Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 204

Sun, 18 Oct 2009

• 1. Water bottle in the desert (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: Water bottle in the desert (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: [Areivim] Halacha of speeding/Jewish ethics curriculum development help (Daniel Israel)
• 4. Re: minhag simchat tora (Zev Sero)
• 5. Shmini Atzeret in a Sukkah (Harry Weiss)
• 6. Re: Breishis: Pru uRvu & Yishuv ha'Olam (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: [Areivim] Halacha of speeding/Jewish ethics curriculum development help (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: Breishis: Pru uRvu & Yishuv ha'Olam (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Breishis: Pru uRvu & Yishuv ha'Olam (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 10. Re: Water bottle in the desert (Daniel Israel)
• 11. Re: Water bottle in the desert (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Re: [Areivim] Halacha of speeding/Jewish ethics curriculumdevelopment help (Ben Waxman)
• 13. (no subject) (Yitzchok Levine)
• 14. What is it that sets man apart from the animal? (Yitzchok Levine)
• 15. RSRH on G-d and Science (Yitzchok Levine)
• 16. Yemenites on Kol Isha (Michael Makovi)

Reuvain has his water bottle and there's not enough for him and shimon. Halacha is like Rabbi Akiva that reuvain keeps and shimon dies.
But what if shimon takes the water bottle with a claim that reuvain owes
him money and let bet din decide.  Does reuvain have the right to kill
shimon if that's the only way to get the water back? what if shimon has no
claim other than he wants to live?
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091016/fa9a8e6c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:32:36AM -0400, Rich, R' Joel wrote:
: Reuvain has his water bottle and there's not enough for him and
: shimon. Halacha is like Rabbi Akiva that reuvain keeps and shimon dies.
: But what if...

Am I the only one who is collecting these questions off Avodah in hopes
of starting interesting discussion over the Shabbos table?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Quoting Harry Maryles <hmary...@yahoo.com>:
> --- On Thu, 10/15/09, Daniel Israel <d...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> What I have seen is three positions.  1. DMD doesn't apply, so the   
> only issues are chillul HaShem and endangering.  2. DMD does apply   
> and speed limits must be obeyed.  3. DMD applies, but goes according  
>  to the law as observed/enforced, not as written.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>  I would say that DMD does apply WRT to speeding laws.
>  But I would also say that it is not a CH to speed slightly above  
> the  limit - especially on an expressway. That's because the simple  
> truth  is that everyone does it and it is not unsafe to do so. In  
> fact if  one drives at the limit on any expressway here in Chicago  
> (where the  limit is 55mph) one may in fact be creating a CH because  
> virtually  all drivers will look at you strangely if not angrily as  
> they pass  you up.
>  Which brings up the following question. If following DMD causes a  
> CH  - what is the proper course of action? Should we violate it in  
> order  to avoid the CH? My quick answer is yes.

Not to pick on RHM specifically, as I respect (although sometimes  
respectfully disagree with) his opinions, but I am distressed by the  
lack of sources on this topic.  Issues such as this, and the  
principles underlying them, are things we need to act on every day.   
How can we act on them in a Torah consistent manner if we don't have  
Torah sources to base our decisions on.

I'm not sure if I'm more bothered by the thought that the poskim  
haven't addressed these issues, or that they have but we on A/A are  
ignorant of what they've said.

Of course, there is also the third possibility that I'm the only  
ignorant one.  In which case I would find it a distressing wake up  
call to improve my learning skills.  But if this is the case, can  
someone please enlighten my ignorance?

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

Gershon Dubin wrote:
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: Zev Sero z...@sero.name <mailto:z...@sero.name>
> 
> <<It's my understanding that it is said (by those who do so) in order to 
> make
> a break between the haftara and Ashrei>>
> 
> Why?

Just because it seems abrupt to go straight from the haftarah into
Ashrei, without saying anything in between.  So when there isn't a
yekum purkan, yizkor, or sisu vesimchu to say, someone wrote an
introduction to Ashrei.

