Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 237

Tue, 24 Nov 2009

• 1. Re: halachic attitude to the convicted (Samuel Svarc)
• 2. Re: halachic attitude to the convicted (Yosef Skolnick)
• 3. Re: halachic attitude to the convicted (Rich, Joel)
• 4. pampers (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: pampers (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: pampers (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: pampers (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: halachic attitude to the convicted (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Minhag Avos and Sephardim (Michael Makovi)
• 10. Re: Minhag Avos and Sephardim (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: halachic attitude to the convicted (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Re: halachic attitude to the convicted (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Was Esav a Rasha in the womb? (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Bereshit 23: 6-16 (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: ikkarim: mashiach (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: halachic attitude to the convicted (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 17. Re: Minhag Avos and Sephardim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 18. Re: Are there halachic issues with using the Mormon fmaily history web site? (Samuel Svarc)

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Rich, Joel <JR...@sibson.com> wrote:
>
>
> But that requires a determination that the person actually does pose
> such a threat, not merely that he has been convicted of a crime which
> has been put into a category of "crimes that affect public safety".
> ?Labels don't change reality.
>
> --
> Zev Sero
> =====================
> Actually, depending on one's understanding of DMD, I would say they do - i.e. if the King decides it is, it may well be.

Let me then be the first to bring "The Emperor's New Clothes" into the
halachic discussion. The King can decide many a thing, but still
cannot change reality. He cannot wily-nily decide to bump people off
as "threats". Sanhedrin would not allow it.

KT,
MSS

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Rich, Joel <JR...@sibson.com> wrote:

>
>
> But that requires a determination that the person actually does pose such a
> threat, not merely that he has been convicted of a crime which has been put
> into a category of "crimes that affect public safety".  Labels don't change
> reality.
>

>
 --
> Zev Sero
> =====================
> Actually, depending on one's understanding of DMD, I would say they do -
> i.e. if the King decides it is, it may well be.
> KT
>

According to you, when would you have a legitimate case of Pidyon Shevuim?

It would seem clear throughout history (at least anecdotally) that many of
the leaders of the jewish people have not taken this approach.  The stories
that float around of this rabbi going to seek the release of X prisoner or
that rabbi seeking a stay of execution of Y prisoner.

>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091123/dcdbe216/attachment-0001.htm>

 

>> But that requires a determination that the person actually does pose 
>> such a threat, not merely that he has been convicted of a crime which 
>> has been put into a category of "crimes that affect public safety".
>> Labels don't change reality.
 
> Actually, depending on one's understanding of DMD, I would say they do
> - i.e. if the King decides it is, it may well be.

What conceivable translation of the word "dina" would yield such a result?

-- 
Zev 

AND:

According to you, when would you have a legitimate case of Pidyon Shevuim?


It would seem clear throughout history (at least anecdotally) that many of
the leaders of the jewish people have not taken this approach.	The stories
that float around of this rabbi going to seek the release of X prisoner or
that rabbi seeking a stay of execution of Y prisoner.  

AND:
Let me then be the first to bring "The Emperor's New Clothes" into the
halachic discussion. The King can decide many a thing, but still cannot
change reality. He cannot wily-nily decide to bump people off as "threats".
Sanhedrin would not allow it.

KT,
MSS
__________________________________________________

The theories of DMD are broad and have been discussed here many times. 
AIUI if the King were to determine that crossing in the middle of the block
had led to too many needless deaths that it needed to be punishable by 30
days in jail so as to keep an orderly safe, society, the broader definition
of DMD (i.e. that it is not just limited to monetary issues) would put it
into the category of "crimes that affect public safety" even though many
might think it is not such an important issue.	Thus the labeling by the
appropriate authority changed the "reality" from the day before the
promulgation.

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.

