Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 208

Fri, 23 Oct 2009

• 1. Re: Water bottle in the desert (Zev Sero)
• 2. daas tora interview (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 3. G-d changes his mind (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: G-d changes his mind (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: G-d changes his mind (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: so is she married? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Pizza - is it Pashtida? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 8. Shepherd Vs. Farmer Redux (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: Pizza - is it Pashtida? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 11. Re: [Areivim] Halacha of speeding/Jewish ethics curriculum de velopment help (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 12. Re: Pizza - is it Pashtida? (Simon Montagu)
• 13. Re: Pizza - is it Pashtida? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 14. rRe:Quoting Terminology (Saul Mashbaum)
• 15. Minhag Yerushalayim - candle lighting 40 minutes before sunset (Goldmeier)
• 16. Re: Water bottle in the desert (Rich, Joel)
• 17. Re: [Areivim] Halacha of speeding/Jewish ethics curriculum de velopment help (Rich, Joel)

Rich, Joel wrote:

>> A fetus could be a rodeif. Isn't that based on the notion that being
>> a rodeif doesn't imply culpability?

> But once the baby has crowned, why does it stop being a rodef if this
> was truly a case of rodef(I believe it was K'rodef but not a real
> rodef is the answer)?

No, the answer is "min hashamayim ka-radfu lah"; death in childbirth
was seen as natural, and therefore not attributable to the baby.
It seems to me that in a case where it is clearly the baby who is
endangering the mother, then he is a rodef even if he has crowned.


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

http://seforim.blogspot.com/2009/10/interview-with-professor-lawrenc
e.html

interview  w  prof  kaplan on daas tora  issues 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091022/29758ef7/attachment-0001.htm>

What does the phrase (bereshit 6:6) mean?
va-yenachem hashem ki asah et ha-adam ba-aretz va-yityazev el libo.

Remebr G-d's knowing the future is not like a person's knowing the future.
So was the mabul predestined?

Also was mankind after the flood better than before?

Schroeder in a recent book "G-d according to G-d" argues that indeed
G-d can change his mind as we see that the avot and Moshe argued with G-d
and occasionally won.

He goes so far as to say that Abraham was wrong for not arguing with G-d
at the Akedah.
His sources are Alan Dershowitz and Shulamit Aloni !!

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 07:17:12PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: What does the phrase (bereshit 6:6) mean?
: va-yenachem hashem ki asah et ha-adam ba-aretz va-yityazev el libo.
: 
: Remebr G-d's knowing the future is not like a person's knowing the future.
: So was the mabul predestined?

The whole question doesn't work. Hashem has no future, which is why He
doesn't know the future the way we would if we could, nor does the
concept of "PREdestination" really fit. Time is a nivra.

Odds are the word "vayiNACHeim" is part of the general play on Noach's
name across the parashah, such as "vatanach hateivah" (8:4), "lo matz'ah
hayyonah manoach" (8:9).

In any case, Rashi seems to be saying that Hashem changed tactic in
consequence to the change in people.

(Or, IOW: G-d's unchanging Way had very different effects given the
difference in humanity.)

: Also was mankind after the flood better than before?

Well, at least chamas wasn't our particular challenge.

...
: He goes so far as to say that Abraham was wrong for not arguing with G-d
: at the Akedah.
: His sources are Alan Dershowitz and Shulamit Aloni !!

But he did argue for Sodom, Amorah, et al. It would seem that he, like
Moshe, only argued with HQBH on behalf of others, when he wasn't one of
those suffering.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Eli Turkel wrote:
> What does the phrase (bereshit 6:6) mean?
> va-yenachem hashem ki asah et ha-adam ba-aretz va-yityazev el libo.
> 
> Remebr G-d's knowing the future is not like a person's knowing the
> future.   So was the mabul predestined?

This is why Rashi feels the need for a different translation. First
he suggests that "vayinachem" (note the chirik) in this case doesn't
mean "he changed his mind" but "He comforted Himself".  Then he
suggests that perhaps it *never* means "he changed his mind", but
rather "he considered his options", in which case there is no need
to special-case this instance.


> Also was mankind after the flood better than before?

Not necessarily, but He promised never to destroy the whole world
again.  Parts of it, yes, but not the whole thing, no matter how
bad we get.

 
> Schroeder in a recent book "G-d according to G-d" argues that
> indeed G-d can change his mind as we see that the avot and
> Moshe argued with G-d and occasionally won.
> He goes so far as to say that Abraham was wrong for not arguing
> with G-d at the Akedah.
> His sources are Alan Dershowitz and Shulamit Aloni !!

