Volume 26: Number 259
Tue, 22 Dec 2009
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:14:01 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Assur to be Stupid
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 05:11:24PM -0500, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: It should be pointed out that the word "stupid" is being used as
: "ignorant."
...
: "Stupid" on the other hand means "lacking common sense" and doing
: things that are associated with lacking common sense....
Unlike Cantor Wolberg's take, I understood RYBS as stating that there
is an implied prohibition against not using the intelligence G-d gave
you. Recall, the context in which he spoke was someone asking him about
bowing to the mat at a judo class. It wasn't a lack of information
involved, but rather RYBS felt that bowing to an inanimate object
demonstrated a lack of common sense.
That said, what would RYBS do with the Chazal that says that Aharon was
Hashem's vehicle for initiating the first three makos because Moshe
Rabbeinu had to demonstrate hakaras hatov to the Nile (for hiding him as
an infant) and to the sand (for hiding the Egyptian's body) and thus it
would be wrong for him to initiate makos dam, tzefardei'a and kinim.
Is it that different to have an excercise in hakaras hatov by bowing to
the mat which is about to save you much pain?
I also assume this means RYBS only discusses covering the chalah on
Shabbos lezeikher the frost atop the mon, and nothing to do with
respect for the staff of life while making qiddush first.
This might tie into RYBS's general attitude of "there is no ritual in
Judaism", nothing we do to "feel good" or have religious experiences.
Everything is rooted in halakhah. (Thus, the "Halakhic Man".) Which
bacomes his model for minhag as well -- every minhag has to be patterned
after a mitzvah. This chiddush of RYBS's then motivated pesaqim WRT the
omer and the 3 weeks that are distinctly his, by fitting the steps of
aveilus we practice by the calendar to the actual dinim of aveilus when
ch"v someone passes away.
(I mentioned this recently when discussing R' Velvel's chiddush about
everyone holding that there is a berakhah on a minhag that involves
a "cheftza shel mitzvah", and the machloqes Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam
is over whether Chatzi Hallel qualifies as similar enough to Hallel.
Leshitas RYBS, every minhag has to have a cheftza shel mitzvah, so this
sevarah doesn't work.)
The tie-in between the ideas is that without halakhah, there is no
reason to practice haqaras hatov with inanimate objects; it becomes
"ritual" in this sense of the word.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Danny Schoemann <doni...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:19:59 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] How to light the Menorah
RMB said:
> This is how I understood the original question...
> You pragmatically need something to light the menoros.
> There is a din "ein lanu reshus lehishtameish bahem", and therefore we
> need another light in the room in order to avoid doing something solely
> by their light.
> Historically, those were the same neir.
Why do you assume that? Anybody who used an oil Shamash had to use a
candle (or match) to light his Menora, unless he was trying to be
"clever".
I quick look at the various "Rebbe/Gedolim" Chanuka pix in the local
weeklies shows that some use an oil Shamash and some use a tall candle
Shamash - but all of them seem to use *another* candle to light all of
the above.
- Danny
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:26:26 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Driving Without a Licence
The following story was carried by Hareidim and subsequently picked up by
VIN. Given our current language difficulties, I'll post VIN's version. If
you recall the story, it pays to scroll down to the snippet from RDE's
blog, as he cites R' Shternbuch who in turn cites the Steipler (the son
holds like the father -- and the Minchas Yitzchaq, the Tzitzi Eliezer,
and R' Ovadiah Yosef).
There was a recent newsstory that made me think about this issue, one in
which a prominant shomeir Shabbos just pled guilty for a fiscal crime,
and the story asks us to daven for him. I'm wondering what RCK would
say.
-micha
Jerusalem - Rav Kanievsky to Bochur Who Drove Without a License:
You're a Murderer
Published on: Jul 22, 2009 at 09:23 AM
Jerusalem - Three weeks ago [ie early last July or so -micha]
a bochur yeshiva without a drivers' license caused a dreadful car
accident on the Ramot Road. Now another bochur was caught with the
same irresponsible behavior. In preparation for his trial and out
of fear that he might be sentenced to prison, the bochur decided to
seek a blessing from Rav Chaim Kanievsky.
