Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 220

Tue, 03 Nov 2009

• 1. Re: Children at a Wedding (Ben Waxman)
• 2. Re: having a melech: lechatchila or bideved??? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Question (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: RAYK's Orot - Criticism of RSRH? (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: so is she married? (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: The plot against the Nasi (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: [Areivim] short marriage (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Children at a Wedding (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: dinosaurs (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: [Areivim] short marriage (Zev Sero)
• 11. Children at weddings (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 12. RSRH on Sexual Excesses (Yitzchok Levine)
• 13. daas tora and voting (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 14. Re: [Areivim] short marriage (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 15. Re: [Areivim] short marriage (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Children at a Wedding (T6...@aol.com)

Actually about a year ago, Rav Rimon called for not only preserving the 
custom but strengthening it. He feels that wheat substitutes should be 
included in the ban, and recounted a story or two of people who ate khametz 
on Pesakh, thinking that the food was a kosher for Pesakh substitute.
Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
>
> The ban on qitniyos outlived its usefulness. Who is going to repeal it?
> I question the other half of RJK's argument.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 04:36:48PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: This is also the view of the Rambam, if I am not mistaken, regarding
: the korbanos. It is only to appease us that Hashem instituted the korbanos
: as mitzvos, not necessarily because He wants us to have them....... HB

The usual way of explaining the Moreh 3:32 is as Harvey did, but that
would leave you with a contradiction: In the Yad the Rambam has entire
books on the restoration of avodah in bayis shelishi. How then in the
Moreh could he say it's to ween us away from error? Now that we are
weaned, why would the Rambam expect a return to animal sacrifice? The
Ramban asks this question.

And, the Ramban continues, what about Qayin, Hevel, Noach et al who
weren't living among ovedei AZ and brought qorbanos? What weaning did
they need?

The Or Sameiach presents an answer, but it's not really in the Rambam,
it's more like a new position that draws from both the Rambam and the
Ramban. He suggests that the weaning bit was the role of bamos, but
qorbanos at the beis hamiqdash are a rei'ach nikhoach, and for entirely
different reasons. And that's why the weaning period had a clear end
with the building of bayis rishon.

The Abarbanel (Vayiqra 1:1) goes out to prove that qorbanos are a
concession to human nature, citing the numerous nevi'im (Shmuel I 15,
Tehillim 50, Yishayahu 1, Yirmiyahu 7) about Hashem not needing qorbanos,
and Menachos 10 "Whoever toils in Torah needs neither sin offering,
nor burnt offering, nor guilt offering nor minchah." He even goes so
far as argying that the Ramban agreed qorbanos were a concession.

However, if one is medayeiq in the lashon of the Moreh, I think the
Narboni's peshat (Moreh 3:32) is compelling, and it avoids the Ramban's
question altogether. By speaking of concessions to human nature, the
Rambam isn't talking about accomodation.

The first shelav are mitzvos that teach the emes.
The second are mitzvos that wean us away from falsehood.

It's not quite the same as appeasing us. That might be a third level, one
the Rambam doesn't raise in the Moreh, but is the gemarah's discussion
of eishes yefas to'ar. In that case the typical soldier can't handle an
outright "no", so Hashem accomodated human limitation rather than cause
total violation.

By qorbanos, it's a human limitation that leads us to falsehood. We seek
to express relationships with tangible gifts. If we were less frail and
physical beings, we could address our need to give through talmud Torah,
tefillah, etc... As a concession to human nature, Hashem specified
an expression of this will to give something physical. It gives us a
way to be lead away from concepts of deity that actually need or want
appeasement gifts.

This 2nd shelav isn't about living with the limitation -- it's about
overcoming it. As opposed to the ideal mitzvah, which would exist to
expose man to the truth regardless of the errors that come naturally
to humans.


Perhaps the Narvoni would put the melukhah into the same category.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 04:01:00PM -0400, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: R' Micha wrote:
:> I suggested that it's because the first sin, regardless of its content,
:> showed humanity that sin is possible. Naaseh lo keheter doesn't
:> get started until there is a first occurance. And so, the YhR was
:> internalized.   The first murder lacks that element.

: Your response sounds logical but there is only one problem with that.
: The first sin was bein adam laMakom.
: The sin of murder was bein adam l'chaveiro.
: So there are two categories of sin here.
: Therefore, since murder was the first sin of the second category, your
: argument is not as strong.

I am not as sure. Is the nature of the defiance of G-d's law significant
enough to turn Qayin's sin into the first of a whole new category?

Chavah and Adam showed themselves and the rest of history since that the
entire concept of defiance is possible. I don't see a parallel "just"
because the aveirah is in a different domain.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:28:33PM +0200, Michael Makovi wrote:
: >From http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/10/did-
: >rav-kook-write-against-rav-hirsch.html

I don't get the subject line opening. One was a Zionist, the other not.
Of course they argue.

