Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 12

Thu, 07 Jan 2010

• 1. Re: Firing a Rabbi (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Two idle questions (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Firing a Rabbi (Ira Tick)
• 4. sparks on shabbat (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: sparks on shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Firing a Rabbi (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Re: Firing a Rabbi (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: Two idle questions (David Riceman)
• 9. The Dynamic of Post-Talmudic Brachos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 10. More on What are the Bracha Rishona and Bracha Acharona on a Granola Bar? (Yitzchok Levine)
• 11. Re: More on What are the Bracha Rishona and Bracha Acharona on a Granola Bar? (Gershon Seif)
• 12. Re: Why are beards considered so choshuv? (Danny Schoemann)
• 13. Re: Rov Jews in EY? (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: John Locke and Tzedaqa (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: John Locke and Tzedaqa (Arie Folger)
• 16. Re: Two idle questions (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: electricity on Shabbat (Micha Berger)

On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 12:50:50AM -0500, Yosef Skolnick wrote:
: 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?

Cantor Wolberg is just repeating something I told him off list, and it
is overstated, so the specifity is called for.

Here are some mar'eh meqomos I got from a NY Supreme Court arbitration
decision. A school fired a rebbe, beis din was called in, the apellete
court declared the BD decision irrational, and things escalated. So, the
court decision actually includes the BD's sources:
http://www.ouradio.org/images/uploads/D
efense_of_the_Viability_of_the_Jewish_Beith_Din_Court_System.pdf
or http://bit.ly/5QwKvV
(The URL itself refers to the OU's reason for posting the decision, it
tells lower courts not to get involved in ecumenical arbitration.)

SA CM 26:1 - just to show the issur of arka'os
Chiqrei Leiv OC #50
IM CM #76
Chasam Sofer CM #205-206
Minchas Yitzchaq #75

The Chiqrei Leiv, OTOH, grants rabbis tenure. The CS says that a tenured
rabbi can only be fired if you can prove negligence. The MY says this is
true of all kelei qodesh.

OTOH, the IM is meiqil, if one gives sufficient severance pay.

In either case, it's non-trivial to fire a rav, and requires a far
higher threshold than firing an employee.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller

On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 04:28:04PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
:>2.  What happens when "hefker beis din hefker" contradicts "dina 
:>d'malchusa dina" (see the comments about property in the Fifth amendment 
:>to the constitution)?

: RJR:
: >Depends on how you understand the power of hefker beit din hefker. 
: >According to some it flows from the melech in the same way dina dmalchuta 
: >does

: Does that imply that those halachos which depend on HBDH don't apply in 
: the US?

I think your question would only apply to people who don't voluntarily
accept the authority of BD. As noted in the court decision I just wrote
about in the previous post, the US recognizes the decisions of batei din
as arbitration.

So, perhaps if an American non-O Jew was married to an O woman, and she
needed hafka'as qiddushin, your question would be whether BD can really
redefine the giving of the kesef as non-qiddushin.

I didn't listen to him yet, but R' Yonasan Sacks (YU and Agudah of
Passaic, not to be confused with R' Sir Jonathan Sachs) has a recorded
shiur titled: Gittin 46-Dina D'malchusa Dina and Hefker Beis Din Hefker
http://www.y
utorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/731464/Rabbi_Yonason_Sacks/Gittin_46-Dina_D
%27malchusa_Dina_and_Hefker_Beis_Din_Hefker
or http://bit.ly/8Vc1TP

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 6, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Yosef Skolnick <yskoln...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>>
>

RYS suggests somehow that the position of "Rabbi" for a community or pulpit
is both a legal contract of employment (presumably employment by the
community or congregation for the performance of certain duties on their
behalf) and some sort of religious/political hegemony at the same time!

How does this stand to reason?  How can RYS agree that "firing a rabbi"
means termination in breach of contract, when the very right to hire a rabbi
on contract is questionable in his eyes?