After VIN News verified that accuracy of the exchange, we are
bringing the recording of the conversation between them as a service
for the public:
Bochur: I have a trial in another week. They want to put me in
prison. Would the rav please bless me so I'll be saved from it.
Rav Chaim: What is the trial about?
Bochur: They caught me driving without a license, after I crashed
into a wall.
Rav Chaim: So you're mamash a murderer! Adaraba, let them put you in
prison. Very good.
Bochur (shouts) What? Chalila, I didn't kill anyone. I didn't wound
anyone either. I just had a small accident with a wall involving
only myself.
Rav Chaim: But you drove without a license, right?
Bochur: Yes.
Rav Chaim: Nu, so you're considered a real murderer. You could have
caused an accident with people too.
Bochur: But I know how to drive well. Besides that, [being in
prison] might ruin things for me with shidduchim and yeshiva.
Rav Chaim: There's no such things as "I know". Without a license,
one doesn't know how to drive. Concerning shidduchim, whoever
doesn't want you is right. It's dangerous.
Bochur: I'm mamash sorry. Just let the rav bless me that I be saved
in the trial.
Rav Chaim: What do you mean, you're sorry? If you're given a car
tomorrow you won't travel? For sure you'll travel. So the best thing
is for you to sit in prison and learn not to be a murderer.
Bochur: Please, will the rav promise that I'll be saved if I'll be
careful from now on?
Rav Chaim: I can't give a blessing. May Hashem help that they
sentence you to what will really be good for you.
Rav Chaim's family says that it's rare that Rav Chaim speaks in such
extreme language, but this is how he views a person who is caught
breaking traffic rules or who drives without a license. Rav Chaim
will refuse to bless him and doesn't hesitate to say that it
involves no less than "murder."
Copyright ? 1999 - 2008 VosIzNeias.com - All rights reserved.
From
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/07/driver-without-license-is-
threat-to.html
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
A driver without a license is threat to life
VIN reports an discussion between Rav Chaim Kanievsky and a bochur
who drove without a license and had an accident. [That sentence
includes a link to the above story. -micha]
This is discussed by Rav Sternbuch in volume 1 #850. A similar
conclusion that the driver is a rodef and can be reported to the
police is found in Minchas Yitzchok, Tzitz Eliezar and Rav Ovadiya
Yosef.
Rav Sternbuch quotes the Steipler as follows: ...(R' Yaakov Kaniefsky
was very angry with those who violated traffic laws whose purpose
is to protect the lives of the members of society. I heard that
someone once came to him because he was worried that he was about to
receive a very severe punishment because he had violated the traffic
laws. He wanted to receive a beracha that he would be free of the
punishment. R' Kaniefsky replied with a very sharp admonition and told
him that in truth he deserved to be punished!) (This was even though
R' Kaniefsky was not necessarily in agreement with the secular laws in
general). Therefore it would appear that if the person is considered a
danger to society and since we can't punish him ourselves, he should
be reported to the police -- with the permission of beis din or the
rabbi of the community. This is in fact a mitzva since it is saving
the community from harm and possible death.
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:58:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] repeating shemonei esrei
RETurkel:
>> IOW, why do we repeat?
>> 1- Is it that these things have to be said, and since that requires an
>> SE, we repeat the whole SE?
...
>> 2- Or is it a pesul in the SE not to say everything coined for that
>> tefillah?
> It is a machkloket of 2 opinions in Tosafot. The question appears when
> one forgets yaale veyovah eg rosh chodesh but the next tefilla is
> already maariv after rosh chodesh. Does it pay to say maariv twice since
> in any case one will not say yaale veyavoh.
