Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 10

Thu, 07 Jan 2010

• 1. The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos (Chana Luntz)
• 2. Re: Rov Jews in EY? (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: electricity on Shabbat (david guttmann)
• 4. Re: electricity on Shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: electricity on Shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Why are beards considers so choshuv? (Daniel Israel)
• 7. Re: Why are beards considers so choshuv? (I. Balbin)
• 8. Re: Why are beards considers so choshuv? (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. Firing a Rabbi (Richard Wolberg)
• 10. Re: The Scope of the "7 Mitzvos d'Rabbanan" (T6...@aol.com)
• 11. Re: Why are beards considers so choshuv? (hankman)
• 12. Re: Rov Jews in EY? (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Rov Jews in EY? (Arie Folger)
• 14. Re: Rov Jews in EY? (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Explaining boneh/electricity to a non-religious person (T613K@aol.com)
• 16. Re: The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: Tzedaqah Before T'filah (Zev Sero)
• 18. Re: Firing a Rabbi (Yosef Skolnick)

RRW writes:

> Essentially:
> 
> 1 Everything brachah in the Talmud is "axiomatic" - a given
> 
> IF the minhag [Catholic Israel] is to say the brachah -even If it's
> post-Talmud "ein l'vatlah"
> So "Talmudic" does not exactly equate to Post-talmudic BUT Post-
> Talmudic brachos can be legit.

I don't have a problem with this, certainly for the Ashkenazi community (and
I think the Ben Ish Chai would probably agree - see his comments regarding
the making of a brocha established by minhag in Parshat Lech Lecha).

> Now see Rambam Haqdama on post-Talmudic Taqqanos/G'zeiros/Minhaggim.
> 
> Talmud is binding because all Israel [Catholic Israel] accepts it.
> Anything later is local [but can be Nispasheit. See Rambam on the
> obligation to recite Arvit]

But all this can be reconciled with the Rosh and the other rishonim if you
understand the Rambam to be talking about takanot.  I know he uses the term
gezera to mean a local decree by a governing beis din in the use of this
threefold phrase, but you have two choices:

a) either you postulate that there is machlokus between the Rambam and the
Rosh and others, or
b) you understand that what the Rambam is describing is not what the Rosh
would understand by the term gezera, and that the dominant word in this is
takana and minhag, and you use that terminology.

Even if you postulate a machlokus, you will struggle with it, because what
the Rosh is describing appears to be in accord with the Rambam in essence,
ie it is not possible to pass a ruling which is binding on all Jews
everywhere, but only on those Jews which are local to the ruling
authorities' ruling and over which they have authority.

You can get around all this by having only two terms, takana and minhag.

The brochos you are describing above fall into the category of minhag as you
have noted, demonstrating the importance of Catholic Israel.

Takana is about the powers of a community to self regulate and set up
officers and authorities, and the powers of local betei din as described by
the Rambam neatly fit in under that without thereby involving contradiction.

I do think it is important not to forget the role played by the Rosh Galuta
in the times of the Talmud and post and some of theory about the separation
of powers between the king and the Sanhedrin.

> Summary: with this approach it lays out the issue simply
> A Talmudic Brachos are a "national" given
> B Post-Talmudic Brachos are taluy on the minhag.
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> Now you'll pretty much be able to intuit my understanding of Post-
> Talmudic
> g'zeiros too.
> 
> Viz.
> 
> A Talmudic G'zeiros are a "national" given
> B Post-Talmudic G'zeiros are taluy on the minhag. Or the acceptance or
> Catholic Israel.
> 
> I haven't seen the Ro"Sh on PT g'zeiros.
> I'm suggesting in the meantime that he might be saying:
> 
> One may not IMPOSE PT g'zeiros but one may indeed PROPOSE them.

But note that this is a step further than you have proposed above.  A minhag
is not something that anybody proposes, it is something that people accept
on themselves and nobody necessarily even knows where it comes from, ie it
originates from Catholic Israel, if you want to use that term.  Take
Kitniot.  Nobody knows where exactly this comes from, it certainly does not
seem like any pronouncement of any Rabbi. In fact various people have tried
to claim that it comes from all sorts of dubious sources.  Once Catholic
Israel were doing it, then the Rabbis commented and codified it.

