the early Babylonians would double
Ellu and only switched to doubling Addu when they switched to a 19 yr
cycle. All of which was probably AFTER their court was stocked with
neviim; how much after depends on how one resolved the 168 year problem
of dating galus Bavel against their records.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Cantor Wolberg wrote:

> Since when are we supposed to cause additional suffering on Y"K -- 
> especially involving footwear. The reasons for no leather have
> nothing to do with comfort.

Says who?  That is the crucial question.  The halacha is indeed
according to the rishonim who hold that the prohibition is only on
leather, but that doesn't invalidate the rishonim who hold otherwise.


> According to his ruling, sneakers should also not be allowed.

Ein hochi nami; who said otherwise?



> Y"K is not a day of mourning. I would like to understand where this
> idea  of suffering comes from.

Vayikra 16:29,31 

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

 

And the CI held that the Torah was determined during the middle 2 millenia,
and any errors in science were siyata diShmaya in producing the Torah we
have. In which case, the poseiq would be correct in working as if the
statement is true even if he knows it isn't.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

=======================================================
Does anyone have the source where the CI states this?
In addition, are there any antecedents to this holding and how does it corellate with the hashkafa that chazal knew all of science etc.?
GT
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:
> Pesaq more often comes down to the rules of authority rather than the 
> determination of truth.
 
Micha and I have oft debated this... 
 
So w/out taking a partisan POV, I wonder if there is a way to quantify
research into this. IOW can we say that out of 11,496 [illustration]
pisqei dinim in SA, how many are based upon svara vs. Authority of the
source. I'd be willing to bet that the "accepted practice" component
is the single biggest "determinator". Yet, no doubt that RY Caro,
over-weighted the authority of the Rif and the Rambam, so Micha is
essentially correct. I would just like to see that assertion quantified,
if possible
 
Gmar Tov 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RJR 
> does it corellate with the hashkafa that chazal knew all of science etc.? 
> Joel Rich
 
AIUI 
I would rephrase that to mean 
 
Hazal had access to advanced science 
But they were not scientifically omniscient 
 
I have no reason to believe that there were zero gaps in their knowledge.
 
Just at times they knew about advanced conecpts, too .
They might have know that their is such a thing as a radio, or space
travel, or powerful bombs, w/o knowing the specifics of how to engineer
them.
 
KT 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 06:01:48PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Micha and I have oft debated this... 

I think this is a different question.

: So w/out taking a partisan POV, I wonder if there is a way to quantify
: research into this. IOW can we say that out of 11,496 [illustration]
: pisqei dinim in SA, how many are based upon svara vs. Authority of the
: source...

I'm discussing whether the poseiq is out to find truth, or whether he
is authorized to define law. That question is whether the poseiq finds
truth or defines law given precedent or rationale.

One can use sevara to reason out what the truth is, or rely on meqoros to
tell you what the truth is. If we're trying to get some objective reality.

If, however, halakhah is a construct, that HQBH gave us a system by
which we create or define halakhah, then it's a matter of what authority
was granted the poseiq. That authority might be binding even if the
science was wrong. It does fit chazal's read of "afilu yomru lakh al
semol shehu yemin..."

The CI's model appear to say that's true for years 2000 to 4000 AM.
Which would mean that we may have to pretend that scientific claims made
by tannaim (e.g. the bit about the number of teeth differing between
Jews and nachriim) are true even if not -- because HQBH let the Torah be
defined by the knowledge or mis-knowledge He exposed them to during that
period.


On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 08:18:37AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Does anyone have the source where the CI states this?

It's an Avodah perrenial, first iteration I think back in vol 1.
I'm thinking of threads like "science and halachah" "Gemoro can err in
metzius", etc...

The CI is on AZ 9a, writing about tereifos. He says that nishtaneh
hateva since 4000 AM doesn't mean halakhah chaneges. Note that his
reasoning is NOT that Chazal erred; but still, the fact that the biology
or zoology is NOW incorrect does not impact halakhah.

The CI is used by RHSchachter to permit the use of toledos hachamah for
non-bishul <g> on Shabbos. It wasn't derekh bishul during the millennia
of Torah, so it's not derekh bishul even in the days where a dud shemesh
is common.

Another variant of this idea is in the Yad, Hil Shechitah 10:12-13,
which invokes "asher yorukha" to say that the list of tereifos is
binding regardless of science. That's more similar to my presentation.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

I wrote:
> See Ki Tavo 28:58 " ... l'yirah es hashem ..." spelled as heh-shin-mem.
And for a possible (?) example of the same usage applied to false gods 
see Noah 11:4 "v'na'aseh lanu shem".

David Riceman

Shmuel Weidberg wrote:
>  Michael Poppers <MPopp...@kayescholer.com> wrote:
 
>> ** Chaq zichronos _v'qolos_ eser/the measure of remembrance _and
>> of Shofar tones_ is ten **;

> I think the ten kolos can refer to the:
> tekiah shevarim-teruah tekiah
> tekiah shevarim tekiah
> tekiah teruah tekiah

It's *very* clear to me (to the point that any other interpretation is
utterly impossible) that it refers to the ten pesukim of Shofros, and
has nothing whatsoever to do with what sounds are or are not blown, at
this or any other time.