A reply from my co worker:
: My question is only according to the shita that you do not repeat s.e.
: on Motzaei Rosh Chodesh because you are not marviach yaaleh veyavo
: Clearly if you hold that missing a hazkarah makes the s.e. as klo
: hispalel "kepshuto" then of course you would repeat s.e. on motzaei
: rosh chodesh.
: But even if you say that repeating s.e. is in order to be mashlim the
: hazkara it could still be that as long as you did not say "all" required
: hazkaras in one s.e. it is not called davenen s.e. ktikuno and you
: would have to daven again.
: Thanks,
: The coworker
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:39:24 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Driving Without a Licence
Micha Berger wrote:
> The following story was carried by Hareidim and subsequently picked
> up by VIN.
Neither source is reliable, and I greatly suspect that the story is
made up, lo dubim velo ya'ar, and nothing at all can be learned from it.
> There was a recent newsstory that made me think about this issue, one in
> which a prominant shomeir Shabbos just pled guilty for a fiscal crime,
> and the story asks us to daven for him. I'm wondering what RCK would
> say.
The story, whether true or false, sheds no light at all on that question.
> Without a license, one doesn't know how to drive.
That statement is an obvious falsehood, no matter who is alleged to have
said it. It is inconceivable that any intelligent person could honestly
say such a thing. That is one reason why I doubt the whole story.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:06:08 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Pirsumei Nisa
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 02:31:37PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: I'd like to get to better understanding of the concept of Pirsumei
: Nisa. I know for example that it applies to three mitzvos: Ner Chanukah,
: Mikra Megillah, and Arba Kosos. I also know that it is a very important
: concept, so important that the usual 20% spending limit for a mitzva
: aseh does not apply.
Minor rephrase: Pirsumei nisa is a deOraisa that is the underlying
motivation for three mitzvos derabbanan.
I am looking at it in a manner parallel to the way davar shebiqdushah
could be a deOraisa (and thus the chiyuv of a minyan is from derashos)
and yet Qaddish, Qedushah, Barekhu, etc... are matbei'os coined by
the rabbanan.
Or, for that matter, the chiyuv deOraisa for berakhah acharonah vs
making the three berakhos that are the original matbei'ah. Or the
deOraisa of tefillah vs Shemoneh Esrei. To take a line from another
thread, if someone omitted yaaleh veyavo, he clearly couldn't have
failed to fulfil the chiyuv of tefillah -- it predates Shemoneh Esrei
altogether! So why does he have to go back?
That hypothetical parallels yours:
: For example, if someone cannot afford wine for the Arba Kosos, but
: he does have enough matzo, isn't that an adequate way of publicizing
: the miracle? Matzo very clearly commemorates both the slavery and the
: liberation. The four cups commemorate freedom only for those who are
: familiar with the drash and the pasukim, which makes it appear (to me)
: like a rather poor way of publicizing the miracle.
: So if a person has matzo, but has no money for wine, why should he
: have to sell his shirt for wine? Why isn't the matza good enough?
In both cases, one fulfills the de'Oraisa, but not the derabbanan.
As for the question about how the 4 cups actually qualify as pirsumei
nisa to begin with, it is discussed in "The Brisker Hagaddah", not that
I recall the answer nor know where I put it with the Pesach stuff.
Another question... Given that the seider has a pirsumei nisa, why no
"she'asah nissim la'avoseinu" beforehand like for menorah and megillah?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:14:54 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Driving Without a Licence
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:39:24PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: Micha Berger wrote:
: >The following story was carried by Hareidim and subsequently picked
: >up by VIN.
: Neither source is reliable, and I greatly suspect that the story is
: made up, lo dubim velo ya'ar, and nothing at all can be learned from it.
Although RDE cites:
> This is discussed by Rav Sternbuch in volume 1 #850. A similar conclusion
> that the driver is a rodef and can be reported to the police is found
> in Minchas Yitzchok, Tzitz Eliezar and Rav Ovadiya Yosef.
