Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 109

Fri, 30 Apr 2010

• 1. secular law (Eli Turkel)
• 2. More on What Constitutes Chillul Hashem? (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 3. More on What Constitutes Chillul Hashem? (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: More on What Constitutes Chillul Hashem? (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: More on What Constitutes Chillul Hashem? (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: More on What Constitutes Chillul Hashem? (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 7. Re: More on What Constitutes Chillul Hashem? (Ben Waxman)
• 8. Re: 2 fridgies (Danny Schoemann)
• 9. Re: 2 fridgies (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: 2 fridgies (Danny Schoemann)
• 11. Re: Stop illegal dumping of religious items in Lakewood (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 12. Re: 2 fridgies (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: More on What Constitutes Chillul Hashem? (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Stop illegal dumping of religious items in Lakewood (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Stop illegal dumping of religious items in Lakewood (Zev Sero)
• 16. Dowries for marriage (Yosef Skolnick)
• 17. Taking Responsibility (Liron Kopinsky)

<<It's clear that monetary laws could run according to SA, but it's also clear
that criminal law could NOT run according to basic Torah law.>>


<<The King (and according to R' Kook IIUC any authority the people
designate for leadership)
has the responsibility for civil order and would set up a system
designed to ensure its maintenance (makin vonshin...)>>

As I have pointed out several times it is far from clear that monetary
laws could
run according to SA. Some examples are transfer of funds by wire and
hence all inter-bank
transfers. There is no kinyan and in many cases it is done completely
by computer without
any human intervention. If one cannot make a kinyan on davar shelo ba
le-olam then one
cannot have long term planning and building a factory or machine that
takes a long time and one
needs to stabilize the price. Most stock market techniques are illegal. etc.

The Ran discusses at length the din of the melech (assuming it works
in EY). I always have found
it strange that it is advocated to get around din Torah and then
lambasted for avoiding din Torah.
In any case according to the Ran the idea is that the king can set up
his own courts not relying
on SA. So in essence we have secular law with a stamp of halacha.
Doesn't rely answer the question.
makin vonshin. shelo min hadin is meant as a temporary measure not as
a way of permamently
avoiding a din Torah. In any case its use is limited to cases where
public welfare is at stake
not for the run-of-the-mill criminal. According to the opinions I have
seen it cannot be
used to legitimize a transaction without a kinyan. i.e. in certain
cases one can use a kinyan based
on standard practices, eg a handshake. It is debateable how far this
extends. In any case
it cannot establish that no kinyan is necessary.

Even if all this does work as in the previous example you are just
using secular law and justifying it
according to halacha. It still avoids SA.



-- 
Eli Turkel

From this it seems to me that any action or deed, whether illegal or 
legal, that in any way casts anything negative on Judaism is a Chillul 
Hashem.

----- i think a counter example  would  be expounding or  advocating  any 
part of the torah that  brings derision from other jews or  gentiles.  so 
eg , if someone makes clear that he believes in mishkav zachar being a 
toeivah  , whereby he is just quoting the torah, by this definition it 
would be a chillul hashem, since  this is a view that most non-orthodox 
jews and gentiles  would consider unacceptable bigotry.   but by 
definition, following Hashem's word cannot be  a chillul  hashem....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100428/c80cc951/attachment-0001.htm>

At 04:33 PM 4/28/2010, Zev Sero wrote:
>   But in most countries the average person breaks the law
>himself as often as he finds convenient, and certainly doesn't look
>down on others just for doing things that are illegal.

Can you point to any studies that back up these assertions?

Also, please define the term "average person."

You wrote, ""Negative" is a subjective term; it depends in whose mind 
something is negative." Could "average" the way you have used it also 
be a subjective term?


Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100428/3d48dc6d/attachment-0001.htm>

Prof. Levine wrote:
> At 04:33 PM 4/28/2010, Zev Sero wrote:
>>   But in most countries the average person breaks the law
>> himself as often as he finds convenient, and certainly doesn't look
>> down on others just for doing things that are illegal.
> 
> Can you point to any studies that back up these assertions?

Studies?  Just look around you.  What normal American thinks it's wrong
to jaywalk, or to get a parking ticket, or to smoke a joint, or to bet
on a game?  What normal American would think less of someone for doing so?
If you need a study for that, there's something very wrong.

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

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 12:47:05PM -0400, Yitzchok Levine wrote:
: There is a section on Chillul Hashem in RSRH's Horeb. See 
: http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/horeb_chillul_hashem.pdf

: From this it seems to me that any action or deed, whether illegal or 
: legal, that in any way casts anything negative on Judaism is a Chillul 
: Hashem.