Similarly with brochos, even if nobody necessarily knows where the brocha on
ner shabbas comes from - I don't believe anybody was suggesting that Rav
Amram made up the brocha on ner shabbas. And that is what you need to say if
you go this route - that he proposed it, and then all these (illiterate)
women read (?) his books and said, Oh what a good idea, we will make a
bracha and then they were all doing it.
 
> Another Caveat:
> the Mechabeir rejects Hanosein layaakeif ko'oach and Afaik she'assni
> kirtzono is said by Sephardim w/o sheim umalchus. So it follows that
> ROY might reject this entire thesis as non-comformist to the Mechabeir.
> Which is why I kinda dismiss ROY's approach as tied to a different
> paradigm.

I don't think it is necessarily tied to a different paradigm except that
there is an additional wrinkle when it comes to brochos as per ROY (and the
way he understands the Mechaber) which is that there is a d'orisa
prohibition on making brochos sheaino tzricha.

Not so surprisingly there might be different considerations  vis a vis a
minhag that goes head to head with a d'orisa than with a minhag that at most
is in violation of a d'rabbanan (as per most of the Ashkenazi poskim).

I don't think he would disagree with the idea of Catholic Israel having the
decisive word if it was not in contradiction to a d'orisa (or perhaps a
d'rabbanan).  And indeed Kitniyos is an example.  He may think it is daft,
but there is no issur from refraining from eating kitniyos on pesach, and he
thereby agrees that Ashkenazim are bound.  Again, it all makes sense.

What he objects to, and it fits this paradigm well, is Rabbis making
statements in teshuvos or other forms of psak which are of the form of new
prohibitions - not limited to the local population under the control of the
Rabbi or beis din and not arising out of any acceptance by Catholic Israel,
but statements of general halacha.  The example that started this all off is
one such case.  The Tzitz Eliezer said that we should not place cold soup on
an off hotplate before shabbas (which will subsequently come on on time
clock) lest we come to do it on shabbas, lest we come to stir.  This is not
a policy view - "it would be good if a person were to take this on
themselves " (and ROY is absolutely full of statements where, after saying
what the ikar din is, he says it would be good policy for a person to be
machmir - he has no problem with that).  This is not a takana that the Tzitz
Eliezer and his beis din imposed, because they saw the people were being lax
or whatever, and which applied only to the local people over which he had
ruling and authority (the scenario of the Rambam however you describe it).
This was a statement of halacha, put out into the halachic discourse to be
argued and debated by other rabbis and drafted as being universally
applicable.  It is these kinds of statements that ROY objects to as being
attempted gezeros and impermissible post Talmud.

I think this structure fits much better with the Rishonim (and that includes
the Rambam).  But it does mean that some of your consequences do not work.
That is, Rav Moshe could not be gozer no eruv on Manhattan, unless he had
the power and authority over the Jews of Manhattan, which despite his status
in America he never had.  And especially if people turned to him to give
psak, ie a decision as to what the halacha is universally, and his decision
was rendered on that basis, one cannot then convert that to a gezera or even
a takana.  For the latter you need a kimu v'kiblu by the people that they
were accepting the takana of Rav Moshe.  On the other hand, if the Rav of
Elizabeth says that I require that the eruv is taken down once or twice a
year, because I think it a good idea, making it clear that he is not saying
this is the halachic requirement that it must happen for an eruv to be
kosher (and that other eruvin who do not do this are in violation of the
halacha), and the people say OK, we accept your authority to make policy
regarding this eruv, then that appears to me to be a valid takana for the
community.  

That would not work in the case of Rav Moshe because he never had that kind
of relationship with the people and he did not rule on that basis.