A Rabbi is not a King, no matter how many comparisons can be found in
Rabbinic literature.  A Rabbi is not a political leader or a Divinely
appointed ruler of the people, neither regarding matters of governance nor
those of the spirit.  "Aseh L'Cha Rav" (curiously similar to "Kach L'Cha
Anashim") is a recommendation of the Rabbis themselves, and reflects "Milah
D'Chasidusa" -- placing a Rav in charge of your spiritual affairs is a
personal effort to go beyond the letter of the Law.  The only authority
placed above the freedom of the people to choose their own spiritual and
legal guidance, regarding both temporal and Divine law, is the institution
of Prophecy, the Sanhedrin, and the Lesser Courts (who also have the power
to appoint Shotrim to enforce the law).  None of these three institutions
exist today, for a number of reasons.  Therefore, their is no need for a
'source' for the Rabbinate.  The system of appointing a rabbi for a
community or congregation evolved naturally in the absence of central
religious authority--the dissolution of the Sanhedrin, the termination of
the practice of semicha, and finally the decline of the central religious
academies of Bavel in the later time of the Geonim.

The term of "contract" so to speak, for political leaders, has always been
debated for the very reason RYS mentions--the concern over the sway that the
public will hold over the decisions of the politicians, thereby interfering
with their work in upholding the Law and acting on behalf of the greater
good.  Supreme Court Judges, for example, like ancient monarchs, hold
lifetime positions, to free them from having to cater to popular will.  Yet
in Torah, the only lifelong position is that of the King, which isn't looked
upon with total approval by the Prophets, and we all know how the Monarchy
turned out in Jewish history.  Even members of the Sanhedrin could be
dismissed by the collective will of their peers, and their exercise of power
in the practical sense depended on the faith placed in them by the people.
 Finally, the Rambam cautions against providing individual Rabbis of the
Sanhedrin with unlimited terms of office, since the quality of genuine
religious leadership diminishes with age, where opinion eventually
overshadows knowledge and rigidity replaces tolerance and
balanced temperament.

Thus, the issue with terminating a Rabbi is either one of contract law or
one of extra-legal sentiment.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100107/712b3111/attachment-0001.htm>

To summarize:
RSZA and Prof. Lev both feel that sparks on shabbat do not normally
present a problem.

Those who wish to be machmir have whom to rely

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 10:55:48PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: To summarize:
: RSZA and Prof. Lev both feel that sparks on shabbat do not normally
: present a problem.

: Those who wish to be machmir have whom to rely

The question is whether the latter is speaking as RZLev or Prof Z Lev.
If the former, then you are correct -- it's a machloqes. If the latter,
I would think Prof Lev knows EE far better than I. So, if he's saying
that sparking is not nearly inevitable when flipping a switch in an 110v+
circuit, I would defer to his expertise. I would also be surprised.

Could you give a little less summarized form of what RZL actually said?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

-----Original Message-----
From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org [mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Michael Makovi
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 9:01 AM
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Firing a Rabbi

In historical Jewish communities, it was very common for the rabbis to be
not hired. The whole purpose of the contract having a time-limit was so one
could "fire" him when his term expired. If it were forbidden to not rehire
the rabbi / renew his contract, then why put a time-limit on the contract
in the first place? The very institution of a time-limit implies the right
to not renew the contract.

But also, if the rabbi violates his contract, I believe (AFAIK) he can be
fired right then. The whole purpose of a contract is to ensure
accountability. Of course, the contract is also very specific. If the
contract says the rabbi must know Gemara and rule on halakhah, then the
community cannot fire him just because his rulings are too strict.
But if, say, he makes a transparently and demonstrably wrong ruling, then
he has violated his contract (assuming such terms in that contract), and
the community may fire him.

Rabbi Hirsch's entire essay "Jewish Communal Life" is in fact devoted to
the concept that the laity must learn Torah in order that they oversee
their rabbi and make sure he neither makes wrong rulings nor usurps his
power. The rabbi must be accountable to the people and to the Torah, he
says, and therefore, he says, the laity has an obligation to learn Torah
themselves and to carefully watch whether the rabbi keeps true to his
contract.

Now, I'm sure that all the laws of contracts and such make this much more
complex. I'm sure firing the rabbi involves a trial before a beit din to
ensure he really did violate the contract, etc. But what I've said above is
all correct AFAIK in terms of basic gist.

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


In late February 2010,  our NY Office is moving to :
333 West 34th St.
New York, NY 10001-2402
All telephone and fax numbers (and e-mail addresses) will remain the same.
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.

Now, I'm sure that all the laws of contracts and such make this much more
complex. I'm sure firing the rabbi involves a trial before a beit din to
ensure he really did violate the contract, etc. But what I've said above is
all correct AFAIK in terms of basic gist.