: In Orot, Rav Kook basically says: Eretz Yisrael is an end, not a
: means. In Nineteen Letters, Rav Hirsch says the opposite. Shabang!
...

Rav Hirsch only has one "ends" -- a person who is as close to tzelem
E-lokim as possible, the culturally refined halachically observant
Mensch-Israel.

: The only difference between Rabbis Kook and Hirsch here is whether the
: importance of the land of Israel is rational or mystical, i.e.
: Maimonidean or Kuzarian (cf. Professor Menachem Kellner's Maimonides'
: Confrontation with Mysticism) - does the land of Israel contain inborn
: metaphysical significance, or is its importance physical and temporal?
: But that's it.

Oish... The Kuzari is no more mystical than the Rambam. And the
Rambam gets pretty mystical. I dread when you sink into these empty
overgeneralizations and categories.

...
: So much for Orot criticizing Rav Hirsch. The problem really is that no
: one actually reads Rav Hirsch. The academics assume he is a German
: gentile masquerading as a rabbi, and so they assume Kant is his source
: even when an explicit mishnah in Avot preceded Kant. (See Rabbi Joseph
: Elias's edition of Nineteen Letters, and Rabbi Shelomo Danziger's
: reply to Rabbi Howard I. Levine in Tradition.) And the Haredim assume
: he is haredi and holds by Daas Torah (even though Rabbi Hirsch's essay
: "Jewish Communal Life" is a masterpiece of constitutional-democratic
: theory that reads almost like John Locke), and so they (the Haredim)
: also never read him. Everyone says the most ridiculous garbage in Rav
: Hirsch's name, things that are disproven by even a cursory glance at
: his own words. Rav Hirsch was a Spanish Jew - Arabic or Spanish, take
: your pick - in German clothing. That's it.

Only if I fell for Faur's absurd rewrite of history. Recall, the
publisher of the Zohar was a Spanish Jew. The IE was an Andalusian
mytical astrologer. See above dread.

RSRH onlh had one ends, and therefore qedushas haaretz is derivative of
its ability to provide for the ideal Mensch-Israel. R' Kook, by assigning
it inherent qedushah made would be in disagreement with RAYK as much
as Achad haAam because he would be against a model of EY in which the
Achad haAm's have qedushah.

R' Kook's entire notion of hidden inherent qedushah is funamentally
at odds.

As it is with the Or Sameiach. Who was anti-Zionist, but pro-Balfour
Declaration and strogly pushed those in his sphere to move to Israel
(without political aspirations). And who also didn't believe in inherent
qedushah -- all qedushah derives from people and what they do.

And yet, RAYK's concept of the secular as only qedushah was can't perceive
(since it's all from HQBH, after all) underlies his entire concept of
Zionism and the value of secular progress.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 03:52:46PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: R' Micha Berger responded:
: > As did someone who said "Will you marry me?", gives her a ring,
: > there are eidim, and both of them even have every intent to spend
: > the rest of their lives as a couple. No?

: It depends on what you mean by of "the rest of their lives" and "as a
: couple". The whole idea of engagement is that, yes, they are agreeing
: to be a couple of "rayim ahuvim" henceforth and forever, but they are
: NOT agreeing to be a *married* couple until some future point.

I'm not sure how far an engagement is from halachic eirusin, and
whether the guy's thoughts at the time he "pops the question"
necessarily cover that difference, and whether we can assume those
devarim shebaleiv necessarily trump his actual words.

I can't strongly argue a position I don't hold. However, you asked how
machmirim would have room to be machmir, and why someone who doesn't hold
thus mei'ikar hadin may want to avoid the question anyway. That much,
I think I provided.

Tir'u baTov!
-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

On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:18:35AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: Micha Berger wrote:
: >Why? The kelal could be made about "yeish omerim" as much as about R'
: >Noson. And if stam mishnah keR' Meir, do I even need "R' Meir omer" or
: >"Acheirim omerim" to apply the kelal?

: See Sotah 7b about "Yehi Reuvein ...."  Admittedly it doesn't mention 
: mentioning his name in the yeshiva, but it implies that forceful 
: advocacy is important in deciding halacha.  Not mentioning the opinion's 
: source is a means of denigrating the opinion.  Otherwise what function 
: does it serve?

Punishing the person, not his ideas, as a deterrant against future
revolts against the nesi'us. Isn't that the whole point?

Alternatively, I would need someone to explain how an honest search for
how to best serve Hashem can take a back seat to preserving an office
that isn't even a din to have.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 03:49:48PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote to Areivim:
: In R Michael Broyde's article attacking the Rackman...
: he writes that he has personally participated in annulment...