A similar point was recently made by R Herschel Schachter at
<http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2001/parsha/rsch_emor.html>:

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 12:47:05PM -0400, Yitzchok Levine wrote:
: There is a section on Chillul Hashem in RSRH's Horeb. See 
: http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/horeb_chillul_hashem.pdf

: From this it seems to me that any action or deed, whether illegal or 
: legal, that in any way casts anything negative on Judaism is a Chillul 
: Hashem.

So acting Jewish - which to some people is intrinsically negative no matter
what - is a Chillul Hashem? 

Obviously, that's taking it ad absurdum, but it's true - you ain't gonna
please everyone. At a certain point, you have to think about Hashem, instead
of Mah Yomru Habrios, like Shulchan Aruch says in Siman 1. 

KT,
MYG

At the time of the Rambam, did the average person look down upon someone who
walked around with stains on his clothes?

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name>



>>   But in most countries the average person breaks the law
>> himself as often as he finds convenient, and certainly doesn't look
>> down on others just for doing things that are illegal.

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <<(At least in Israel milk comes in bags and is therefore "open" once
> the corner is cup open.)>>
>
> Unless one puts cheese on top of meat - highly unlikely- there is not much of a
> problem with a fridge.

That's not what the Remo in YD 95:6 seems to say.

SA 95:6: One may place a jug of milk next to one of meat inside a box.
Remo: And there are those who are stringent Lechatchila, and it's good
to be stringent Lechactchila in a when possible.

[Eamil #2. -micha]

R' Zev Sero commented:
> Not allowed?  It says it *is* allowed, and the Ramo merely says that
>it should be avoided if possible.

The Remo says: And there are those who are stringent Lechatchila, and
it's good to be stringent Lechactchila in a when possible.

> But that's "next to"; do you not have separate shelves in the fridge
> for milchigs and fleishigs?

No we don't; never occurred to me that it was needed - and I've never
seen anybody do it. Is that your custom?

But maybe it's a good idea. However, the milk could still spill onto
the meat below (or vice versa) which seems to be more than "a problem"
- it may be actually forbidden to live with this constant possibility.

> And don't you cover the milk jug, to stop random debris from falling in?

No. It's not a jug; it's a plastic bag with the corner cut off.

- Danny

>> Unless one puts cheese on top of meat - highly unlikely- there is not much of a
>> problem with a fridge.
>
> That's not what the Remo in YD 95:6 seems to say.
>
> SA 95:6: One may place a jug of milk next to one of meat inside a box.
> Remo: And there are those who are stringent Lechatchila, and it's good
> to be stringent Lechactchila in a when possible.
>
Agreed when they are in one box again unlikely. A fridge is not a box.



-- 
Eli Turkel

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Unless one puts cheese on top of meat - highly unlikely- there is not much of a
>>> problem with a fridge.
>>
>> That's not what the Remo in YD 95:6 seems to say.
>>
>> SA 95:6: One may place a jug of milk next to one of meat inside a box.
>> Remo: And there are those who are stringent Lechatchila, and it's good
>> to be stringent Lechactchila in a when possible.
>>
> Agreed when they are in one box again unlikely. A fridge is not a box.

That may be even worse, since in 95:5 even the SA forbids putting meat
next to milk. In a box it's "safer" since you'll be more careful, so
the SA is more lenient.

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Temporary items do not receive the same qedushah. The gemara's
> textbook case is erasing a sheim Hashem written on the beach
> below the high tide line.

Something "written on the beach below the high tide line" will be erased
automatically, with no further human action, and within 24 hours. I don't
see how this can serve as a basis for something which will last for decades
or centuries, and the only thing "temporary" about it is that it is
intended or expected to be read only a very small number of times.

> I am guessing the above was what RAPam had in mind, but it's the
> line of reasoning in two shu"t Bar Ilan's web site found: Meishiv
> Davar 2:80, and Ein Yitzchaq 5:7.

Thank you very much for such precise citations. (I was going to ask exactly
where can I find that site, but the Wikipedia article on "Bar Ilan Responsa
Project" showed it to me. Wikipedia is amazing.) I'll look them up later.

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> ... they were never intended for more than one use, and therefore
> were created al tenai that they could be disposed of afterwards.
> I believe this is based on a psak from the early days of printing,
> when the question was what to do with galleys and misprinted or
> miscut sheets, etc.

I understand how that tenai can work for the galley proofs, which are not
intended for learning, only for proofreading. But it seems to me that when
one prints a Parsha Sheet, his first and foremost intention is that people
should learn about the Parsha from it. Can the tenai work if someone does
actually learn Torah from it? Can the tafel (intention for the Parsha Sheet
to be temporary) really be that much stronger than the ikar (intention for
the Parsha Sheet to be used for Talmud Torah?)