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

>> From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
>> 
>> Is it possible that the word "V'hilchasa" in the above-quoted gemara is a 
>> recent addition?
>> 
>> Is it possible that Chazal DID NOT actually come to any definitive 
>> conclusion about what to do on Shmini Ateres? If the word "v'hilchasa" was 
>> not originally part of the gemara, and "maysav yasvinan, bruchi lo 
>> m'varchinan" was merely another suggestion on how to deal with this 
>> situation, then I can easily understand why the poskim raise issues like 
>> Bal Tosif and Hekker.
>> 
>> Does anyone know if this idea was ever suggested by someone other than me? 
>> That is to say, by someone who actually knows some Torah?
>>
  If you listen to this shiur
  http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/719895
  towards the end Rabbi Shechter brings down a Rav Kolonimus from the 12th
  century saying that this was added by the Gaonim.
>

Harry J. Weiss
hjwe...@panix.com

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 03:08:55PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Is there a connection between the Last Mitzvah in the Torah and the First
: Mitzvah in the Torah?
: How might changing the focus of a Mitzvah, from an individual focus to a
: communal focus, impact the way we approach that Mitzvah?

Having been at many functions aimed at adoptive couples and those looking
to adopt, RYBS is often cited as saying that for those who can't have
children, the chinukh of any child fulfills one of the tzevei dinim.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

 


Not to pick on RHM specifically, as I respect (although sometimes
respectfully disagree with) his opinions, but I am distressed by the lack
of sources on this topic.  Issues such as this, and the  
principles underlying them, are things we need to act on every day.   
How can we act on them in a Torah consistent manner if we don't have Torah sources to base our decisions on.

I'm not sure if I'm more bothered by the thought that the poskim haven't
addressed these issues, or that they have but we on A/A are ignorant of
what they've said.

Of course, there is also the third possibility that I'm the only ignorant
one.  In which case I would find it a distressing wake up call to improve
my learning skills.  But if this is the case, can someone please enlighten
my ignorance?

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


_______________________________________________

A 4th possibility, to quote myself in the most recent audioroundup:
How reconcile "we are like donkeys" reverence of predecessors with clear
fact that later generations seem to be (are) doing more sophisticated
analysis/thinking [me - I hope R'Klapper's got an escape pod J].
1) Shev Shmeitzah (ktzot) - they thought so much more clearly and straight
forwardly; they didn't need our "pilpul". We develop more because need to
overcome "confusion" they didn't have [me - so their superiority must be
based on something other than pure intellect].


2) Netziv - Hamek shailah was a commentary on a geonic work. Since time of
Yehoshua there have been disagreements which would be resolved by
intellect. There will be those who specialize in specific cases application
(spiritual intuition) and others in abstract law. There will be times (e.g.
Bavli) where can only rely on intellect/abstract. Geonim went back to more
"intuitive" approach but then lost when went to Europe, etc. However,
Rambam was more a throwback to gaonim (don't try to wrestle the Rambam into
a similar approach to Rashi/Tosfot). 

End Quote

IMHO most of these issues are dealt with in the "spiritual intuition" mode (I know it when I see it)

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.

 

Having been at many functions aimed at adoptive couples and those looking
to adopt, RYBS is often cited as saying that for those who can't have
children, the chinukh of any child fulfills one of the tzevei dinim.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
It's found in Family Redeemed (not in the language of tzvei dinim iirc-will look at home)
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.

From: Rabbi Richard Wolpoe
> Is there a connection between the Last Mitzvah in the Torah and the
> First Mitzvah in the Torah?
> How might changing the focus of a Mitzvah, from an individual focus to
> a communal focus, impact the way we approach that Mitzvah?

Addendum:
NB: This idea has been extrapolated from -
Hirsch Humash Breishis 1:28
New Edition p. 46
S.V. "Umil'u"

GS
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Quoting "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>:
> Reuvain has his water bottle and there's not enough for him and    
> shimon. Halacha is like Rabbi Akiva that reuvain keeps and shimon    
> dies.
> But what if shimon takes the water bottle with a claim that reuvain   
>  owes him money and let bet din decide.  Does reuvain have the right  
>   to kill shimon if that's the only way to get the water back?