<<Is this true? I'm reminded of the practice of putting a young child near
a light switch the paarent wants flipped (or holding her in your arms
while standing next to it), knowing the child is bound to play with it.>>

I lost the connection. The baby dirties the pamper all by himself without
any intervention of the parent. Now if the parent wanted the pamper to
turn colors
and convinced (?) the baby to dirty it then there might be a connection.
However, for most babies they dirty the pamper without any intervention and
desire to color the pamper.

As a minimum even for an adult the act is without kavana and eino
tzarich le-gufo
and done in an unusual manner.

If one throws a rag into the garbage and it becomes colored in the garbage it
is not prohibited as in any case one is throwing it out.


-- 
Eli Turkel

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:32:46PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I lost the connection. The baby dirties the pamper all by himself without
: any intervention of the parent...

Well, *someone* put the diaper on the baby, and wishes to have the color
alerting them, no? Is the fact that it's hours before rather than 30 sec
make a difference?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

>
> Well, *someone* put the diaper on the baby, and wishes to have the color
> alerting them, no? Is the fact that it's hours before rather than 30 sec
> make a difference?

However, the baby is doing the action. It is different than putting a baby
in a place where he will push a switch (assuming that is prohibited)
since that is the reason for the parent's action.

Parents do not put pampers on babies so that they will dirty them and then
change the color of the pamper.

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:55:14PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Parents do not put pampers on babies so that they will dirty them and then
: change the color of the pamper.

The parent could have chosen a non-coloring diaper. So I would say that
yes, the parent did put this particular diaper with its liquid-sensitive
ingredient in order for the child to color it when the time comes.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

> The theories of DMD are broad and have been discussed here many times.
>  AIUI if the King were to determine that crossing in the middle of the
> block had led to too many needless deaths that it needed to be punishable
> by 30 days in jail so as to keep an orderly safe, society, the broader
> definition of DMD (i.e. that it is not just limited to monetary issues)
> would put it into the category of "crimes that affect public safety" even
> though many might think it is not such an important issue.  Thus the
> labeling by the appropriate authority changed the "reality" from the day
> before the promulgation.

See, that is *exactly* what I am talking about.  One minute we're talking
about people who are threats to public safety, and the next minute someone
like this is being put in that category through semantic legerdemain.
There is *no way* that a serial jaywalker is a threat to public safety,
and therefore there is no heter at all to inform on him, and those who
claim that he is not an appropriate subject for pidyon shvuyim have a
tough case to make.

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

> Until a Minhag EY, Minhag America, etc. emerge, there is no minhag
> hamaqom to conform to. Wait more time after the Shoah and the expulsion
> from Moslem Lands, and I expect we (or more likely our grandchildren)
> will be conforming to local minhagim.
>
> R' Micha

I completely agree. As you once said previously, during the time of
the rishonim, the Ashkenazi minhag we know in the Rama took "forever"
to form, gradually over many generations.

My contention is, however, that until a new minhag ha-maqom forms, we
cannot create the unprecedented concept of minhag avot in the
meantime. If there is no minhag ha-maqom in Israel regarding qitniot,
this doesn't mean we have to create a minhag avot in the meantime. It
just means that regarding qitniot, the halakhah says "do what you
want".

After all, what makes qitniot so magical? There is no minhag ha-maqom
regarding basketball or sewing, but no one is demanding that everyone
do what his ancestors did regarding basketball and sewing. Rather,
everyone just does what he wants; it is parve. Likewise with qitniot,
I say; if there is no minhag ha-maqom, then there is nothing. We don't
have to create a new concept/obligation minhag avot in its place.

I am NOT saying it is GOOD to abandon minhag avot. I am simply saying
that there is no OBLIGATION from the halakhic literature to keep
minhag avot. If my Salonika-born friend in Israel wants to keep
singing Ladino songs, fine, have fun. But he has no OBLIGATION to do
so.

Michael

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:56:18PM +0200, Michael Makovi wrote:
: I completely agree. As you once said previously, during the time of
: the rishonim, the Ashkenazi minhag we know in the Rama took "forever"
: to form, gradually over many generations.