> KT
> RRW

Regards

Chana

RZS wrote:
> I'd like to see it in *some* posek.
> The pashtus haloshon of the gemara on which he ultimately bases his
> theory ("lo zozu mishom ad she'asa'um") seems to be to be against him

The same terminology is used by teh Gemara in 'Hullin about Kutim ("lo
zazu misham 'ad she'assaum 'ovedei kokhavim gemurim"), which teh
'Hatam Sofer takes to mean that there was a special Sanhedrin
conference to take away teh Kuttim's Jewishness. So there you have a
posseq taking this seriously. I should add that the 'Hatam Sofer was
probably writing about this to imply that Reformers, too, were at such
risk, even though the 'HS may have believed that we do no have that
power since we lack the Sanhedrin (I really don't know and have to
look it up; it has been several years since I learned that sugya).

Anyway, the same mechanism could of course apply to the 10 Shevatim.
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Was die j?dische Frommigkeit animieren soll
* Equal Justice for All - even in Israel?
* The Warmongering Laboring Amazons
* But is it Still Pork?
* Glaubensweitergabe ? Ein Videovortrag

RMB wrote: Nearly always is close enough. And I believe that a 110v wall
switch sparks in that range. 

What is the issur of a spark? Even hot metal, putting it out is only
Derabanan. A spark in itself is not fire without something to attach itself
to. A spark in the air I have difficulty seeing the issur. 

David Guttmann
 
If you agree that Believing is Knowing, join me in the search for Knowledge
at http://yediah.blogspot.com/ 
 
Ve'izen vechiker (Kohelet 12:9) subscribe to Hakirah at www.hakirah.org 

On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 06:54:37PM -0500, david guttmann wrote:
: What is the issur of a spark? Even hot metal, putting it out is only
: Derabanan. A spark in itself is not fire without something to attach itself
: to. A spark in the air I have difficulty seeing the issur. 

It's not fire? Metal is disappearing off the contact, there is glowing
air... It's a momentary flame, really.

BTW, that din is given in Beitza 4:7, explained on 33b, and is called
molid. Not an issue of havarah or bishul, nor is it called derabbanan.
Molid is an approach we didn't mention yet. The Teshuvos Beis Yitzchaq,
at the end of 2:41 holds that "molid zerem" is inlucded in the problem of
"molid reicha", discussed in Beitza 23a, creating a perfume for one's
clothes. RSZA questions the analogy.

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

On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 06:54:37PM -0500, david guttmann wrote:
: What is the issur of a spark? Even hot metal, putting it out is only
: Derabanan. A spark in itself is not fire without something to attach itself
: to. A spark in the air I have difficulty seeing the issur. 

It's not fire? Metal is disappearing off the contact, there is glowing
air... It's a momentary flame, really.

BTW, that din is given in Beitza 4:7, explained on 33b, and is called
molid. Not an issue of havarah or bishul, nor is it called derabbanan.
Molid is an approach we didn't mention yet. The Teshuvos Beis Yitzchaq,
at the end of 2:41 holds that "molid zerem" is inlucded in the problem of
"molid reicha", discussed in Beitza 23a, creating a perfume for one's
clothes. RSZA questions the analogy.

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

Quoting T6...@aol.com:
> 3.  Shaving off the beard is considered a denial and denigration of  one's
> masculinity -- it is a sort of "feminizing" thing to do, making one's face
> look more womanly and less manly, so that's one reason it's frowned upon in
> certain frum circles.

Is this a sociological observation about frum attitudes, or do you  
have a source for this being a Torah POV?  (In the former case, I'm  
not sure I agree with you- at least I have never observed that  
particular reaction.)

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

> 
> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:17:04 -0500
> From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
> To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Why are beards considers so choshuv?
>> 
> 
> And in fact the Tzemach Tzedek holds that this is an actual issur, in
> *addition* to the issur of shaving with a razor.

The Tzemach Tzedek also holds that it's assur to fiddle with your beard lest you cause the dislodgement of (holy) hairs, as I recall.
[This particular hanhogo isn't even held by many Chabadniks, who routinely roll up their beards.]
I've always wondered whether the Tzemach Tzedek was paskening according to
pure non kabbalah sources or whether kabbalah has determined his psak.
Interestingly, you have famous Italian Mekubalim who davka shaved in Chutz
Laaretz. 
I recall this is true of the Ramchal.

As someone once said, you have Jews without Beards and Beards without Jews.