> Rav Sternbuch quotes the Steipler as follows: ...
So, if it's his father's position, why the high burden of prove to
believe the son said it as well?
And on the pesaq, rather than the maaseh, the argument was compelling
to the MY, the TE, ROY, the Steipler and RMS. I'm sorry if you find
it surprising, but you can't just dismiss a pesaq like that without
bothering to even open the teshuvah we're pointed to.
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
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:10:04 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] How to light the Menorah
R' Micha Berger wrote:
> ... we need another light in the room in order to
> avoid doing something solely by their light.
>
>Historically, those were the same neir.
Were they really the same ner? Maybe not! I think there were two different neros, which were used in different ways, though they had the same purpose.
The last half of Mechaber 673:1 reads: "The minhag is to light an
additional ner, so that if one would use its light, it would be the light
of the additional one, which is the one that was lit last, and it is placed
at a small distance from the other neros mitzvah."
When I first read this, I thought that it might be a source for NOT using
the shamash to light the other neros. After all, doesn't the Mechaber
clearly say that the additional ner is lit LAST?
But then I read the Rama: "And in our countries we don't have the minhag to
add. Just place the shamash - with which he lit the neros - next to them,
and this is preferable. One should make it longer than the other neros, so
that if he comes to use it, he'll use the light of *that* ner.
It seems very clear to me that the Rama is disagreeing with the Mechaber,
and is saying that his way is better. The Mechaber's way seems to be "an
additional ner" placed "a small distance" from the others, while the Rama's
way is a "shamash" which is right next to the others, though a little
taller.
So: According to Mechaber, *after* lighting the neros with whatever, I
light another one called the "ner nosaf", and place it on the same level as
the others, but a little further away. And according to the Rama, *before*
lighting the other neros, I light a longer one called the "shamash", which
I use to light them with, and then I put it down right next to them.
Do I have this right? Is that what they're differing about?
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Criminal Lawyer
Criminal Lawyers - Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=IFPnk0-YKY0rJWzzByRmtQAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAiFgAAAAA=
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Saul.Z.New...@kp.org
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:18:10 -0800
Subject: [Avodah] nittel
as far as i can tell , this minhag is only held in hassidic communities. i
think it is universally not practiced in any sefardic or OU/YU/YI
community. i wonder if in any litvish mossad they curtail learning .
and is it different in israel than chu''l . if anyone knows of a
non-hassidic community that is noheig this practice please let me know
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091221/e46c8535/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:29:30 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] How to light the Menorah
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 05:10:04PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: So: According to Mechaber, *after* lighting the neros with whatever,
: I light another one called the "ner nosaf", and place it on the same
: level as the others, but a little further away. And according to the
: Rama, *before* lighting the other neros, I light a longer one called the
: "shamash", which I use to light them with, and then I put it down right
: next to them.
: Do I have this right? Is that what they're differing about?
I think you got it, although I think the Rama's longer candle implies it
will also be taller than the rest. And I think that's the answer to the
original question -- all else being equal, an Ashkenazi should try to
use one shamash for both. And a Sepharadi apparently should bedvaka not,
but perhaps only doesn't have that preference.
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
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Alan Rubin <a...@rubin.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:58:11 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] How to light the Menorah
Micha Berger wrote
> This is how I understood the original question...
> You pragmatically need something to light the menoros.
> There is a din "ein lanu reshus lehishtameish bahem", and
> therefore we need another light in the room in order to avoid
> doing something solely by their light.
>Historically, those were the same neir.
>Now, here's the question AIUI, and if I'm wrong, I'm asking it now:
>Is that use of a single neir for both a minhag? IOW, there may be
>no obligation mei'iqar hadin one way or the other, but does one
> miss out on a minhag by using an oil or the room's electric
> fixture for the extralight rather than the flame one used for >lighting?