: My contention is, however, that until a new minhag ha-maqom forms, we
: cannot create the unprecedented concept of minhag avot in the
: meantime...

What do you think the Ashkenazim did back when there was no single norm?
My point was that AFAIK, this isn't "unprecedented". Rather, relying on
zeidi's minhag hamaqom is the normal way of managing until your current
setting has a minhag.

Your assertion that "there is no such thing as 'minhag avot'" (to quote
your blog) would require you going through every instance of the idiom
and proving that it only refers to the taqanah of YT sheini. However,
see AhS OC 150:9 (on the subject of where to put the bimah and which
way people should face in shul), who sources minhag avos in "she'al
avikha veyagedkha".

Note that in your assertion you are also presuming to know how halakhah
works better than did RMF, eg in his teshuvah about someone who davens
Nusach "Sfard" being allowed to switch to Ashkenaz, or teshuvos about how
to run a minyan where some people wear tefillin on ch"m and some not.
See the Rashba (the newer one from kesav yad) #346 who invokes minhag
avos (the topic is miqva'os). The Roqiach (310). The Mei'ir Sukkah 26a
"Shomerei haIr" who says that sitting in the sukkah on the first night
in the rain is minhag avos. Or Chasam Shofer EhE 2 (vol 4) teshuva
67. Or Yabia Omer V, OC #41, "venahagu hakol shelo liqaneis lebeis
hamerchatz" during the sevah'ua shechil bo 9 beAv "ve'asur leshanos minhag
avos". Which I think (now that I see Yechaveh Daas 1:38) is actually
a quote of the Ramban's Toras haAdam 81a. Mishpetei Uziel YD (vol 1)
#6 who quotes the Rivash about accepting a peshat in the gemara that
fits minhag avos over the peshat of the ge'onim. Or MU YD (vol 2) #22,
where he cites "lo titosh toras imekha" as the source for minhag avos.
Etc, etc, etc...

What we do find is that minhag hamaqom trumps minhag avos. But here
there is no minhag hamaqom. Therefore, what we are doing is what was
done in early Ashekanaz, among Sepharadim in the early 1500s, etc...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

 


See, that is *exactly* what I am talking about.  One minute we're talking
about people who are threats to public safety, and the next minute someone
like this is being put in that category through semantic legerdemain.
There is *no way* that a serial jaywalker is a threat to public safety, and
therefore there is no heter at all to inform on him, and those who claim
that he is not an appropriate subject for pidyon shvuyim have a tough case
to make.

-- 
Zev Sero          
===============================

I'm truly honored as I have never before been deemed at the level to have indulged in "semantic legerdemain"
Do I understand you to say that the King does not have the right to
determine what is necessary to maintain the public order/good under any
definition of DMD and thus could not under halacha jail our serial
jaywalker or are you saying he has the right to but we would then consider
the jaywalker for an allocation of scarce communal assets to fulfill the
mitzvah of pidyon shvuyim?

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.

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:13:14AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: Since it is permitted to inform on someone who poses a threat to the
: community, it makes no sense to claim that one must then get him
: released!

So, you believe it's okay to inform on someone who steals, but due to
ahavas Yisrael only picks nachriim? Or is a Jack the Ripper who only
kills prostitutes?

I'm talking about the gov't's Torah-given authority to do what's
necessary to protect its people. Which isn't the same as our own
right to protect ourselves.

: But that requires a determination that the person actually does pose such
: a threat, not merely that he has been convicted of a crime which has been
: put into a category of "crimes that affect public safety".  Labels don't
: change reality.

Yes it does, as I noted, it would keep poseqim busy. A jaywalker is
arguably a threat to public safety. My boss was out of work for 5 months
recovering from an accident caused by someone who reflexively swerved to
miss a jaywalker -- not realizing he was swerving into a head-on collision.