PS. I have a beard :-)

In a message dated 1/6/2010 4:50:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
hmary...@yahoo.com writes:

>>The word Zaken can be used to mean  beard or elder. An elder is one who 
has gained wisdom via his many years of  life experience  A clean shaven face 
implies youth and thereby  immaturity.<<
 
>>>>>>>
 
 
You are quite right.  Just one quibble:  an elder is a zaken  while a beard 
is a zakan.  However you are correct that they are the same  root word and 
that the Hebrew language itself equates a beard with being older  (and 
wiser).
 

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



--------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100106/86826907/attachment-0001.htm>

Halacha says that you cannot fire a rabbi.
There is a very important distinction which needs to be made.
Firing a rabbi implies terminating a contract prior to its conclusion.
However, I would take issue with contending that halacha says 
you have to renew a rabbi's contract. If that were the case, then once 
a rabbi is hired by a shul, he automatically has a life time tenure.
To reiterate -- not renewing a rabbi's contract is NOT firing him.

 
From: Zev Sero _zev@sero.name_ (mailto:z...@sero.name) 

>>  rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:

> Talmud
> Sheiltos
>  Behag
> Rif
> 
> All have brachah on Ner Hanukkkah
>  YET
> NONE have brachah on Ner Shabbos!
> 
> WHY?
>  
> Now, Silence from ONE source is perhaps not proof positive OTOH
>  Silence from that collective is aisi solid indication.



>>  A ballebatishe answer is that men don't make the bracha,  so it wasn't
on their minds.  Perhaps they didn't even know their wives  were making
it and teaching their daughters to make it...   <<

-- 
Zev  Sero                      

 
 
 
>>>>>
 
 
But that would imply that a woman somewhere composed the bracha on her own  
initiative and told other women to say it.  Highly unlikely.
 

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



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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100106/d67c40b9/attachment-0001.htm>

See the Sh"uT of the Tsemach Tsedek YD siman 93 where he discusses at
length the various sources for not shaving (I did not go through the
teshuva in detail). At the end of the teshuva he concludes: In the days of
Dovid Hamelech they were nohaig not to shave at all, from which he
concludes that the reason probably was some of the several issurim he
discussed before but which he does not identify further. He then quotes the
Radak that it was a minhag avosainu from the time of kabolas hatorah until
now, not to shave even with scissors. He ends by saying that it [shaving]
was considered to be a "cherpo gedola," a great shame. Unfortunately he
does not explain why.

Many of the teshuvos also mention the Be'er Haitav,  Ar"i and the mekubalim about not shaving.

Unfortunately none of this really answers the question of the reason for the chashivus of the zakain.

Also now that I have looked into this a little, I was disappointed that I
did not find the svara I proposed in my previous post mentioned by anyone I
looked at.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100106/719025e8/attachment-0001.htm>

Arie Folger wrote:
> RZS wrote:
>> I'd like to see it in *some* posek.
>> The pashtus haloshon of the gemara on which he ultimately bases his
>> theory ("lo zozu mishom ad she'asa'um") seems to be to be against him
 
> The same terminology is used by teh Gemara in 'Hullin about Kutim ("lo
> zazu misham 'ad she'assaum 'ovedei kokhavim gemurim"), which teh
> 'Hatam Sofer takes to mean that there was a special Sanhedrin
> conference to take away teh Kuttim's Jewishness. So there you have a
> posseq taking this seriously.

On the contrary, that is a posek taking the exact opposite position;
that, as the lashon implies, this was a specific takana: they did not
move from that place until they did this.  It wasn't a general psak
din about anyone who has forgotten his origins.


> I should add that the 'Hatam Sofer was
> probably writing about this to imply that Reformers, too, were at such
> risk, even though the 'HS may have believed that we do no have that
> power since we lack the Sanhedrin (I really don't know and have to
> look it up; it has been several years since I learned that sugya).

Well, according to RAL so long as the Reformers kept the name "Jewish"
they would not be at risk, and if they lost it then no Sanhedrin would
be needed, they would just automatically become goyim.


> Anyway, the same mechanism could of course apply to the 10 Shevatim.

Of course; that is what that opinion in the gemara says.

