Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 112

Thu, 06 May 2010

• 1. Administrivia: Sorry (Micha Berger)
• 2. Auto Lease (Henry Topas)
• 3. Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: Baking Matza Until it is Hard (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. "The Great Miracle of the Volcano Shutdown " (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 6. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress (David Riceman)
• 7. Re: Baking Matza Until it is Hard (Zev Sero)
• 8. critique of schroeder (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 9. Re: critique of schroeder (Chanoch (Ken) Bloom)
• 10. Re: "The Great Miracle of the Volcano Shutdown " (Allen Baruch)
• 11. More on what constitutes chilul hashem (Beth & David Cohen)
• 12. Re: More on what constitutes chilul hashem (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Taking Responsibility (Michael Poppers)
• 14. FW: : [Areivim] rain can really be a blessing (SBA)

Sorry for accidentally sending a group of Avodah emails back to the
list. I was trying to send it to another computer for printing, and
accidentally typed "avodah" instead...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

 

Dear RAM,

 

Your first line is exactly correct: the "buy back" provisions of the
auto lease do indeed require that the lessee makes sure that the value
is there at the end of the lease.

 

 

Essentially, the lessee will make smaller payments during the term of
the lease in favour of a higher buy back at the end or has the option of
making larger payments for a lesser risk of the marketplace at the end
of the term when, using your example, a Toyota situation could have
intervened.

 

So my question remains: In the absence of a standard of valuation, what
is the chiyuv of the lessee in terms of proving a value? Or, should the
lessor have provided a specific standard in the lease document and in
its absence, can he extract a presumed difference from the lessee?

 

HT

 

 

 

 

Cantor Henry Topas brought a case:

 

> Reuven leases a car from Shimon's leasing company.

> The lease stipulates that upon the end of the lease

> term, the vehicle must have a value of $30,000.

 

 

 

You seem to be interpreting this to mean that when the lease ends, and
Reuven returns that car to Shimon, he will be required to make sure that
it is worth $30,000 at that time.

 

That's not how I understand auto leases to work. Rather, at the time of
lease origination, a value is stipulated in advance, and when the lease
ends, Reuven has the exclusive option of returning the car or paying the
$30,000, regardless of what anyone thinks the car is actually worth.

 

Moreover, I don't know if a lease CAN work the way the OP suggests.
Reuven has no control over market forces. There's no way he can promise,
years in advance, how the market will value his car a few years down the
line. He can promise that the car will not have more than a normal
amount of wear-and-tear. But he cannot control whether this car will
turn out to have some sort of defect which causes the value to tumble,
such as in many of today's Toyota. Nor can he control gasoline prices,
which caused gas-guzzlers to tumble a few years back.

 

So here's the question as I see it: Shimon can agree that when the lease
is up, Reuven will have the option of returning the car or paying
$30,000 in lieu of that car. But does halacha (or civil law) allow
Reuven to obligate himself to $30,000, payable either in full or by
returning the car plus an amount of money to be determined at that date?
--- Well, now that I've phrased it in those terms, I suppose it can
indeed work like that. But I don't think it is actually done in that
way, because the leasing company is much more able to take the gamble
than the consumer is.

 

Akiva Miller

                

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100504/dea1e93e/attachment-0001.htm>

RYL quotes R' Shimon Schwarb as saying:

>   In general, from Yeshayahu's rebuke of Jewish women's flaunting of
> their clothing, jewelry, and beauty enhancements, it is quite clear
> that such mode of behavior is highly unbecoming a Jewish woman. A
> Jewish woman should present herself not merely as a "woman," but
> rather, as a human being with a tzelem Elokim, who belongs to the
> Jewish nation, and is possessed of a neshamah that is holy - who
> happens to be a woman. To emphasize the other aspects of the person
> means that one forgets the main idea of what it means to be a tzelem
> Elokim.
> 
> Unfortunately, in our times, showy dressing, and cosmetic and beauty
> enhancement have become normal and acceptable behavior. Even very
> "frum" girls and women dress and beautify themselves in a way that is
> designed to attract attention to themselves as women. This is a
> non-Jewish practice; it is a new phenomenon that was unheard of in
> religious circles in Europe - certainly not in my time there.
> Unfortunately, though, it is very difficult to change this now
> because it has taken root in our culture, and certainly if it is done
> in moderation and in good taste, it is difficult to criticize.
> 
>   Once a Jewish woman is aware of her greatness, of her holiness, of
> what she really is, she does not emphasize and flaunt her
> femininity.  Although we have many references to women's beauty in
> the Torah in connection with the Matriarchs, Sara, Rivka, and Rachel,
> such beauty always corresponded to and complemented their inner beauty.

I do have to say that I find RSS's approach somewhat puzzling in the light
of Chazal though. One of the ten takanos of Ezra listed in Baba Kama 82a was
that peddlers should go from city to city for the sake of women's adornments
(tachshitei nashim, which Rashi explains as besamim - ie perfumes and
cosmetics).  The gemora explains on Baba Basra 22a that this was so that
such adornments would be readily available to the Bnos Yisroel, and on Baba
Kama 82b that this was so that they not become repulsive to their husbands.
And indeed, one of the financial obligations of a husband enumerated in the
Mishna in Kesubos (66b) was to set aside money for "her basket".  And what,
the gemora asks further on daf 66b - is her basket?  - Besamim!- ie perfumes
and cosmetics.  And further, it would seem from Kesuvos 48a that the Beis
Din is empowered, in the absence of a husband, to go down onto his property
in order to provide sustenance for his wife, such sustenance to include a
required provision for adornments  (tachshitim - again Rashi, besamim)
because it can be assumed that he would not be happy to have his wife become
repulsive.  And should a woman swear a neder that she will refuse to adorn
herself, and if she did adorn herself, she should be forbidden to her
husband, the Chachamim provided that she should be divorced immediately and
given her kesuba, because it could not be expected that in fact she should
not adorn herself because then she will be called repulsive (Kesubos 71(b)).