Another issue is whether we trust the gov't and its courts as a reliable
way of determining guilt. A person found guilty of a crime that is
dangrous to society is not necessarily actually guilty. I trust the US
court system to the extent that I would assume we should ignore the
minority of errors. I'm under the impression you (RSZ) would not.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 01:04:32PM -0500, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: R' Marty wrote: 
:> Where is the free will here? Esav did not yet have a Yetzer Hara yet
:> he wants to go to Avoda Zara?
:> How do you understand this Maharal?

: So why should this be any different from the whole problem of free will?
: HaShem knows what you will choose even before you are conceived.

Actually, He doesn't. You're saying that Hashem knows *now* what the
child will choose. But Hashem doesn't have a "now". G-d's knowledge is
entirely without a "when", so it doesn't stand before, during or after
your decision.

But in any case, this is different because the medrash describes Eisav
as acting in utero based on his love of idolatry. The resolution I give
above doesn't work, because the fetal Esav has a "now". We're talking
about someone described as preprogrammed to be an oveid AZ.

And I think the resolution is the difference between having a desire for
doing something and being preprogrammed for it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:51:47PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: The most striking example of that is the many times variants of "tzachak"  
: and "sachak" occur in connection with Yitzchak.  Avraham laughing, Sarah  
: laughing, the whole world rejoicing for her, Yishmael mocking, Avimelech 
: seeing  Yitzchak and Rivka "playing."  Etc.

From http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2004/12/love-part-ii.shtml :
    If we look at the portrayal of the avos, both in their relationships
    with Hashem and with their families, I believe you find three
    distinct models for loving relationships.

    ... I would like to suggest that for Avraham, love was not primarily
    expressed by giving to the beloved, but by giving of oneself to
    further the beloved's goals. This is also how Chazal portray the
    relationship between Avraham and Sarah....
    ...
    Yitzchaq's love was more straightforward. It was giving to the
    beloved. That's why it warrants explicit use of the term ahavah
    rather than letting it remain implied. Avimelekh knew that Yitzchaq
    and Rivqah were spouses when he saw him "metzacheiq es Rivqah
    ishto", making her laugh or perhaps otherwise acting intimately.
    (Not sexually, as this was in public.) The word-play used in the Torah,
    "Yitzchaq" and the more rare usage of "metzacheiq", gives us a sense
    that this behavior is inherent to what it is to be a Yitzchaq.

    When Rivqah arrived at Avraham's home, Yitzchaq was returning from
    prayer. He went "lasu'ach basadeh, to talk in the field". The word
    "lasu'ach" is not the usual one for prayer. The mishnah uses the root
    to caution us "Al tarbeh sichah im ha'ishah, don't overly engage in
    sichah with women." Sichah has a connotation of flirting; Yitzchaq's
    prayer was one of flirting with G-d.

    When we get to Yaaqov, we find a synthesis of the two. ....

See there for how I attempt show that the avos were consistent in their
views of love WRT ahavas Hashem, their wives, and their children.

In Ashirah Lashem I have a more on this theme in a footnote to Lekha
Dodi. See <http://www.aishdas.org/siddur_pg.pdf> pg 27, fn 3:
    As we noted earlier (Ashrei, note 4), Yitzchak is an archetype
    of one who mastered Avodah {Worship [of G-d]}. Yitzchak's name
    has romantic connotations; when he has a quiet moment alone with
    his wife, he "metzacheik es Rivka ishto" (B'reishis 26:8). His
    encounter with G-d on Moriah was when he went out "lasuach basadeh"
    (ibid. 24:63) {to speak in the fields}. The word "lasuach" brings
    to mind the admonition in Avos (1:5) "do not overly engage in sichah
    with a woman". There, Rav Hirsch defines sichah as a light, perhaps
    flirtatious, conversation. Yitzchak prayed to "the Beloved of his
    soul". Flirting with G-d.