I think Micha is the only respondee who has got the point of my
original question. I see people on this email list and others like it
fretting about all sorts of minhagim which are surely not me'qar
hadin.. the order in which they say particular prayers, the nigun,
standing up, sitting down, standing on one's head.
As far as I am aware the great majority (of ashkenazim at least) have
a shamash which they use to light the menorah. Google channukah and
you will often find this described as the way to light a menorah. Why
is this any less of a minhag than which nigun you use for the kaddish
for shabbos musaf?
Alan Rubin
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: "Chana Luntz" <Ch...@Kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:32:59 -0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Kashrus and Shabbas
> I asked:
>
> > > Err, where do you get that from?
>
> And RIB wrote:
>
> > http://www.halachayomit.co.il/Default.asp?PageIndex=2&;HalachaID=614
>
I then wrote, inter alia:
> It seems really very odd to me that Rav Ovadiah would come out with a
> major heter like this without one of his fully sourced and thoroughly
> argued teshuvot. There are no sources in this at all.
OK, so I have found the source for the on line teshuva. It turns out that
there is a volume of Yabiat Omer than I don't have, volume 10 (I am not sure
when it was published, but obviously more recently than my set, and I would
guess more recently than the Yalkut Yosef - or at least my edition of the
Yalkut Yosef, I don't know if he has updated it. Note it also seems to be
more recent than Bar Ilan is aware of either). And the relevant teshuva is
Orech Chaim siman 26.
On at least one point I was right, however, you wouldn't get a psak like
this without a learned discourse and many sources. It is in true Rav
Ovadiah style.
I further wrote:
> And note that even this teshuva writer acknowledges that the din is
> that yesh bishul achar bishul for a dvar lach, that is why he has to
> suggest this "eitza" regarding the shabbas clock, to enable warm soup.
> If there was no bishul achar bishul, like with yavesh, none of this
> would be necessary. So really this teshuva is about what may be
> permitted by way of a shabbas platter and a time clock.
On this last point I was right also - the vast majority of the teshuva is
about grama. Basically ROY bases his psak on the fact that the gemora in
Shabba 120b says "lo ta'ase kol melacha asiya hu d'asur ha grama shari" and
his basic position is v'zeh nikra grama, afilu issur d'rabbanan leka.
This is coupled with the fact that he holds (and has held previously, this I
was aware of) that because a shabbas platter is meyuchad l'shabbas, and
there in no option of adjusting the controls, there are no issues of mechzei
k'mevashel or shema yechate gchalim, so all of the concerns based on that
can be dismissed.
Now of course he has to deal with the Rema saying that grama is only
permitted in cases of hefsed meruba. It is interesting to note though that
he does not do this by saying - Oh well this is a Rema, and we are
Sephardim, but by (at least initially) arguing that the Rema is relying on a
daas yachid amongst the rishonim. He then does go on to provide some
further support for the Rema, but even so, I get the feeling that he is
really trying to say that even if you were Ashkenazi he would have thought
that this was a place that he would have expected Askenazi psak to go
against the Rema (which is why I think he is spending so much time with the
Taz). {He also does not, as I guess I would have expected him to, dwell on
the contradiction between what the Rema says in Shabbas and what he says in
Yom Tov vis a vis grama). He does note that various modern poskim (Tzitz
Eliezer, Rav Moshe) disagree with him regarding cooking on a shabbas
platter, but he feels they are creating new gezeras, and that we cannot do
this.