CYLOR, obviously.  :)

But it seems to me that Shimon has no claim on the water bottle.  Even
if the debt is real, and Reuvain is modeh, Shimon certainly does not
have the right to demand the water bottle davka as payment.  Reuvain
can simply say he will pay the debt with something else.

At that point, it seems to me that Shimon is a rodef, and Reuvain
would be able to kill him in self defense.

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

> But what if shimon takes the water bottle with a claim that reuvain   
> owes him money and let bet din decide.  Does reuvain have the right   
> to kill shimon if that's the only way to get the water back?

CYLOR, obviously.  :)

But it seems to me that Shimon has no claim on the water bottle.  Even if
the debt is real, and Reuvain is modeh, Shimon certainly does not have the
right to demand the water bottle davka as payment.  Reuvain can simply say
he will pay the debt with something else.

At that point, it seems to me that Shimon is a rodef, and Reuvain would be able to kill him in self defense.

--
Daniel M. Israel
-----------------------------------------------------
Shimon already took the water bottle. Why is he now the rodef?
BTW can one be a rodef through passive inaction (e.g. he has the key to unlock your chains from the railroad track but doesn't)
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.

I have to plead bad memory, but I remember a shiyur in yeshiva about DMD and 
the rav brought in a pamphlet written by a dayan on the Eida Khareidit Beit 
Din. The dayan wrote that someone who is speeding is a rodef (I don't know 
if he was talking about 5 KPH too fast or 50) and should be reported to the 
police.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Israel" <d...@cornell.edu>
>
> I'm not sure if I'm more bothered by the thought that the poskim  haven't 
> addressed these issues, or that they have but we on A/A are  ignorant of 
> what they've said.
> 

I am sure that by now you are well aware that I 
am a big fan of RSRH.  However, there are times 
when I simply cannot sing his praises loudly 
enough. This is the case with his commentary on 
the Parsha Bereshis.  It is so full of masterful 
insights into the nature of our world, that I 
recommend that if you do not have the new 
commentary that was published by Feldheim 
recently, then you get it. It is more than worth the money! YL

Below is a selection from Bereshis 2

7 Then God formed man, dust of the ground, and 
breathed into his countenance the breath of life, 
and thus man became a living personality.

What is it that sets man apart from the animal? The living individuality
of the animal depends on earthly matter; like its body, so its soul,
too, was taken from the earth. Not so man. In the creation of man,
only the inert material was taken from the earth; only when God breathed
into him the breath of life did he become a living individual. Herein lies
the nobility and immortality of man, and this is the whole source of his
freedom. That which gives the animal its individuality emanates from
the earth and must eventually return to the earth. Not so that which
makes man a ?living personality.? Man?s preeminence over the animal
is not only in his spirit, but also in his vitality. His vitality is linked not
to his body, but to his spirit. When he received a spirit he received life,
his soul adhering to the spirit. When the spirit departs from the body,
the vital soul is not buried with the remains; for man?s soul is bound
up with his spirit, not his body. This is why his physical survival and
health do not depend on his body alone. Of the many dangers to the
life of an animal, not all are dangers to man. The survival of a man
cannot be predicted with the same degree of accuracy as the survival
of an animal. Adom Yeish lo Mazel (Bava Kamma 2b): there is something in
man that defies prediction. A man?s spirit will sustain him, even if it
appears that all hope is lost; for the spirit sustains life. Who can gauge
the power of an unbroken spirit? Who can calculate how long it can
keep the body alive?

Thus man is composed of two elements that are completely different
from each other. One of these was taken from the earth. But man does
not belong to the earth; rather, the earth ? as its name, Adama, implies
? has been given to man to rule. So, too, man?s body, which is Ahfar min ha
Adama, is subject to man?s control. His true, living, spiritual essence is
not dependent on the body; hence, even while he is physically combined
with the earthly element, he can and should exercise control over the
earthly in him. The Afar, the earthly element, in him cannot be released
from the realm of physical compulsion and is subject to the influence
of earthly factors. But the Nishmas Chaim, which God breathed into man and
which first made man a human being, imparts to man of the dignity
of its source and releases him from all physical compulsion; it grants
him freedom and elevates his body, too, into the realm of freedom.