    Following in his footsteps, members of the Chassidic movement of
    the Second Temple era would go out in the fields, calling each other
    to come greet the Shabbos Queen together. Based on this custom, the
    Kabbalists of Tzefas instituted Kabbalas Shabbos. They saw Shabbos
    as a bride, and would go out "lasuach basadeh", to be "metzacheiq"
    her with the love song of Shir haShirim, with Tehillim, and with
    this poem. Earlier generations of the current Chassidic movement too
    would go out to the woods to sing their greeting.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 08:32:43AM -0800, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: http://shiratdevorah.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-is-belief-
: in-moshiach-one-of-13.html
: on why  not believing  in mashiach makes one a deficient  jew 

I blogged on this topic too at
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/05/hashem-and-morality.shtml
    ...
    So yes, HQBH did choose good vs evil without being subject to
    external constraint, and yet still the choice was not arbitrary.
    Socrates gave Euthyphro a false dichotomy -- there was a third
    choice. Hashem has a reason, but that reason wasn't conforming to a
    preexisting morality.G-d created us because He could only bestow
    good if there is someone to receive that good. That is our
    individual purpose, to make ourselves into utensils, receptacles for
    emanations of Divine Good. (I once suggested to Avodah that
    "Qabbalah" isn't to be translated as "that which was received",
    but rather "the art of reception".) Given that personal purpose,
    the definition of "tov" feeds directly into a "spiritual health"
    model of reward and punishment. Oneshim are the product of not being
    proper keilim for shefa, and therefore one is incapable of receiving
    the sechar. It's not that the sechar is being withheld -- the
    problem is with the reception.This makes following the tzavah
    (command) of the Melech a derivative -- learning to be a good
    subject is part of what it takes to be a good keli. Perhaps this is
    why they are called mitzvos (that which were commanded) rather than
    tzavos (commands).

    This means that of the Rambam's ikkarei emunah, perhaps the last
    three are the most critical. Without an eschatology, without a final
    state, we have no way of defining which acts advance us to that
    goal, and which are ra, shattering that which was already built.
    ...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RZS:
> There is *no way* that a serial jaywalker is a threat to public safety,
> and therefore there is no heter at all to inform on him, and those who
> claim that he is not an appropriate subject for pidyon shvuyim have a
> tough case to make.

Sheilah:
What about a driver who "serially" uses his cellphone whilst driving?
Is that deemed enough a safety threat?

[FWIW This is a serious question that's been debated in our community]

KT
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Michael:
> It just means that regarding qitniot, the halakhah says "do what you want"
> After all, what makes qitniot so magical?

I've often wondered why - during the 1700's when so many minhaggim were
changed or abandoned by Hassidim or by the GRA - why didn't they jettison
Qitnoyyos, too?

Maybe it IS magical?


Micha adressing Michael:
> Your assertion that "there is no such thing as 'minhag avot'" (to quote
> your blog)

Minhag avos is an explicit and undisputed R Yochanan in P'sachim see
ch. 4 50:2 Bnai bayshan nahug thru "sh'ma b'ni mussar avicha..."

Key quote:
"K'var qibblu avoseichem aliechem"

This is AFAIK Halachah P'suqa See SA YD 214:2

Aiui it is also used by Chayei Adam on Both Qitniyyos and Waiting 6 Hours
[though that might be minhag Hamaqom.]

[AFAIK the ONLY objection Sephardi Posqim have to Minhag Avos is when it
[seemingly] contradicts Halachic sources - usually Bavli. But not to
Humros per se.]

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> They also believe that both the Father and Jesus have physical, albeit
> eternal, bodies. Not sure where the 7 mitzvos stands on what, except
> leshitas haRaavad (who would permit belief in corporeality for Jews).

The Raavad doe not permit belief in corporeality. He holds that such
belief doesn't make one a heretic. There is a vast difference between
the two formulations.

KT,
MSS


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 237
***************************************

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..."