After writing the above, I remembered another example of a tenai which
prevents kedusha: a shul. See, for example, Orach Chayim 151:11, that
making a tenai when building a shul does have certain effects after the
building ceases to be used as a shul, and this tenai overrides the fact
that the building was actually used as a shul. This seems similar to the
idea that a Parsha Sheet could be disposed of after it is no longer being
learned from.

It still bothers me that the tafel (a mental tenai from back when the
sheet/shul was made) can override the ikar (the actual use of the
sheet/shul for its mitzvah). But it seems that in both cases, the tenai
doesn't really take effect until *after* the sheet/shul is no longer being
used. This is consistent, and once I get used to the idea, I guess I'll
admit that it is logical too.

Another comparison could be to doing mitzvos with specific kavana *not* to
be yotzay. If I can actually do a mitzva, but my intention is to prevent
that act from taking effect, then I suppose I can also print a Parsha Sheet
which will be used for Talmud Torah, and my intentions will prevent the
sheet from acquiring any kedusha even if someone does learn from that
sheet.

Okay, I suppose I've answered my questions. Under other circumstances I
might just click "Cancel", but instead, just in case anyone has questions
similar to mine, I'm clicking "Send". Thanks.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 2000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4bd96801507601bce6dst04vuc

Danny Schoemann wrote:

> R' Zev Sero commented:
>> Not allowed?  It says it *is* allowed, and the Ramo merely says that
>> it should be avoided if possible.
> 
> The Remo says: And there are those who are stringent Lechatchila, and
> it's good to be stringent Lechactchila in a when possible.

In other words, it is allowed.  One needn't be stringent even when
possible; it's merely good to do so.

 
>> But that's "next to"; do you not have separate shelves in the fridge
>> for milchigs and fleishigs?
> 
> No we don't; never occurred to me that it was needed - and I've never
> seen anybody do it. Is that your custom?

Not a formal custom, as far as I know. It's just what my parents do.
But it seems practical, and it means things are not "next to" each
other.  My parents also cover pretty much anything that's put in the
fridge, to keep it fresh or whatever.  I'm not really sure this is
necessary scientifically, and I don't often bother, but it does mean
that the issue with uncovered containers goes away.

 
> But maybe it's a good idea. However, the milk could still spill onto
> the meat below (or vice versa) which seems to be more than "a problem"
> - it may be actually forbidden to live with this constant possibility.

Again, the Rama says it's *not* forbidden; at most it's "good" to
avoid it if possible.


>> And don't you cover the milk jug, to stop random debris from falling in?
> 
> No. It's not a jug; it's a plastic bag with the corner cut off.

Yes, but don't you put it in a jug or something, just to make picking
it up and carrying it around easier?   Carrying a floppy bag around
seems impractical to me.   And I'd be worried about spills, and stuff
falling in.  (I've been to EY four times in the last ten years, and
didn't see these milk bags.  I remember them from a visit 22 years ago,
but the people I stayed with then kept the bag in a jug.

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

Ben Waxman wrote:
> At the time of the Rambam, did the average person look down upon someone who
> walked around with stains on his clothes?

Presumably about as much as or more than they do today. Not little stains
that can result from the ordinary activities of the day, but the sort of
stains that indicates a problem.  You look at someone on the subway, and
certain kinds of stains on their clothes indicate that they're living
rough or have some mental problem, and you start to edge away in case
they start something.  Whereas when on a rainy day you see a bit of mud-
splatter on the bottom of someone's trousers, you think nothing of it.
But yes, 13th-century Arabs were known to be fairly fastidious with
their clothes.  Things like ripped denim, that we think nothing of any
more, would never be accepted then.

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

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:03:48AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
:> Temporary items do not receive the same qedushah. The gemara's
:> textbook case is erasing a sheim Hashem written on the beach
:> below the high tide line.

: Something "written on the beach below the high tide line" will be erased
: automatically, with no further human action, and within 24 hours. I
: don't see how this can serve as a basis for something which will last
: for decades or centuries, and the only thing "temporary" about it is that
: it is intended or expected to be read only a very small number of times.

Perhaps (IOW, LAD / IMHO), it's because qedushah depends on the intent
of the person who makes it. Such as the lack of qedushah of a seifer
Torah written by a min. Or the Shakh YD 276:12 allows erasing and
rewriting a sheim (in sta"m) that was written without kavanah.

And so, if it was written without the intent of being permanent, it was
written without the intent of being a davar qodesh, so it isn't.

This goes beyond your comparison to kavanah not to be yotzei, involving
the role of kavanah for sheimos in particular.