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

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> On the contrary, that is a posek taking the exact opposite position;
> that, as the lashon implies, this was a specific takana: they did not
> move from that place until they did this. ?It wasn't a general psak
> din about anyone who has forgotten his origins.

Correct, but it contradicts your suggestion that it was about ruling
that they never were Jewish in the first place, or that they lost
their Jewishness on account of a particular trait. According to the
'Hatam Sofer's reading, which, if not for the fact that it is
revolutionary, is actually the easiest, most straughtforward reading
of the sugya, it was by rabbinic act that each of the groups (Kuttim
and exiled 10 Shevatim) had their Jewishness actively removed.
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Was die j?dische Frommigkeit animieren soll
* Equal Justice for All - even in Israel?
* The Warmongering Laboring Amazons
* But is it Still Pork?
* Glaubensweitergabe ? Ein Videovortrag

Arie Folger wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
>> On the contrary, that is a posek taking the exact opposite position;
>> that, as the lashon implies, this was a specific takana: they did not
>> move from that place until they did this.  It wasn't a general psak
>> din about anyone who has forgotten his origins.
> 
> Correct, but it contradicts your suggestion that it was about ruling
> that they never were Jewish in the first place, or that they lost
> their Jewishness on account of a particular trait.

You've got the wrong end of the stick.  That was RAL's suggestion,
which I didn't find convincing, for exactly the reason you are giving.


> According to the
> 'Hatam Sofer's reading, which, if not for the fact that it is
> revolutionary, is actually the easiest, most straughtforward reading
> of the sugya, it was by rabbinic act that each of the groups (Kuttim
> and exiled 10 Shevatim) had their Jewishness actively removed.

Exactly.  That is what the pashtus haloshon means.  And it's a whole
let less revolutionary to say that the Sanhedrin can turn a yid into
a goy, than to be mechadesh a whole new exception to the traditional
definition of Jewishness, that somehow in 2000 years never made it
into writing in any sefer.

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

 

 
Message: 1


From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com


>> I have used a  clock-radio to wake up in the morning and I leave it run
on  Shabbos<<

KT
RRW



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


Message:  3

From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com



>>  Tangentially
Re:
Klei shir
Microphone
Bicycles

We had a  debate offlist

Is microphone a klei sheer - and as such part of the  original g'zeira
OR
It's an extension of the original g'zeira - shema  yetaqein...?  <<



KT
RRW


 
 
>>>>>
 
Message #3 suggests a question about Message #1.  Isn't there a  problem 
with setting a radio-alarm clock to turn on on Shabbos?  Maybe you  will hit 
the snooze button, or lower the volume, or change the station?



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

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



_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100106/d21770c1/attachment-0001.htm>

If you're collecting post-talmudic brochos, here's another one:
R Akiva Eiger, who was surely aware of the rule against post-talmudic
brochos, holds that if one moves into a house that already has mezuzos,
and so one can't say "likboa mezuzah", then one says "lodur bevayis
sheyesh bo mezuzah".  That bracha is surely not mentioned in the gemara.
Now I've never heard of anyone actually following this psak of RAE, but
that is how he paskens, despite the rule.


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

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:

> Question: how come most qehilos routinely collect tzedaqah during
> hazaras hasha"tz?

Because more people are there, and they aren't busy davening.

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

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Richard Wolberg <cantorwolb...@cox.net>wrote:

> Halacha says that you cannot fire a rabbi.
>
Can you please be more specific?

> There is a very important distinction which needs to be made.
> Firing a rabbi implies terminating a contract prior to its conclusion.
>
Agreed.  What if the rabbi is incompetent or is in some other way affecting
the way the shul/community is run negatively.

> However, I would take issue with contending that halacha says
> you have to renew a rabbi's contract. If that were the case, then once
> a rabbi is hired by a shul, he automatically has a life time tenure.
>
Who says that we can make a contract with a Rabbi? Doesn't that defeat the
purpose of the Rabbi if he is constantly worried about how different
congregants(sp?) are going to view his positions?  Where is the original
source of the modern professional rabbinate?  ie- Why

> To reiterate -- not renewing a rabbi's contract is NOT firing him.
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100107/df60a3d4/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 10
**************************************

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..."