Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 48

Fri, 12 Feb 2010

• 1. Re: S'udas Purim in the Morning (Daniel Bukingolts)
• 2. Re: S'udas Purim in the Morning (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 3. Re: Mikvah for Geirus/Nidah (Ilana Sober Elzufon)
• 4. Re: Chezkas Kehunah (Samuel Svarc)
• 5. Re: Chezkas Kehunah (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Kol Isha - HETER (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: krumkeit (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: S'udas Purim in the Morning (Micha Berger)
• 9. Rights in halakhah (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 10. Re: S'udas Purim in the Morning (Ben Waxman)
• 11. On Pilpul (was: Chezkas Kehunah) (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: S'udas Purim in the Morning (j...@when.com)
• 13. Re: Chezkas Kohanim (j...@when.com)

I dont know about ikkar or not... but I am pretty sure you can have in mind
to eat in different places throughout the day when you was at the bar
mitzvah meal as long as you eat within 72 minutes some bread or mezonos i
believe.

I dont know if this is lchatchila but you might want to look into this!




On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:28 PM, <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> B"H we have been invited to a Bar-Mitzva on Purim morning which means
> we will be eating a sumptuous meal then
>
> It is likely that I will be working Purim afternoon - and will not be
> able to have a s'udah with my family then.
>
> While it's the common Minhag to have the Purim s'udah in the afternoon
> [except on erev Shabbos - EG see Rema O"Ch 695:2] is there any reason
> NOT to make the morning Bar Mitzvah meal the iqqar S'udas Purim? [FWIW
> Rema b'sheim ThD says it's OK in the AM every in the year]
>
> KT
> RRW
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>



-- 
Daniel Bukingolts
847-877-9052
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100211/019c69a7/attachment-0001.htm>

buki...@gmail.com
> I dont know about ikkar or not... but I am pretty sure you can have
> in mind to eat in different places throughout the day when you was at
> the bar mitzvah meal as long as you eat within 72 minutes some bread or
> mezonos i believe. I dont know if this is lchatchila but you might want
> to look into this

If it were local it might work better
BUT
In this case the bar mitzvah is a 45-minute drive away and I would not
feel comfortable not benching there - assuming I wash there.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RHT: If a woman enters the mikvah l?tzorech geirus and such t?vilah
coincides with the timing that would normally be required l?tzorech taharas
hamishpocha,  can the same t?vilah serve for both?

RDR:I was hesitant to post about this, because it seems to be a practical
question, but if we're talking theory why should she need to toveil for
taharas hamishpacha? Non Jews aren't normally assurah mishum nidda ... and
at the time she becomes Jewish she's not in a state of nidda ...

You are assuming this is her first tevilah l'shem geirus - nowadays it is
quite common for people to convert multiple times as they become frummer and
the beit din that did the original O conversion is called into question for
some reason...

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100211/b658d3b7/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
<SNIP>
> The fact that a safeiq is treated as a state in itself, and thus can
> be treated as part of one side for one question and though it's part of
> the other side for another is admittedly weird. We're used to thinking
> in two valued logic, and therefore that doubt means the "real value"
> of true of false hasn't yet been fully determined. In the kind of logic
> we're used to, that would be a paradox. In a multivalent logic (one that
> allows values between true and false), the rules are different. The
> weirdness is in the gap between the kind of logic Artistotle et al
> developed and made part of western culture, and the kind of logic Chazal
> used.
>
> (This is *not* in argument with that RETurkel is saying on the "logic"
> thread. He includes multivalent logics as part of math.)

Come now. You are certainly disagreeing in part. When "... he first
started law school he was thrown out of class for using gemara logic which
did not amuse the professor", you mean to say that had he used multivalent
logic the professor would have been OK with it? Who are we kidding?