Now at one point (in the middle of paragraph gimel) he does add in that to
warm up an item that is mostly gravy or is lach "yesh lanu tzaddaim lhakel
yoter" and this is because of the fact that there is a machlokus rishonim as
to whether or not there is bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach with the
opinion of the Rambam and the Rashba and the Ritva and the Ran to be makil
because they hold ain bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach. On the other hand
there is Rashi and the Rosh and the Rabbanu Yona who hold yesh bishul achar
bishul on a dvar lach, and he then explains that the Shulchan Aruch poskens
"l'chachmir k'kol sfeka d'orita" - ie holds that the Shulchan Aruch didn't
hold this way because that is necessarily what he held, but mishum safek,
and since a safek d'orisa is a d'rabbanan, bishul achar bishul on a d'var
lach is d'rabbanan. And since rov poskim hold that grama is mutar even
shelo bemakom hefsed there is a sfek sfeka l'kula and you are clearly in the
clear, as it were.
But this is really only a small part of it, and the majority of the teshuva
is dealing not with bishul achar bishul for a dvar lach, but with bishul
mamash by way of placing the food on a shabbas platter which is off but then
subsequently comes on by way of a time clock. And while he doesn't have one
of his formal conclusion paragraphs, the last part of his final sentence
says that there is no issur because of the issur of sheheya, or of chazara
lest one stir the coals because these gezerot ainum shachayot lgabei platter
chashmalit and therefore we see l'maskana d'dina that there is to permit
because there is not here a chashash lo mishum magis [this was the Tzitz
Eliezer] vlo mishum zilta d'shabbat [this is Rav Moshe]. Vchen ikar
l'halacha u'lma'ase.
I [this is Chana commenting] am not totally convinced that all Sephardim
would necessarily agree that the Shulchan Aruch poskening that yesh bishul
achar bishul on a dvar lach is in fact done meshum safek and that his psak
is therefore to be treated as a d'rabbanan. That in some ways seems more
radical to me than his stance on grama [although again instead of arguing
against the Rema, I have heard this as a Sephardi/Ashkenazi difference
especially as it is also the Rema and the Trumat HaDeshen who prohibit
putting a pot on a heater that a person knows a non Jew is going to then
light (permissibly because of the cold) based on Beitza 34a - which is also
one of the topics ROY discusses at length]. Of course the whole issue of
grama is very fraught because with the aid of modern technology it would
seem to allow us to circumvent a whole host of the shabbas restrictions.
ROY does have an earlier teshuva where he forbids putting television or
radio on a shabbas clock so one can then watch or listen, but I don't
remember the details, and after this one I should probably go back and
revisit that and see what he says (and try and understand why this is
different).
Regards
Chana
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:19:10 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Driving Without a Licence
Micha Berger wrote:
>> Rav Sternbuch quotes the Steipler as follows: ...
>
> So, if it's his father's position, why the high burden of prove to
> believe the son said it as well?
It's *not* the father's position; nowhere in the quote from the father
is there even a hint at such a counterfactual claim.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmo...@012.net.il>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:17:10 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Driving Without a Licence
Zev Sero wrote:
> Without a license, one doesn't know how to drive.
>
> That statement is an obvious falsehood, no matter who is alleged to have
> said it. It is inconceivable that any intelligent person could honestly
> say such a thing. That is one reason why I doubt the whole story.
I am surprised at your ignorance of the literature
Rav Sternbuch (1:850) Question: A Jewish driver who normal speeds or
doesn?t have a license ? is it permitted to report him to the police?
Answer: It states explicitly in Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 388:12) that if
someone is engaged in counterfeiting and is thus a danger to the
community ? he should be warned to stop. If he doesn?t listen to the
warning it is possible to report him to the police. The Gra there says
that the counterfeiter has the status of a rodef (pursuer) even though
he does not intend to harm others and even though the harm is an
indirect result of his actions and even though the danger is only a
possibility not a certainty. There is nothing more dangerous than a
reckless driver who is speeding or one who has no knowledge of proper
driving skills - as indicated by the fact he has no license. Such people
are likely to kill other, chas v?shalom and therefore they have the
halachic status of rodef (pursuer). That is why in fact the secular law
that requires a skilled driver with a license is in fact a just and
obvious law for the welfare of society and we are fully obligated to
observe these laws. Anyone who treats these laws with contempt and
disobeys them, we are concerned that such a person can come to kill and
therefore he deserves serious punishment ? even imprisonment. ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091222/d3b38c55/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:37:22 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] anarchy/libertarianism
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 8:59am EST, R Zev Sero wrote:
: An anarchy would still have courts, deriving their authority either
: from the mutual consent of the parties, or from the delegated right of a
: victim to self-defense. EY had courts long before it had a government.