:> I am guessing the above was what RAPam had in mind, but it's the
:> line of reasoning in two shu"t Bar Ilan's web site found: Meishiv
:> Davar 2:80, and Ein Yitzchaq 5:7.

: Thank you very much for such precise citations. (I was going to ask
: exactly where can I find that site, but the Wikipedia article on "Bar
: Ilan Responsa Project" showed it to me. Wikipedia is amazing.) I'll look
: them up later.

It's a pay site. (One of our chevrah sponsors my access.) Searches
are free, but clicking on the results to see the text, or just
browsing to a given location, is not. A cheap way to get access
to this and other resources is to join the library at Spertus
<http://www.spertus.edu/asher_cja/feinberg/index.php>. (Ask a she'eilah
about sending funds to such a mosad. My LOR allowed, but YMMV.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 30th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  result in holding back from others?

Micha Berger wrote:

> Perhaps (IOW, LAD / IMHO), it's because qedushah depends on the intent
> of the person who makes it. Such as the lack of qedushah of a seifer
> Torah written by a min. Or the Shakh YD 276:12 allows erasing and
> rewriting a sheim (in sta"m) that was written without kavanah.

Or Kuntres Ba'er Bisdei, by R Chaim Chizkiyah Medini, explaining why
the same letters that have kedusha if the writer intended them to mean
"Almighty", have none if the writer intended "fields of".

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

 SA Even Haezer Siman 2 Seif 1 Ramah (the whole thing) and Chelkat michokek
to answer the stirah.

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14398&;st=&pgnum=12

<<<<<<
Ilana Sober Elzufon wrote:

> RSZN: but there undoubtedly is more  economic  blackmail than before  [  no
> $ , no shidduch]
>
> Depends how you define "before" - dowries have been around for millennia.
>

And poskim and baalei mussar seem to have had no problem at all with
them.   One finds no condemnation of the bochur who places a high
price on himself before agreeing to a shiduch.  What one does find,
interestingly, is condemnation of the bochur who, having agreed to a
shiduch, breaks it off because the father-in-law is no longer able to
meet the commitment he made in good faith.
>>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100429/584fad07/attachment-0001.htm>

Here is a dvar torah I wrote on this week's Parsha. I had initially wanted
to write about the responsibility that the nation had to prevent the Mekalel
but looking through some sources, I ended up with the exact opposite
conclusion.


At the end of this week?s Parsha we come across an interesting story. A man,
born to a Jewish mother (from the Tribe of Dan) and an Egyptian father, gets
into an argument with one of the other Jews. In the course of the
disagreement he pronounces the name of Hashem and curses Him. The people
bring the man to Moshe and place him in jail while Moshe asks Hashem for
advice. God instructs them to take the man out of the camp, to have the
people who heard him curse Hashem place their hands on his head and then
stone him to death.

The Midrash, filling in some gaps in the story, tells us that the argument
was about whether this man was entitled to place his tent with the rest of
the Tribe of Dan, since tribal association is patrilineal. The Dan-ites
didn?t want this man camping with them, and are backed by Moshe, who rules
that the Dan-ites have the right to not allow him in their camp. The man
leaves Moshe in frustration, continues his fight with someone else in the
camp, and ultimately curses God.

This Midrash is quite hard to understand. Even if Dan wasn?t obligated count
the blasphemer as a member of their tribe, wouldn?t it still have been a
good gesture to allow him to stay there? He didn?t really have anywhere else
to go, as he surely didn?t belong to any of the other tribes!

Further, even if he wasn?t a particularly nice person and they were
justified in not wanting him around, why did the Jew allow the blasphemer to
pick a fight with him? It was surely possible for them to handle this
situation without getting drawn into one-on-one quarrels with him, and the
man?s temper would not have flared to the point of cursing Hashem. There
seems, however, to be no criticism levied against Dan or the man who argued
with the blasphemer.

Rashi (citing a different Midrash) makes a very insightful comment when
analyzing the punishment given. What is the point of having the people who
witnessed the event place their hands on the blasphemer?s head? We don?t see
this action in other places that stoning is discussed. Rashi says that they
placed their hands on his head to tell him ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????
???? ???? ??? (?Your blood is on your own head! We are not to be punished
for your death, for you brought this upon yourself!?).

The lesson here is clear. This is man who comes from a broken family, who
was pushed around by the people he considered the members of his Tribe and
was provoked further by another individual. Yet ultimately he alone is
responsible for his actions and must take full responsibility for them.

How many times do we blame our circumstances for mistakes we make?
http://mydvar.com/2010/04/taking-responsibility/


Shabbat Shalom,
Liron

PS I am looking for other people who are interested in writing Divrei Torah
from time to time for mydvar.com. If you're interested, please let me know
off list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100430/290212c2/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 109
***************************************

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..."