The gemara has hafkaas qidushin. But only of two types:
1- The qidushin is invalidated ab initio, "al daas rabbanan meqadeish"
or
2- The husband gives an invalid get, but the chakhamim make the get
count anyway.

Without a maaseh from the husband, never.

Maaseh shehayah... A woman survived the holocaust and did her research
and found out her husband is dead. Numerous rabbanim allowed her to
remarry so she did. Two children later, her first husband shows up.
Questions of mamzeirus, ch"v.

So, R' Zvi Pesach Frank had husband #1 give a get al yedei shaliach and
while the shaliach carries it, he renegs on the get bifnei eidim. Now
when the shaliach gives the get to the woman, it was not gittin but
hafkaas qidushin. And thus the marriage was anulled lemafrei'ah, and
she wasn't an eishes ish at the time of remarriage.

Now, would we rely on this engineering if it wasn't involving the Shoah,
survivors, bedi'eved, someone who actually asked rabbanim and was given a
heter to remarry, and possible children stuck in mamzeirus? I don't know.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

Ben Waxman:
> Actually about a year ago, Rav Rimon called for not only preserving the 
> custom but strengthening it. He feels that wheat substitutes should be 
> included in the ban, and recounted a story or two of people who ate khametz 
> on Pesakh, thinking that the food was a kosher for Pesakh substitute.

About 3 years ago I found a wonderful sefer - "minhag avoseinu b'yadeinu"
who compiles details and arguments both pro and con with regard to
various Minhaggim.

I had always considered the minhag of Gebruktz as either unnecessary
or excessive. This is especially because our crispy matzos are usually
well-baked and so - what's the cheshash anymore for unbaked flour mixing
with water?

Yet this sefer mentioned an interesting ma'aseh shehayah. Once upon
a time, a local Rebbetzin was seen baking with "matzah meal" during
Passover. She was seen by a neighbor [classic mar'is ayin] who took it
as regular flour instead of matzah meal!

This story is one possible source, i.e. a gzeira against baking with
matzah meal due to mar'is ayin. For the first time in my life, the
logic for this minhag seemed reasonable - if not downright compelling!

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Ilana Sober Elzufon wrote:

> Even in straight halacha - does elu v'elu (in the sense that both are 
> true on a deeper level, but only one can actually be accepted as 
> practice) apply to every single machloket? Up to what point? The gemara? 
> The rishonim? Nowadays? Or are there some opinions that are just not 
> true at all?

"Elu Va'elu Divrei Elokim Chayim" was a message from Above about BH
and BS, not about everybody.  A similar message is recorded in Shu"T
Min Hashamayim about the tefilin of Rashi and Rabbenu Tam.  Other than
these two examples I'm not aware of any guarantee that in any given
machlokes both are DECh.  As my father says, there are shiv'im panim
latorah, but there are also shiv'im achor.

There were certainly sefarim written in the times of the Rishonim that
were not DECh, and that expressed opinions in halacha that were pure
nonsense.   I'm thinking specifically of the sefer quoted (in order to
refute its opinion) in the first Tosfos in Chulin, which modern
editions give as "Hilchot Eretz Yisrael", though that title may be an
invention of the Bochur Hazetzer.   As far as I know this sefer (which
no longer exists) was rejected by all the rishonim, and need not be
respected merely for being old.

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

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 03:49:48PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote to Areivim:
> : In R Michael Broyde's article attacking the Rackman...
> : he writes that he has personally participated in annulment...
> 
> The gemara has hafkaas qidushin. But only of two types:
> 1- The qidushin is invalidated ab initio, "al daas rabbanan meqadeish"
> or
> 2- The husband gives an invalid get, but the chakhamim make the get
> count anyway.
> 
> Without a maaseh from the husband, never.

Those are cases where there was nothing wrong with the kiddushin, and
only years later do we decide that we want to annul them, because of
circumstances that didn't exist at the time.  But R Broyde writes
explicitly that it is ma'asim bechol yom (not literally, of course)
to annul marriages based on mekach ta'us, and that he has personally
participated in such annulments.

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

RAB: "I was referring specifically to the minhag of children by their parents
weddings. I don't see anywhere that times have changed WRT this specific minhag."

When I said times have changed, I was thinking of parenting styles.  For
example, my parents never took us when we were children (10-13, for
example) to a shiva call even if we knew the people sitting shiva very
well; we have brought our children and when we sat shiva our friends did
the same.  In my experience and that of many of my friends, this was
meaningful both to those sitting shiva and the children visiting. 
Similarly, we, and many of our friends, are much more open with our
children about matters that my parents were much more close-mouthed about;
e.g., divorce, sickness and the like.  Still being married to the same
woman for almost 40 years I don't have personal experience with second
courtships and marriages, but here, too, my perception is that in my group,
parents are much more open about these matters with their children that
previous generations were.