Man?s body lay inert and lifeless, his countenance open to absorb,
like an animal, the requirements of individual life; and God breathed
into his countenance the breath of life. The spark of life was given to
man through his head, into his countenance. Thus man was distinguished
in his outward appearance, too, from all the creatures in the
world. He is, as a result, a complete contrast to the plant. A plant?s
existence depends on the earth ? below. An animal?s life depends on
its heart ? the center. A man?s life depends on his head ? the crown;
his life depends on his spirit. Man looks upward; all his power is from
above ? when he hopes, when he anticipates, when he thinks. The
spark of life was breathed into his countenance. This spark bears man,
and is what keeps him upright: with the disappearance of consciousness
he falls.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091017/0bb1dcc5/attachment-0001.htm>

I am sure that by now you are well aware that I 
am a big fan of RSRH.  However, there are times 
when I simply cannot sing his praises loudly 
enough. This is the case with his commentary on 
the Parsha Bereshis.  It is so full of masterful 
insights into the nature of our world, that I 
recommend that if you do not have the new 
commentary that was published by Feldheim 
recently, then you get it. It is more than worth the money! YL

Below is a selection from Bereshis 2

7 Then God formed man, dust of the ground, and 
breathed into his countenance the breath of life, 
and thus man became a living personality.

What is it that sets man apart from the animal? The living individuality
of the animal depends on earthly matter; like its body, so its soul,
too, was taken from the earth. Not so man. In the creation of man,
only the inert material was taken from the earth; only when God breathed
into him the breath of life did he become a living individual. Herein lies
the nobility and immortality of man, and this is the whole source of his
freedom. That which gives the animal its individuality emanates from
the earth and must eventually return to the earth. Not so that which
makes man a ?living personality.? Man?s preeminence over the animal
is not only in his spirit, but also in his vitality. His vitality is linked not
to his body, but to his spirit. When he received a spirit he received life,
his soul adhering to the spirit. When the spirit departs from the body,
the vital soul is not buried with the remains; for man?s soul is bound
up with his spirit, not his body. This is why his physical survival and
health do not depend on his body alone. Of the many dangers to the
life of an animal, not all are dangers to man. The survival of a man
cannot be predicted with the same degree of accuracy as the survival
of an animal. Adom Yeish lo Mazel (Bava Kamma 2b): there is something in
man that defies prediction. A man?s spirit will sustain him, even if it
appears that all hope is lost; for the spirit sustains life. Who can gauge
the power of an unbroken spirit? Who can calculate how long it can
keep the body alive?

Thus man is composed of two elements that are completely different
from each other. One of these was taken from the earth. But man does
not belong to the earth; rather, the earth ? as its name, Adama, implies
? has been given to man to rule. So, too, man?s body, which is Ahfar min ha
Adama, is subject to man?s control. His true, living, spiritual essence is
not dependent on the body; hence, even while he is physically combined
with the earthly element, he can and should exercise control over the
earthly in him. The Afar, the earthly element, in him cannot be released
from the realm of physical compulsion and is subject to the influence
of earthly factors. But the Nishmas Chaim, which God breathed into man and
which first made man a human being, imparts to man of the dignity
of its source and releases him from all physical compulsion; it grants
him freedom and elevates his body, too, into the realm of freedom.

Man?s body lay inert and lifeless, his countenance open to absorb,
like an animal, the requirements of individual life; and God breathed
into his countenance the breath of life. The spark of life was given to
man through his head, into his countenance. Thus man was distinguished
in his outward appearance, too, from all the creatures in the
world. He is, as a result, a complete contrast to the plant. A plant?s
existence depends on the earth ? below. An animal?s life depends on
its heart ? the center. A man?s life depends on his head ? the crown;
his life depends on his spirit. Man looks upward; all his power is from
above ? when he hopes, when he anticipates, when he thinks. The
spark of life was breathed into his countenance. This spark bears man,
and is what keeps him upright: with the disappearance of consciousness
he falls.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091017/c546252b/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from the new translation of 
RSRH's commentary on the Chumash, Bereishis 2

2 Then, with the seventh day, God completed the 
work that He had made, and with the seventh day 
He ceased from all the work that
He had made.