I'm adding the next step, EvE and concepts like that, where it is up
to 'shikel hadaas', where different poskim will come out differently,
this is not what math will teach you. There are formal rules that
cannot be broken. In yahadus one needs a Rebbe to know what is a rule,
how absolute is it, when are absolute rules broken, what one does when
it is broken, etc. (E.g. Goyim surround a city and threaten the Jews
with death unless they do X. Is that AZ? Is that something that is
YVY? What if someone didn't give up his life?) Can all those "formulas"
that you make for a specific scenario and their underlying assumptions
(Safeik .... l'chumro u'lkuloh, the 'sniffim' used, etc.) be drooped
into any other scenario? I think the fundemental difference is clear.

KT,
MSS

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 04:23:58PM -0500, Samuel Svarc wrote:
: Come now. You are certainly disagreeing in part. When "... he first
: started law school he was thrown out of class for using gemara logic which
: did not amuse the professor", you mean to say that had he used multivalent
: logic the professor would have been OK with it? Who are we kidding?

No, but there are disciplines which would develop the same skills as
halakhah's logic. And for that matter, US Law has huge overlap too --
you just have to mind where the overlap differs.

E.g. Presidents, Senators and the voting public are repeatedly surprised
how US Supreme Court appointees turn out. They look to litmus topics,
issues that divide Dems from Reps (e.g. abortion). However, the judge
isn't thinking in those terms. He or she is a strict constructionist,
and therefore voted the way the president wanted on this issue or that.
Another is a contextualist, etc...

Sounds much like the confusion non-O Jews get into trying to understand
how a real poseiq works. It's not only about what the rav feels is moral,
it's more about how he feels the legal process works.



: I'm adding the next step, EvE and concepts like that, where it is up
: to 'shikel hadaas', where different poskim will come out differently,
: this is not what math will teach you. There are formal rules that
: cannot be broken...

Yes, halakhah goes beyond the ability to make formal rules. Queue my
usual plug for R' Moshe Koppel's "Metahalakhah" here. Formality is a
stop-gap we use as nisqatnu hadoros and we lose more and more of the
"native speaker's" informal knowledge of how the language is to be spoken.

Moshe Rabbeinu dies, and Osniel ben Kenaz restores the lost elements of
Sinaitic culture through his pilpul.


Tangents related to other threads:

Someone recently posted a side-comment that was disparaging of pilpul.
The way I hear the words used today, pilpul and lomdus really mean the
same thing. When I don't understand or like the system of lomdus the
other person is using, I call it "pilpul". KNLAD.

This informal knowledge is what RYKamenecki was saying you need shimush
for. Someone who learns but doesn't engage in sufficient shimush can
extrapolate from the material in absurd directions. They have no idea
when they're heading toward the center or out on a limb.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 12:42:58PM +0200, Michael Makovi wrote:
: > Where's the qol ishah in your example [of Egypt and Umm Kalthoum]?
: > Because they knew where the songs
: > were from when they heard a male chazan sing them?
: > R' Micha Berger
: 
: No. What I meant was, the rabbi knew EXACTLY where these tunes came
: from, and far from criticizing listening to Umm Kalthoum, he instead
: allowed her tunes into the synagogue!! What this means is, the rabbi
: implicitly granted his heter to listen to her....

Or, given that he knew he couldn't get his qehillah to stop listening to
her sing, he chose to leverage their love of that music to aid tefillah.

This is the land of the Rambam, after all. Do you really think their
pesaqim on this issue are that likely to be more meiqil than ours?

...
: And my conclusion doesn't rest entirely on Rabbi Weinberg, nor does it
: rest entirely on the practice of the Egyptians. I felt that the
: confluence of so many heterim from so many directions, all together
: permitted a heter...

You have RYYW saying that a given argument is weak, but since we're also
weighing hiskarvus (kiruv of FFBs) into the mix, okay. You stretch that
to a blanket heter, because of the very lack shimush you don't understand
RYK's point about. You're looking at formal rules, and not at the flow
of how poseqim have treated the topic. Clearly RYYW knew he was pushing
the envelope, and wasn't trying to open the door for you to push it to
the point of near non-existance.