Michael Makovi
_______________________________________________
Actually IIRC there is an issue with signing a long term contract- iirc some hold it's a violation of not being an eved to anyone but HKB"H.
KT
Joel Rich

In late February 2010,  our NY Office is moving to :
333 West 34th St.
New York, NY 10001-2402
All telephone and fax numbers (and e-mail addresses) will remain the same.
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.

Micha Berger wrote:
> I think your question would only apply to people who don't voluntarily
> accept the authority of BD.
No.  You're conflating two opinions.  Your argument would work if BD 
gets their authority through the consent of the litigants, but not if BD 
gets their authority through the government.  Even if the two opinions 
complement each other, my impression (I've never had any contact with an 
actual case) is that cases of hafka'as kiddushin are often not 
associated with both parties agreeing to a BD.

David Riceman

Mareh M'qomos for al n'qiyyus Yadayim

Caveat:
When I first learned this I assumed AhS considered the Tur the machria
here and he made the P'saq we follow, and he would not overturn that.

When I re-read it I realizes it's more likely he was followed an explicit
[l'hedya] Rosh + Tur over the merely implicit Rashba.

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%94%D7%A9%D
7%95%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%97_%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D_%D
7%93
or http://bit.ly/4pEwhd


Re: al n'qiyyus yadayim
See SQ 19 re: al ,'tilus yadayim "lo plug rabbanan"

???? ??? ???? ???? "?? ????? ????", ??? ???? ????, ??? ???? ????? ????"?. ???? ???"? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? "?? ????? ????", ???? ????? ?? ???????

Kt
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 From today's Hakhel Bulletin:

Special Note Two:  Several readers inquired about 
the Bracha Achrona on the Nature Valley granola 
bar discussed yesterday.  Once again, the 
difficulty in the proper Brocha Achrona to make 
on a granola bar revolves around what the proper 
Bracha Achrona is on toasted whole grains, which 
is a relatively unique consumable.  Tosfos leaves 
the matter in doubt, and suggests that perhaps 
even a new and previously unknown Bracha, Al 
Ha?adama Ve?al Pri Ha?adama (similar to the after 
Brocha on certain fruits of Al Haeitz Ve?al Pri 
Haeitz) should be recited.  Because of this 
doubt, it is most preferable that toasted whole 
grain products only be consumed in the course of 
a bread meal, in which a HaMotzi has already been 
made.  The second best alternative is not to 
consume the Shiur of toasted whole grains which 
would require a Brocha Achrona within the 
appropriate time span of Kidei Achilas Pras.  It 
is for this reason that the OU suggested that one 
eat less than 1? granola bars every five 
minutes-- i.e, so that the minimum Shiur is not 
consumed and no Brocha Achrona is required.  In 
the ?worst case scenario?, where one has 
definitely consumed a Shiur of toasted whole 
grains (two whole granola bars) within two 
minutes (definitely within the time span of Kidei 
Achilas Pras), then one has no choice but to not 
follow Tosfos? opinion, and recite a Borei 
Nefashos.  With this explanation we will repeat 
the conclusion presented by the OU with the hope 
that our readers now better understand this 
conclusion and its rationale:  If a person 
consumed 2 granola bars in less than 2 minutes, 
he has no choice [i.e., he cannot comply with 
Tosfos? conclusion], and he must recite a Borei 
Nefashos.  Ideally, one should eat the granola 
bars after having washed on a meal containing bread.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100107/ecbf94ce/attachment-0001.htm>

<<Ideally, one should eat the granola bars after having washed on a meal
containing bread.>>

Of course if one does that, then he may have a different problem... Isn't
there a Yerushalmi somewhere that states "hani Bavloi Tipshoi d'achli
nahama b'nahama"? 

 

From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com

> And AIUI the Arizal was machhmir not to cut ANY facial hair at
> all. [Except perhaps to trim the mustache as needed.]

Correct. This is documented in the Beis Lechem Yehuda on YD 181.

However the Arizal did cut his Peyos once they entered the Beard Area.

- Danny

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> RAF:
>> 'Hatam Sofer takes to mean that there was a special Sanhedrin
>> conference to take away teh Kuttim's Jewishness.
> 
> See Igros Moshe Orach Hayyim vol. 2 #100 on his use of nimnu v'gamru WRT
> overturingg the g'zeira in the mishnah in Beitza prohibiting clapping
> slapping and "stomping" on YT and Shabbos

How is it relevant to this question?  Are you saying that people nowadays
don't accept that Kuttim are goyim, and that there's universal agreement
among chachamim that if only we had the power we would rescind that act
and restore their Jewishness?!