?Being? and ?working? in the whole universe
expresses God?s thought and message. Science investigates the being and
working of the created things; the truth is that science investigates God?s
thoughts, which are reflected in the created things and in their mission.
Man knows something only if he has discerned in the object of his
study the thoughts of God. The scientist who denies God and devotes
his life to investigating the ideas in nature discovers ? in every law he
finds in any force, in every purpose he finds in any pattern ? traces
of the God he denies with his lips. What is more, he denies his denial
with the very first step that he takes on his journey of inquiry in the
realm of nature. The goal he seeks presupposes the God he denies, for
God alone formulated those ideas and realized them in nature. The
truths the scientist yearns to discover, in whose existence he believes
and in whose discovery he delights, are God?s.

Vy'chulu. ?Thus the heaven and the earth and all their host were
brought by God to completion.? The world as a whole and each individual
part of it were assigned to their post by God. Each part was
endowed by God with energy and form for the sake of its particular
charge.

Yitzchok Levine  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091018/960b5929/attachment-0001.htm>

I've heard hearsay that Yemenites have some leniences on kol isha,
that religious traditional Yemenite Jews listen to women sing. A
Yemenite friend of mine says his Yemenite friends listen to women sing
without a problem, and I made sure to clarify with him that he meant
punctiliously observant Yemenites who actually truly kept Yemenite
minhagim and didn't just wear their Temaniut on their sleaves out of
mere ethnic pride. And I remember reading an article in the Jerusalem
Post about a recent aliyah of several Yemenite families; the article
said that when a Yemenite woman (no husband) and her children got into
a cab, whose driver happened to be Yemenite, they (the woman and the
cabbie) started singing Temani zemirot together.

Does anyone know of any textual evidence for anything I've just said?
Or, something similar regarding other communities? (Rabbi Marc Angel
testifies in one of his books that traditional Judeo-Spanish
Turkish/Balkan Jews permitted women to sing Ladino romances (ballads)
solo before men.)

I've been asked to write an article on leniencies for kol isha, and
I'll mostly be basing it on Rabbi Yehiel Weinberg's notice that
according to Rambam and Sedei Hemed, kol isha = etzba ketana = assur
l'hanot (hirhur) = mutar if no hana'a. (Sedei Hemed thus permitted kol
isha with eulogies and dirges, since he said there's no hana'a, and
Rabbi Weinberg permitted with zemirot. But obviously, theoretically,
this whole heter opens the door to any leniency based on time and
place.) Also, Rabbi David Bigman points out that this solves a
puzzling difficulty in the Shulhan Arukh: the SA says that we follow
Rambam on kol isha ( that kol isha = etzba ketan and not kriat Shema),
but that it's good to be strict and follow the Kriat-Shema shita as
well. Rabbi Bigman notes that if Rambam meant that kol isha is
forbidden all the time, then what senseless kind of stricture is the
SA making (you cannot be more strict than a blanket issur if that's
what the Rambam meant!)? Rather, says Rabbi Bigman, the SA is saying
that kol isha is forbidden like etza ketana (i.e. assur only where's
there hana'a/hirhur), but that it's good to be strict and avoid kol
isha during kriat shema even if there's no hana'a/hirhur at all.
(Rabbi Bigman points out that contra Rabbi Saul Berman IIRC, the kriat
shema shita is a stricture, not a leniency. Rabbenu Hananel, following
the Shema shita, says kol isha is forbidden with one's wife during
Shema and kal va-homer with ALL women at ALL times, even to merely
SPEAK to those women.) If anyone knows of any literature on this in
general, viz. kol isha being permitted where there's no hana'a, I'd
welcome such references as well, but I've already gotten a pretty
solid case on the theoretical shita; I'm more interested in people who
followed it l'maaseh like Rabbi Weinberg and Sedei Hemed and the
Judeo-Spanish etc.

Michael Makovi

P. S. I'm not subscribing to Avodah, so I'd appreciate if people CCed
me. Thanks!


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 204
***************************************

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..."