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

The CI is on AZ 9a, writing about tereifos. He says that nishtaneh hateva
since 4000 AM doesn't mean halakhah chaneges. Note that his reasoning is
NOT that Chazal erred; but still, the fact that the biology or zoology is
NOW incorrect does not impact halakhah.


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 

So he would agree if we could specifically show teva did not change, that halacha would reflect teva?
GT
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.

http://blogs.forward.com/bintel-blog/115500/  apparently  israeli 
companies  are  starting  to cover themselves  for  tvila  related damage 
to electrical appliances , as the picture shows....

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090930/849ef6ed/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 03:44:22PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> The CI is on AZ 9a, writing about tereifos. He says that nishtaneh
:> hateva since 4000 AM doesn't mean halakhah chaneges. Note that his
:> reasoning is NOT that Chazal erred; but still, the fact that the biology
:> or zoology is NOW incorrect does not impact halakhah.

: So he would agree if we could specifically show teva did not change,
: that halacha would reflect teva?

I don't now if he would admit that possibility. However, I was assuming
that someone who bought into the CI's notion of 2000 years of Torah in
which halakhah is *defined* in a qualitatively different way but did
believe in the possibility (which might include the CI, or not) would
say that the definition stands.

Much the way the Rambam says that a beis din hagadol (or a universally
accepted pesaq; e.g. Talmud Bavli) similarly defines halakhah, and thus
hilkhos tereifos stand even where biologically inaccurate. I see the two
positions only differing in whether the definition phase ended in 4000,
or with Ravina veR' Ashi.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
mi...@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:26 PM, <Saul.Z.New...@kp.org> wrote:

>
> http://blogs.forward.com/bintel-blog/115500/  apparently  israeli
> companies  are  starting  to cover themselves  for  tvila  related damage
>  to electrical appliances , as the picture shows....
>

IMHO the blogger has completely got the wrong end of the stick. The picture
shows a safety warning "do not immerse in water", which I'm sure appears on
electrical kitchen appliances in other countries as well. I don't think
there's any basis for his assumption that "litbol" davka refers to tevila in
a mikva.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090930/cf6084d5/attachment-0001.htm>

Everyone is aware that on Succos we say Hallel everyday.  RSRH in his 
commentary on Psalms gives the following introduction into the 
significance of Hallel.

This series of Psalms (113-118) constitutes one group,
namely the "Hallel." This uplifting song of the Jewish nation has accompanied
us through the millennia of our wanderings through the ages, has
kept alive within us the awareness of our mission in world history and
sustained us during days of trial. At the hour of redemption the Hallel filled
our mouths with hymns of praise to the Lord, and even now, on the days
appointed for the remembrance of the mighty acts of God which we have
experienced, the Hallel helps us relive the stem trials we have passed through
and the rejoicing that was ours at the time of deliverance. Finally, it keeps
our hearts and spirits receptive for whatever sadness or joy the future might
hold for us (see Pesahim 117a). God's wondrous mercy is at work not
only in extraordinary occurrences, but also in the smooth, ordinary course
of daily life.  .....   Indeed, the ever-growing burden
of Galuth makes the very survival of the Jewish people appear as one
continuous miracle of God's saving power so that the constant recurrence
of God's mighty acts causes them to pass us by unnoticed (Shabbath 13b).
It is most probably in view of all the foregoing that our people has 
incorporated
the hymn of HaIlel, except for some abridgments, into the order of
prayers for every New Moon.

Psalm 113 emphasizes the difference of the concept of God cherished
by the Jewish people from that held by the rest of the world. Psalm 114
deals with the historic election and destiny of Israel, which is to enter into
the course of the history of the nations on earth as God's holy people with
its own unique concept and worship of Him. Psalm 115 discusses the ideas
and ideals with which our obvious differences from the other nations must
imbue us even while we dwell in their midst. Psalm 116 proclaims that
unshakeable trust which we should derive, both for the present and for all
time to come, from all the dangers we have experienced and which we have
overcome only through God's help. This unalterable trust should serve to
sustain us constantly, regardless of the perils that the future may bring.
At the same time, we are reminded that our miraculous survival qualifies
and obliges us to an ever-growing extent to discharge our ordained task,
namely, as the messengers of God, to call upon men and nations to recognize
God and to worship Him. Such a call to all the nations is contained in the
two verses of Psalm 117. To this is joined Psalm 118, calling upon all men
who thus return to God to join the Jewish nation in its homage to Him,
and, looking back upon the events of Jewish history now taking place
before their very eyes, to adopt those convictions regarding the rule of
God and the calling of mankind which make all men enter into the gates
of the Jewish Sanctuary and worship as "their God" that God Whose Law
is taught there.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090930/cc3a3d78/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 196
***************************************

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..."