You have the Rambam, who is a bigger machmir than the norm, as proof that
everything is societal and therefore we  could be more meiqil than the
norm. You also have many assumptions about what societal means. For
example, the title of this thread. For all the habituation, sexuality is
more overt than ever before. So, has the increased exposure really
reduced their ability to cause hirhurim -- or have we gotten used to
having more hirhurim, or even dismissing hirhurim that would have
shocked the rishonim on the grounds that they weren't about bi'ah
bedavka (as you argued).

You have a guess about life in Egypt and whether the poseqim approved.

You also assume that it is even an option to say everything can be
societal, despite the acceptance of the Das Moshe vs Das Yehudis
model of tzeni'us.


Beqitzus:
You are using your ability to invent weak arguments that your sources
would have objected to to ignore their weaknesses just because you can
do it repeatedly.

1000 x 0 = 0

Lehavdil -- I'm only comparing methodology, not odiousness -- j4j guys
also bring dozens of faulty proofs form Tanakh, hoping to create a
feeling that a general picture emerges while in truth none of the proofs
work when you look at them one by one.

:                                         If the Ra'avya can permit what
: was societally-normal in his time, then we can do the same in ours.
: Even if the Ra'avya's heter was only to speak to women, nevertheless,
: the basic logic and direction of his heter is useful for us today.
: That's why I wasn't concerned that Rabbi Weinberg merely permits
: zemirot; the direction of his ruling can permit far more than only
: zemirot.

OR, the direction of his ruling is that we can't permit it in just any
context -- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HE RULED.

: > In general, I find your reliance on prefiltered sources, reading the
: > promary sources via secondary ones and never revisiting them to form your
: > own opinion bothersome. Particularly since you keep an unbalanced set
: > of secondary sources. People can extrapolate, and then you extrapolate
: > for them, leaving you cantilevered over the abyss.
: > R' Micha Berger
: 
: I DID learn the primary sources, i.e. the rishonim. My article relies
: on secondary sources, however, because I wanted to make it easier for
: my readers to read further....

But that makes it impossible to have a discussion. Until you explain how
you understand the non-partisan sources, your citation of sources you
like for the very reason that you agree with them doesn't mean much to
any of us.

Like how can you possibly use the Rambam lequlah. I showed you how I
think you are misparsing the Rambam. He says nothing about relating qol
ishah to hirhur.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
mi...@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            -Rita Mae Brown

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 09:42:34PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: In fact the gemara and tosafot were not happy with R. Meir being able to
: mitaher the sheretz in 70 ways. I was brought up that learning gemara requires
: a clear analytical mind and not pilpul of 70 ways to learn the gemara.

What about needing to know 49 ways letamei and 49 letaheir in order to
qualify for Sanhedrin.

See above on my opinion of "pilpul".

RCBrisker asked R' Yitzchaq Elchanan to telegraph back a one word
answer to his she'eilah. Why? Because RBC was afraid that if he saw the
RIES's sevara, he would be able to poke holes in it. Brisker Derekh is
all about being able to see both sides of a machloqes. Does that take it
out of the realm of the work of a "clear analytical mind"?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 08:28:35PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: While it's the common Minhag to have the Purim s'udah in the afternoon
: [except on erev Shabbos - EG see Rema O"Ch 695:2] is there any reason
: NOT to make the morning Bar Mitzvah meal the iqqar S'udas Purim? [FWIW
: Rema b'sheim ThD says it's OK in the AM every in the year]

The Gra was maqpid to have Purim se'udah in the morning. This way, he
would be sure to be sober and ready to learn the moment Purim ended.

Not that his violation of a minhag proves much for the rest of us...

What I don't understand is why you're asking, given that the Rama
bothers to quote the Terumas haDeshen telling you it's okay.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Consider the links below this is an old argument:

Four Freedoms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms

> 1. Freedom of speech and expression
> 2. Freedom of religion
> 3. Freedom from want
> 4. Freedom from fear?

> His [FDR's] inclusion of the latter two freedoms went beyond the
> traditional US Constitutional values protected by its First Amendment,
> and endorsed a right to economic security and an internationalist view
> of foreign policy that have come to be central tenets of modern American
> liberalism. They also anticipated what would become known decades later as
> the "human security" paradigm in social science and economic development.