: "Biymei shfot hashoftim."
The question is at what point does a network of courts qualify as a
government. In halakhah, batei din receive most of their authority from
the Sanhedrin, such as dinei nefashos. The Sanhedrin is a descendent
of the 70 zeqeinim, and all of that rests atop the network of sarim of
parashas Yisro.
And would your model assign powers to beis din when the violation is
bein adam laMaqom?
But I must say, this is perhaps the first time I heard the days of "ein
melekh beYisrael, ish hayashar be'einav ya'aseh" interpreted leshevach.
But I guess there is little room for another interpretation for someone
with anarchist or libertarian (for some definitions of "libertarian")
leanings.
: T6...@aol.com wrote:
: >Being an anarchist would not be compatible with what the Torah seems to
: >consider the primary purpose of government -- maintaining order. It
: >says in Pirkei Avos, "Pray for the welfare of the government, because
: >without it, people would swallow each other alive."
RZS continues:
: That is a question of metzius; just because R Chanina Sgan Hakohanim
: believed it doesn't mean it's true. Anarchists believe that it isn't
: true. Also, Pirkei Avos is "milsa dachasidusa", not halacha.
RCShK, everyone between him and Rebbe, and Rebbe was convinced enough
of its value to record it. Personally, if my beliefs about human nature
contradicted that of a mishnah, I would engage in serious introspection
before dismissing the mishnah.
But your last sentence is more problematic. If something is being
portrayed as part of the messianic ideal, would it not run along
chasidusa, not merely the mutar?
I also question whether Avos actually isn't halakhah. There are halakhos
requiring pursuing lower-case-c chassidus. All the other mishnayos
are dinim; just because these are ideals you are to absorb and embody
rather than measurable actions, are we to assume there is no *chiyuv*
to absorb and embody them?
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:51pm EST, R David Riceman wrote:
: T6...@aol.com wrote:
:> However, it is not, strictly speaking, assur to be stupid.
: See PHM Hagigah 2:1 s.v. "kol shelo has al k'vod kono". According to
: the Rambam it depends on why you're stupid.
The Rambam there is speaking about ignorance, not stupidity, and not even
basic ignorance; rather, someone who doesn't try to understand HQBH and
His Ways (including shelavei hamada'im) to the best of their ability.
In general, the Rambam places yedi'ah on a pedestal much higher than most
of us would. If you don't think that a philosopher is one step below a
navi, then I don't know if you can invoke further implications of that
hashkafah to prove your point.
I think most of us today put a person's ehrlachkeit and deveiqus on a
more central pedestal than intellectual comprehension.
AishDas's [borrowed] motto, which is just my own understanding of Dr
Nathan Birnbaum's motto for haOlim, is "Daas Rachamim Tif'eres". (See
RYGB's JO (?} article at <http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/birnbaum.htm>.)
Daas in this context is being used in a very different way than the
Rambam's philosophical understanding of what Hashem isn't. To DNB, daas is
knowing G-d, not knowing /about/ G-d, that which includes hislahavus and
hachna'ah. I get a sense of using da'as in a way that one can understand
how it also includes "vehaadam yada es Chava ishto..."
From a 1927 address to the Agudah's Central Committee:
[Organized Orthodoxy] is obliged to come together and create
societal tools that will teach: 1. How to deepen our awareness of
Hashem out of love for Him [Da'as]. 2. How to dedicate ourselves to
love our fellow human beings [Rachamim]. 3. How to pursue modesty
[hatznei'a leches] as a manifestation of the glory of our Hashem
[Tiferes]...