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

Simon Montagu wrote:
> This is true even of a minimal tzibbur of 10, who have the right to 
> compel one another not to leave town on Yamim Nora'im, or to pay for a 
> replacement. (end of OH 55).
> 
> The Rema's lashon "kofin ze et ze" is interesting: I think it implies 
> exactly the opposite of your premise -- none of the tzibbur has this 
> right as individuals, and even nine do not have the right to compel the 
> tenth; but ten have the right to compel one another.

What makes you say that?  Lich'ora the reason nine can't compel each
other to stay is simple: there is no minyan!  Each individual in the
village is an areiv for each other member's ability to daven with a
minyan; if he wants to go away for yomtov, thus leaving the other nine
with no minyan, he must hire a replacement.  Presumably if there are
nine and it's proposed to hire a tenth to come and join them for yomtov,
the other eight would also be obliged to pay his share.  But if there
are only nine and no tenth is coming, then why should he not go away?
On the contrary, going away would then be a mitzvah, and the only
question to ask is whether he can compel the other eight to come with
him!

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

RMM wrote:
> Now, I cannot go to my neighbor's house and take his money
> to feed the poor. Therefore, I cannot grant the government that
> power either. The entire concept of taxation for the sake of
> social welfare is anathema to the Framers of the United States
> Constitution.

Eh, halakhically not true: kofin 'al hatzedaqa.
Rambam hil. matnot 'aniyim 7:9[10]:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/7207.htm
Whoever does not want to give charity, or  gives less than what befits
him, the court forces him, and beat him, until he will give as much as
[the court] establish he should give. And [the court may authorize for
its designated agents to] go into his domain and take whtever it
befits him to give.

> Now, I cannot go to my neighbor's house and take his money
> to feed the poor. Therefore, I cannot grant the government that
> power either. The entire concept of taxation for the sake of social
> welfare is anathema to the Framers of the United States Constitution.

See above quote.

Social contract theory does have a place in Judaism, but it is not the
only justification for government; it may explain some of the
government's roles and prerogatives.

Kol tuv
-- 
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

On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 03:41:12PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: Micha Berger wrote:
: >I think your question would only apply to people who don't voluntarily
: >accept the authority of BD.

: No.  You're conflating two opinions.  Your argument would work if BD 
: gets their authority through the consent of the litigants, but not if BD 
: gets their authority through the government...

I'm not talking about where BD gets the power of HBDH. I'm talking about
where the US allows a third party to trample on my property. A frum Jew
is hopefully machania to BD, and therefore because the litigant allows,
the dina de-US shouldn't be a problem.

I'm also not sure how much further the conversation could go in this
direction, as it's not about US law. My point was just to limit the DDD
question to Jews who wouldn't submit to halakhah or the concept of BD.

Another relevent piece is whether HBDH is being applied by a particular
BD, in which an O Jew might also not respect a given court, and where
HBDH was invoked once by Chazal in a "mikan ulehaba" manner.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 06:10:36AM -0500, david guttmann wrote:
: The issur is Lo Teva'aru Esh, there are therefore two components Biur and
: Esh. Making fire alone is not an issur, it is fire that has Bi'ur, some kind
: of longer term result (similar to veshilach et Be'iro Ubi'er besadeh acher).
: See Rambam Hilchot Shabbat 12:1 the issur is only if one makes fire on
: something - hamadlik et haner o et ha'etzim.... 

So the question is that the "fire" doesn't last long enough to consume
any metal?

In any case, that was a hypothetical I raised because someone wrote that a
spark of "just air" wouldn't be fire. The sparks actually contain metal;
it's a standard gacheles shel mateches issue, although very small. To
quote wikipedia" "a tiny bit of metal is heated to incandescence, melted,
and thrown off. On opening, a bluish arc may occur with a detectable
"electrical" (ozone) smell; afterwards the contacts may be seen to be
darkened and pitted." Pretty similar to a filament, no? There is even
the evidence of bishul ("darkented") and the missing metal that was
in the spark ("pitted"). If you ever had the misfortune to see sparks
sputtering out of a socket, you'll notice they fall in trajectories.

This hypothetical would only be an issue for a Jacob's Ladder (that spark
that leaps up wires in Mad Scientists' laboratory) or after rubbing your
feet on the carpet a long time in just the right humidity so that the
static itself is visible. In those cases, there would be no measurable
damage to the metal (or skin).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 12
**************************************

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..."