That is definitely krum.  In each case where someone argues with
Hashem, Rashi goes out of his way to point out that Hashem had no
obvious reason to inform them of His plans in the first place, so
they took it as permission and an invitation to argue.  In the case
of the akeda this obviously doesn't apply; Avraham received, not
information but a direct order, and when someone gets an order from
Hashem he has no right to argue.   After obeying he may perhaps ask
for an explanation, but not before.

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

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 06:32:50PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: (... But that's a very specific case, to which RMB seems to be quoting
: RARR as holding that it does not require a get. Which is why I wonder
: what RARR is so worried about, that *in* *general* he recommends not
: giving the ring bifnei eidim.)

I am missing the question. I understood RARR as saying that lemaaseh we
are meiqil, whether he says "Will you marry me" or "Harei at me'ureset
li". However, why enter territory where there are opinions that are
machmir?

Don't we have that all the time, where we try to avoid the machloqes,
but bedi'avad, are meiqil?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

The common wisdom
Is that pizza slices are "pas habba bekis'nin"

My talmid chaveir [RNG] quewtioned this read, and had convinced me
otherwise, that pizza=pas period. IOW It is mostly like a grilled cheese
sandwich with sauce on it.

Today, seeing SA orach Hayyim 168:17 I am even more convinced.
"Pashtida baked in the oven with ....cheese, one makes Hammotzi"

MB 93: those filled with meat are normally eaten for hunger [unlike
small thin wafers eaten as kinu'ach. (EG wonton or keplach)]

Since a typical pizza slice is eaten as a se'udah like pas, and not a
nosh like a wafer, cracker, or piece of cake therefore like pashtida,
birchasso Hammotzi

Nevertheless, I try to wash on bread or matza instead of the slice itself
even when consuming a single slice.

Caveat: A pizza "hors d'oeuvre" is probably a legitimate pas habba
bekisnin

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: FWIW Hirsch Breishis 4:2 S.V. "Vayhi Hevel Ro'eh Tzohn" strongly support
: the widely held POV that pastoral life is more conducive to spirituality
: and contemplation than is agricultrual Life.?

Micha:
> I wonder how this fits with TIDE and the value of high culture. After
> all, the sciences and arts are all attributed to benei Qayin.

> How does RSRH separate the value of the shepherd from the value of the
> farmer while still holding a single Mensch-Israel ideal -- which implies
> haynu hakh?


Great point and AIUI Hirsch deals with it albeit subtly

Disclaimer: The definitve answer is best found by reading the original
thoroughly. "Yagata umatzassa!" I confess to simplifying here.

I was using Hirsch's point re: individuals, (as does Hirsch himself)
viz. Hevel, Avos, Moshe Rabbeinu, David
Hamelech. Leaders. Thinkers. Philosophers. Teachers.

But society at large is built by Qayin-style agriculture. Civilizers.
Community-Organizers. Engineers.

As Hirsch notes, Qayin et al. Did not merely BUILD cities, they Became
CITY-BUILDERS (Civil Engineers?).

Your prototypical Navi is a loner. A RSBY in a cave.

But to build a nation agriculture is key. Mitzvos in Seder Z'rai'm are
there to prevent becoming overmaterialistic

I believe this is either explicit or implicit in Hirsch.

See also Hirsch on the antipathy of Egyptians WRT Ro'ei Tzohn, an
antipathy not shared by the early "good" Par'oh.

Digression:
Early American Capitalists detested scholars and philosophers. They saw
value only in materialism.

Torah economics is mostly a hybrid of capitalism, materialism, as well
as of welfare and philosophy.

Back to Niddan Diddan
WRT individuals, Hevel's pastoral life bred a superior mensch.  

WRT civilization building, perhaps Qayyin was on to something - the
self-absorbed, almost sociopathic builder, literally w/o any heartfelt
concern for his brother's welfare

Yin-Yang.  Maybe the world needs both poles.


> This point is much truer about a farmer than a sheperd. Yes, if there
> is a very heavy drought then both suffer. However in a region which
> suffers from low rainfall, the sheperd is in much better position than a
> farmer. He can just move to a different area where there is better pasture
> land. The farmer is stuck in his land. Therefore the farmer should be the
> one who has a greater, clearer understanding of man's dependency on God.
> Ben

Nice svara, but I humbly suggest to plz see Hirsch inside before jumping
to any definitive conclusions...


KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 06:38:26PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: My talmid chaveir [RNG] quewtioned this read, and had convinced me
: otherwise, that pizza=pas period. IOW It is mostly like a grilled cheese
: sandwich with sauce on it.

Except that the grilled cheese sandwich was cheese placed atop a piece
of bread that could otherwise have been eaten.

The really tricky PHB are bagel chips. If they are bagels that were made
as bagels and turned into chips, they're hamotzi. Like toast or grilled
cheese sandwitched. If, however, they are made by a snack company with
the original intent to be chips, they would be mezonos.

Now, what if they're made by nachriim. Does their intent matter, or is
it like bitul where it's only the intent of those mechuyavim that
count?

: Today, seeing SA orach Hayyim 168:17 I am even more convinced.
: "Pashtida baked in the oven with ....cheese, one makes Hammotzi"
: MB 93: those filled with meat are normally eaten for hunger [unlike
: small thin wafers eaten as kinu'ach. (EG wonton or keplach)]

This is the basic problem, as I see it. Even though they're PHB, people
are qoveia se'udah on them. Like "mezonos rolls", which also aren't
a mezonos if eaten as a meal. (With confusing instructions in one's
airline meal from the hashgachah organization about what berakhah to
make, resulting. IIRC, the OU tells you to hold on to the roll for later,
and not eat it as part of the meal.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R"n Chana Luntz wrote:
> I think that the mitzvah that Sukkah most closely resembles
> (and I think this is born out in many discussions) is that
> of Tzitzis.  Tzitzis too is an aseh, that one does not have
> to do, there is no requirment to wear a four cornered
> garment, one can get by without one, but if one wants to
> wear a four cornered garment it must have tzitzis.  

I'd like to introduce, into this discussion, a big difference between my
understanding of sukkah-after-the-night (hereinafter referred to simply as
"sukkah") and my understanding of tzitzis.

One can do tzitzis on two levels. In all cases, there is clearly never a
chiyuv to wear a beged which needs tzitzis, but if one chooses to wear such
a beged, he is obligated to make sure there is tzitzis on it. If one has a
wool or linen beged, and puts tzitzis on it, and he chooses to wear it, he
fulfills a d'Oraisa. If the beged is another fiber, such as cotton, I
understand that many poskim hold that it's only a d'Rabanan. I will not get
into whether this sort of mitzvah is called "chiyuvis" or "kiyumis" or
"machsheres" or whatever; my point is that it is the same in all cases, and
the only difference is d'Oraisa or d'Rabanan.

One can also do sukkah on several levels. In all cases, there is clearly
never a chiyuv to eat in the sukkah. But if one chooses to eat a keviyus
seudah (which we will not define here), then he is obligated to do it in
the sukkah, and he will fulfill a d'Oraisa for it. If one chooses to do
something other than eating a keviyus seudah (such as drinking a glass of
water, or learning, or shmoozing) he is definitely *not* obligated to do it
in the sukkah, but he can choose to do it in the sukkah anyway. And if he
does so, he will fulfill a d'Oraisa for this too. (Or, at least, I've never
heard anyone say this to be merely d'rabanan.)

So we have an interesting difference between tzitzis and sukkah: The first
can be done in two ways; they are both the same in the chiyuv/kiyum area,
but one is d'Oraisa and the other is d'Rabanan. The second can also be done
two ways, but while one is chiyuv and the other is kiyum, both are
d'Oraisa.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click here for great quotes from top international movers!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsKdC21Cm2XZ4bCLohhSjMAQyjVnXPE2iTQWQfHERdMIADRzzogjQ0/

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> He argues that halakhah is similarly best transmitted by creating
> "native speakers". ... Mind goes beyond algorithm. What's captured
> is not the complete picture; we're missing the equivalent of what
> "sounds right" and the limits of "poetic license".

R' Joel Rich asked:
> Yes, but the problem ... is when we try to look back to a time
> period that was more based on "sounds right" and deduce what
> algorithm they used.  Now if we were 100% accurate in these
> attempts, we'd replicate their results and have a great set of
> algorithms to use for new cases.  My observation is that our 
> attempts (throughout the generations) have been yielding less than
> 100% accuracy and we then use a fudge factor.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding RJR, but with all due respect, I think he is missing RMB's point.

Any effort to "deduce what algorithm they used" is doomed to failure.