We must admit that cold intellectualism has penetrated our
relationship with Hashem. Following through with that metaphor,
Ha'Olim cannot remain at ease with this frigidity. They must toil
until within their societies, within each of their groupings and
within each of their members there arise divine hislahavus and inner
spiritual feeling.
BTW, he then makes basic knowledge of gemara and machashavah preconditions
for joining haOlim.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous
Go to top.
Message: 16
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:09:57 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Where does Hashgakha Pratit express itself
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 07:47:12PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
: In the Guide, Part 3 Chapter 18, when discussing the various ideas of
: Hashgakha Pratit, the Rambam uses example after example of being saved
: from something bad - drowning in a ship caught in a storm, being saved
: from a fire, etc. He never talks about something good - finding money,
: having a child, etc. Can I conclude from this that HP only works in saving
: people from the bad or am I reading too much into the examples used?
I don't think you meant to type 18, as you're describing 17.
But I think the Rambam clearly says he means HP is in every event
involving people -- with the caveat that in ch 18 he narrows what the
term "people" means. E.g.
In the lower or sublunary portion of the Universe Divine Providence
does not extend to the individual members of species except in the
case of mankind. It is only in this species that the incidents in the
existence of the individual beings, their good and evil fortunes,
are the result of justice, in accordance with the words, "For all
His ways are judgment."
But the various theories of HP in ch 17 is about which events are
included in terms of who is impacted; in particular: ruling out
HP for non-humans, HP as a denial of free will, etc...
Chapter 18 might be more on target. There also the Rambam writes
outright that HP (for those who get it) goes beyond saving people from
tight spots (emphasis added):
Consider how the action of Divine Providence is described in
reference TO EVERY INCIDENT IN THE LIVES of the patriarchs, to their
occupations, and even to their passions, and how God promised to
direct His attention to them. Thus God said to Abraham, "I am thy
shield" (Gen. xv. 1); to Isaac, .... It is clear that in all these
cases the action of Providence has been proportional to man's
perfection. The following verse describes how Providence protects
good and pious men, and abandons fools; "He Will keep the feet of
his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by
strength shall no man prevail" (1 Sam. ii. 9). When we see that some
men escape plagues and mishaps, whilst others perish by them, we
must not attribute this to a difference in the properties of their
bodies, or in their physical constitution, "for by strength shall no
man prevail"; but it must be attributed to their different degrees
of perfection, some approaching God, whilst others moving away from
Him.
However, to merit that level of protection that the danger doesn't even
come -- that's the avos, Avraha, nevi'im... It's more rare.
It might also be like we discussed recently about Hashem subjecting
people to close calls -- we only notice His aid at times when we are
saved. It might simply have been harder to craft an example by describing
a situation where we don't see the need for intervention. The Rambam
could very well hold that R' XYZ didn't slip and fall due to HP, but
there are uncountably many such possible non-events, and we can't really
relate to them.
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
Go to top.
Message: 17
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:17:29 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] How to light the Menorah
Alan Rubin:
> As far as I am aware the great majority (of ashkenazim at least) have
> a shamash which they use to light the menorah. Google channukah and you
> will often find this described as the way to light a menorah. Why is
> this any less of a minhag than which nigun you use for the kaddish
> for shabbos musaf?
AIUI we were focused upon that "gray area" when using an oil shamash
making it impractical to use to light the other neros.
When using paraffin-wax-tallow candles ein hachi nami, perhaps that is
indeed the minhag.
The secondary question is -- "was the Rema IN THIS CASE being descriptive
or prescriptive?"
This comes up RE: salting meat for zli. The Rema points out when to do it.
Some posqim see that as prescriptive. IOW salt is REQUIRED by minhag
for zli.
Others state that the salt was purely used aa a spice -- and that the
Rema was only indicating the proper point in time to add it.
KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 259
***************************************
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..."