Now, let me be clear: I'm not saying the style that many in my group have
adopted is the better style or it is for everybody.  Rather, AISI, eylu
v'eylu really applies here. But that's really my point; this issue (have
the children at a second wedding or not) is so personal and so case-by-case
, that to have some general minhag is not, IMO, the way to go.	Rather,
since, I believe, different people can make different decisions in this
area with both decisions being intelligent and appropriate for the
particular families and circumstances, why the need for a minhag to tell
people what to do? Why can't we simply use common sense?

Joseph Kaplan 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091103/925c01d7/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 18

20 And God said: Even if the outcry over Sedom 
and Amorah is already great, and their sin already weighs very heavily;

21 Nevertheless, I will go down and see whether 
the cry from this outcry that has come to Me is 
already sufficient to incur destruction. If
not, I will recognize [the individuals]

According to its structure and content, verse 20 is dependent on the
verse that follows it: ?Although the guilt of Sodom and Gomorrah is
already known and is great and heavy, nevertheless, I will go down and
see . . .? Once again, the same two elements are mentioned: The outcry
(zahkah) over their heartlessness in human relations, their scorn for all
Tzedaka u mishpat, made them ra'im; and their 
moral degeneracy (Chatasom), their
forsaking Derech Hashem, made them Chataim (above, 13:13).

The outcry against their social sins was rabah, widespread, or, according
to R. Chanina (Bereshis Rabbah 49:5), rabah 
v'holechos, ever increasing. In this
respect, they were already condemned by their fellow men.

There is generally no outcry, however, over sexual excesses. People
think: these are not the concern of society, which can get along quite
well without morality; these are merely sins against God, and it makes
no difference if they become common practice. In any case, one should
excuse a person who indulges in them ? Chavas nafsho hoo (Michah 7:3).

Over these sins of Sodom and Gomorrah there was no outcry among
people, but before God k'voda m'od, their sin weighed heavily on the land
and its future. Nature itself revolts against the abhorrent acts of Sodom,
as Scripture says: the land itself spews out its inhabitants who defile it
with their abominations (see Vayikra 18:28). 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091103/b662bce3/attachment-0001.htm>

http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2009/11/rav-steinman-decides-n
j-elections.html
do elections fall under the purview of daas tora?
should one ask who or what to vote for?
must one listen to general exhortations of who do vote for, or only if one 
personally asked for a psak?
do gdolei one country have purview over another  on such type issues?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091103/b21832e2/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha:
> The gemara has hafkaas qidushin. But only of two types:
> 1- The qidushin is invalidated ab initio, "al daas rabbanan meqadeish"
> or
> 2- The husband gives an invalid get, but the chakhamim make the get
> count anyway.

Tangentially a chaveir claims that Rackman relied upon "get zikkuy".
I'm not a dayan, but AIUI
A BD issues a get as shluchim on behalf of a recalcitrant husband, since
it is a "z'chus" for him not to be a sarvan etc.

Frankly, I'm not sure this was Rackman's method or not. If anyone knows
more, please verify

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 10:51:30PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Tangentially a chaveir claims that Rackman relied upon "get zikkuy".

IIRC from RARakeffet's 2 years of shiurim on shu"t on the topic, R'
Rackman relied on a combination of mekach ta'os and hafka'as qiddushin.
Not get zikui.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

From: "Joseph C. Kaplan" _jkaplan@tenzerlunin.com_ 
(mailto:jkap...@tenzerlunin.com) 


>>I was somewhat behind on my Avodah reading and thus had the  opportunity 
to read the entire thread (to date) about children at a parent's  wedding, 
and my reaction, after reading all the posts was, in typical Jewish  fashion, 
a question: why should there be any minhag at all?  ....Wouldn't  it be 
better if the decision is based on what best for the members of this  
particular family?  <<
 
 
 

>>>>>>
 
 
Although I have given a number of reasons why children generally did not go 
 to their parents' weddings in old Europe, I would like to point out that I 
was  consistently careful to use the word "practice" and not "minhag" 
because I don't  think there really was a minhag in the same way you might refer 
to a minhag to  wear a gartel.  Minhag Yisrael kedin hu means you generally 
don't change a  minhag but this was not a "minhag" in that sense, it was 
just the accepted  practice.  I sympathize with the old practice but I actually 
 do agree that this should be decided on a case by case  basis.
 

--Toby Katz
==========




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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20091103/c242bcda/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 220
***************************************

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..."