Now for a Torah angle:

Questions:
Does lo saamod al dam rei'echa apply to nochrim?
Were nochrim m'chuyyav to stop the holocaust?
Are we Y'hudim obligated to save Nochrim EG in Rwanda?

Or IOW
Does the right to "NOT BE MURDERED"
Include preventing evil people from murdering or even from starving
people to death? Many claim that those who "merely" died in camps from
dyssentery and starvation were NOT murdered by the Nazis YSZ. I think
most of us reject that thesis as a form of "holocaust denial"

Also these:
Atlantic Charter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Charter

> In brief, the eight points were:
> 1. No territorial gains were to be sought by the United States or
>    the United Kingdom.
> 2. Territorial adjustments must be in accord with the wishes of the
>    peoples concerned.
> 3. All peoples had a right to self-determination.
> 4. Trade barriers were to be lowered.
> 5. There was to be global economic cooperation and advancement of
>    social welfare.
> 6. Freedom from want and fear.
> 7. Freedom of the seas.
> 8. Disarmament of aggressor nations, postwar common disarmament.
>    Point Four, with respect to international trade, consciously emphasized
>    that both "victor [and] vanquished" would be given market access "on
>    equal terms." This was a repudiation of the punitive trade relations
>    that were established in Europe post-World War I, exemplified by the
>    Paris Economy Pact.

Questions:
In light of "man's inhumanity to man" was an agenda far more progressive
than Jefferson's mandated?

IOW in the 18th century are of reason maybe Jeffersonian [and Lockean]
principles were sufficient and therefore ideal

BUT

In the age of Hitler and Stalin YSZ, something more had to be done than
being "reasonable"

In fact, Gandhi's pacifism could have been catastrophic in the context
of a Holocaust.

And so: "habbo laharag es chaveircha - hashkeim v'horgo?" Or not?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

How much did the Gra drink that he needed hours to recover?

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
> 
> The Gra was maqpid to have Purim se'udah in the morning. This way, he
> would be sure to be sober and ready to learn the moment Purim ended.

Micha:
> Someone recently posted a side-comment that was disparaging of pilpul.

I think I posted something but was not offering my personal take but
paraphrasing complaints of others

Piplul to me depends. Like many things - it can be abused

The usual case is
Since X is true in context A it is also true in context B

EG
A rebbe in yeshiva used the concept of first 3 brachos in amida are one
[re: hamelech haqadosh] and pilpulistically applied it to Kavvanah
as follows

Since 
A Avos requires kavannah
And since 
B the first 3 brachot are really one
 Therefore 
C really all 3 brachot require kavvanah

A similar point might be made about requiring 4 times for negel vasser

Since
A it takes 3 washings to remove ruach ra'ah
And  since 
B the third washing still leaves one's hands wet
Therefore 
C a 4th rinse is needed

[Never mind that Hazal MIGHT have figured that the third rinse already
does that trick!]

It's a kind of bootstrapping

EG halachos are established about not eating or learning before b'diqas
hametz

Late Acharonim applied these to hadlaqa ner Hanukka:
AISI, a bit pilpulistic

Whether this pilpul is good, bad or ugly is after all quite subjective.
I'm only trying to illustrate it as I understand it.

The mother sugya iirc is found in tosafos on "kaffus v'yashein", I forgot
exact mar'eh maqom

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

"B"H we have been invited to a Bar-Mitzva on Purim morning which means
we will be eating a sumptuous meal then

It is likely that I will be working Purim afternoon - and will not be
able to have a s'udah with my family then.