There was no algorithm for them to use.

They didn't need one.

You can read this paragraph without any trouble. But you can't describe the
method - the algorithm - that you use for decoding it. You can read a
sentense and the mispeled wurds just jump out at you. You didn't have to
looked them up. The words simply "look right" or "don't look right". I
don't know a subjunctive from a participle, but I know English. It's the
non-natives who need and use algorithms, like checking verb lists and
grammar books.

So too in halacha. When RMB writes about "native speakers" whose "mind goes
beyond algorithm", he's referring to poskim who say things like, "In
situation ABC, it is mutar/assur to do XYZ. I can't cite you chapter and
verse, but that *IS* the halacha." They just KNOW that they have the right
answer. They may not be able to explain how they arrived at that answer,
they may not understand the thought process themselves, but they give the
answer that "looks right".

I'm a non-native speaker in Halacha. I have to look everything up, in a
manner not unlike the tourist who is always looking in his phrase-book, or
the student who refers to his dictionaries and verb lists. A translation
manufactured in such a way has a decent chance of being intelligible, but
it also has a decent chance of being stilted and sounding "not right". For
poetry and rhetoric, there's no substitute for a native speaker.

Akvia Miller

____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsEGrD46bSTVWLGJ8e3E7IGJLeiN4wHH5HurUdFO2UCOa2aUyw2qJa/

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:38 AM, <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Since a typical pizza slice is eaten as a se'udah like pas, and not a
> nosh like a wafer, cracker, or piece of cake therefore like pashtida,
> birchasso Hammotzi
>

I assume this is not according to the shita that hamotzi is not said on
dough made with a perceptible quantity of oil or other additives?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091022/5eadaebc/attachment-0001.htm>

> This is the basic problem, as I see it. Even though they're PHB, people
> are qoveia se'udah on them. Like "mezonos rolls", which also aren't
> a mezonos if eaten as a meal. (With confusing instructions in one's
> airline meal from the hashgachah organization about what berakhah to
> make, resulting. IIRC, the OU tells you to hold on to the roll for later,
> and not eat it as part of the meal.)
> -Micha

Consider the following
1. What about a meat or cheeze "calzone"?
2 Or what about Pita dough shmeared with oil ON TOP, or tomato sauce, etc.
3 Or what about "challah"  dough shmeared with raisins on top
4 raw french-italian bread dough, conatining slices of cold cuts and
  THEN baked

PHB
Or
Pashtida?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RGDubin:

>>
Does someone have a rule or rules when a tefila quotes a pasuk, when it uses
"kakosuv" , "shene'emar" and the real puzzler, "kemo shekasvta aleinu
besorasecha"?
>>

I can't answer this question, but find it interesting that there is a place
where nusach Ashkenaz and Sfard/Sfaradi differ on exactly his point.

The introduction to the K'dushah of musaf concludes "kaKATUV al yad
n'viecha" in nusach Ashkenaz, and  "kadavar heAMUR al yad n'viecha" in
nusach Sfard and Eidot Hamizrach.


Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091023/347971f2/attachment-0001.htm>

I have been looking for the source to the Minhag Yerushalayim of 
lighting Shabbos candles
 40 minutes before sunset.

Does anyone know the source why 40 minutes?

Kol tuv
Rafi Goldmeier

> rodef is the answer)?

No, the answer is "min hashamayim ka-radfu lah"; death in childbirth was seen as natural, and therefore not attributable to the baby.
It seems to me that in a case where it is clearly the baby who is endangering the mother, then he is a rodef even if he has crowned.


-- 
Zev Sero          
=================================
Are you arguing that if a Non-Jew was about to drop a Reuvain on shimon to
kill shimon, that shimon could kill reuvain? What if reuvain is allergic to
shimon's deodorant and they are locked in a room together, can reuvain kill
shimon?
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.

 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding RJR, but with all due respect, I think he is missing RMB's point.

Any effort to "deduce what algorithm they used" is doomed to failure.

There was no algorithm for them to use.

They didn't need one.



Akvia Miller

____________________________________________________________
WADR I understand R'MB's point - but while they may have simply "known"
what is right, imho it is because they resonated to some underlying ratzon
hashem.  Are arguing that the underlying ratzon hashem is not reproducible
by any algorithm (i.e. it is at some level random)? (an example- just
because by a card player "knows" the odds of pulling an inside straight ,
doesn't mean that it can be different than analysis of probability yields)
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.



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 208
***************************************

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..."