While it's the common Minhag to have the Purim s'udah in the afternoon
[except on erev Shabbos - EG see Rema O"Ch 695:2] is there any reason
NOT to make the morning Bar Mitzvah meal the iqqar S'udas Purim? [FWIW
Rema b'sheim ThD says it's OK in the AM every in the year"

The shulchan aruch says to have the seuda after mincha ketana (except on
erev shabbos) in order that you will be allowed to eat after mincha. If it
is a seuda gedola- I believe you have to start it before mincha gedola
(Orach Chaim 232:2) (though I heard once that everything other than a
wedding is a seuda ketana). Assuming that the Purim seuda is a seuda
gedola, we only have it in the morning on erev shabbos because we do not
seperate mincha from maariv for kavod shabbos.Therefore, we cannot start
the Purim seuda after mincha ketana and we cannot start it after mincha
gedola- so we start it before mincha gedola. I'm not sure what you said
about the Rema, but the shulchan aruch clearly implies it's best to have
the seuda after mincha ketana unless it's for kavod shabbos; not kavod
friend's bar mitzvah. Personally, I think having a meal later is more
chashuv in general, I don't know if halacha agrees with me. Furthermore,
the shulchan aruch says that whoever works on Purim pro
 viso it is not for a mitzvah or for Purim itself will not benefit from his
 toil. The only variable I have seen that might be complulsory for the
 seuda is bread and the suggestion of various types of seeds. I have not
 found anything concerning having a Purim seuda that serves multiple
 functions- anyone else have? From an hashkafic perpective it feels so
 wrong to work and techinically have a seuda gedola.....that hapens to be
 on Purim too. I am not a Rabbi, but I wouldn't treat my Purim like that if
 I didn't have to- it's like the holiest day of the year!

  

-Josh S

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100211/5e0f31d1/attachment.htm>

 

"There is much in this post I wouldn't have felt comfortable raising in

public. I'm not sure if you're admitting that you duped a rabbi in order

to get his opinion on kohanim, or just said something about a real

person's history...



However, now that the post was approved and the damage done...



The Rav in question did not assume every kohein is a safeiq. Rather, he

tried to find grounds for creating a specific sefeiq in your case. Both

in the kohein's geneology, and in the wife's story about college life.":



Rav Elyashiv has a teshuva regarding when slighting the truth is permitted
and not permitted. He says, "if you have a delicate package and need it to
be treated sensitively, you are allowed to write "glass"on the box even if
no glass is present."

If you know that you are entitled to a certain variable, though people will
not grant you this variable unless you use a specific phrase, it is
permitted to write this phrase. This metaphor is perhaps not 100%
applicable to my case, though I believe it is sufficiently applicable (the
variable: having the right to a completely unbiased answer. The phrase;
"kohen"). I spoke about this issue with other people as well. I don't know
if you got my "cluck like a rooster" reference; see kiddushin (somewhere
between 30 and 31) and you will know what I am referring to.

Yes, this is true, he did not imply that EVERY kohen in the world is safek-
though he did say that I could be a chalal when all I told him was that my
mom dormed at a secular university for several years and my paternal
grandmother was a holocaust surivor.  



The problem I have with it is the following; Kohanim have chezkas kehuna because....

1) They duchen; and being that duchening is a deoreita, this proves that they must be kohanim. 

The problem is that I told the Rabbi I was a kohen who duchend, to which he then originally said I was a chalal.

He literally said "you are a chalal" (I will make a neder on this if you
want me to) and eventually said I was only a safek kohen, to go on with my
life in happiness, keep shalom bayis, and not bring this issue up again.   

Again- he also said that since she did not feel pain, it "probably never really happened". 

Regardless; if I was a chalal or if I was safek cohen.... who has always
duchened, then how could the Rabbis use the fact that kohanim duchen to
prove that they are not safek kohanim or chalalim!? 

Perhaps this Rabbi is in the minority. Don't take my word for it, try it with your own Rabbi- though be honest and unbiased about it when you speak to him. 

I am interested to know what other Rabbis have to say. I have read that this is a common technique that Rabbis will use. 
Though I do not quite understand the last part of your statement and it's relevance. 


I come across articles all the time quoting the Rambam saying "In our
times, all kohanim have a chazakah"; as if, since it came from the Rambam,
the chazakah is good for hundreds of years regardless of other variables-
when the Rivash says that all kohanim are safek kohanim only 300 years
later. 



 -Josh S 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100211/f7b033f0/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 48
**************************************

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..."