And further the gemora in Shabbas 64b explains that the Chachamim originally
said that a woman in nida should not use "kchol" (Rashi explains, a form of
eye make-up), or "tifkus" (Rashi explains, a form of rouge) nor wear
colourful clothing, until Rabbi Akiva came and taught, if so you will make
her repulsive to her husband, and he will divorce her (ie that even in a
state of nida she should do all these things).  

In addition, the Mishna in Moed Katan states that a woman may make her
adornments (tachshiteha) on Chol Hamoed, and the gemora on Moed Katan 9b
explains the adornments about which there is no disagreement as being: (a)
kocheles (eye paint); (b) pokeses (which Rashi here explains as parting her
hair, although on Kesubos 4b and other places he seems to suggest it is also
a form of cosmetics involving reddening of the face);  and (c) putting sarak
(rouge) on her face(Rashi here explains this as a "sam" that makes her
appear reddened).  The gemora goes on to discuss whether this should be
allowed on chol hamoed only to a young woman, but concludes that no matter
how old, a woman is expected to apply such adornments, and the general
permissibility of the application of cosmetics on chol hamoed is brought
l'halacha in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim siman 547 si'if 5, where both kechol
and sarak are explicitly mentioned.  

And at the other end of the spectrum, when an unmarried adult woman is in
mourning for her father the gemora in Ta'anis 13b allows her to use kechol
and engage in pirkus (even though in general one is forbidden to use make up
and cosmetics when in mourning) because she may not make herself
unattractive.  And the topic is summed up in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah siman
381 si'if 6, which states that a woman may not apply kechol (or do pirkus)
during the days of her mourning, but for a married woman this is only
forbidden during the shiva itself, but after that she is permitted so she
not look ugly to her husband, that for a kala within 30 days of her chupa it
is permitted even during the shiva and so for an unmarried adult woman
because she stands ready for marriage.


> Yitzchok Levine

Regards

Chana

R' Meir Rabi wrote:
> I believe there is no mention of baking Matza until it is hard in
> the Mishneh Berurah, Aruch HaShulchan or the Sh Oruch HaRav.
> It is not even mentioned as a custom or as a passing comment.
> Am I mistaken?

I am not familiar with machine matzos, but I can testify that when I was
part of my yeshiva's chabura making hand matzos, they were NOT baked until
they were hard.

Rather, they were baked until they were "done", as in "fit to eat". They
had a nice brownish "crust" on both faces and on the rim, and the inside
was still while. More importantly to the question, when they came out of
the oven, they were still soft, pliable, and moist.

However, about a minute or so after being removed from the oven, the matza
would dry out and become hard. But this was a separate step, which occurs
*after* the matza is done baking.

If any posek considers this to be a requirement, custom, or whatever (as
RMR is searching for), I predict it will be difficult to find, as it would
be phrased in terms of "the matza is baked until such time as it will
become hard after it is removed from the oven."

Rather, I suspect that no such requirement exists according to anyone, and
that all poskim of all stripes merely require that the matza be fully
baked, and that the hardness is merely a result of thinness of the matza,
which *is* something that the poskim mention. Making a thin wafer-like
dough *is* mentioned as a way to insure that the matza can be baked
quickly, easily, and fully. The resulting hardness is not required - maybe
not even desired - but is merely an inevitable side-effect.

Perhaps someday, someone will figure out a way to make matzos which are
cracker-thin and fully-baked, yet still soft. But if that does happen, I
predict that a machlokes will arise over the definition of "fully baked",
and some will claim that the softness is evidence that it is *not* fully
baked.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
18.29/Month Car Insurance
7 minutes, complete a free quote & start saving BIG on car insurance!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4be153f9872f92b757est06vuc

As someone who originally criticized the volcano/liver transplant story in
an Areivim thread, I'd like to note that I have no problem with the basic
story itself; my problem is with the way it was told.  Just think if the
thrust of the story had been to inspire people not to give up hope no
matter how dire things seem to be and to keep on doing what you think is
important rather than fall into despair and depression.  In that context it
could have been inspiring and heartwarming. However, the references to
miracles and making it all about hasgacha pratit took this otherwise
inspiring and heartwarming story and made it insensitive and theologically
difficult.

Joseph Kaplan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100505/9ae57b50/attachment-0001.htm>

RYL, citing RSS:
> In general, from Yeshayahu's rebuke of Jewish women's flaunting of
> their clothing, jewelry, and beauty enhancements, it is quite clear 
> that such mode of behavior is highly unbecoming a Jewish woman. A 
> Jewish woman should present herself not merely as a "woman," but 
> rather, as a human being with a tzelem Elokim, who belongs to the 
> Jewish nation, and is possessed of a neshamah that is holy...

> Unfortunately, in our times, showy dressing, and cosmetic and beauty 
> enhancement have become normal and acceptable behavior. Even very 
> "frum" girls and women dress and beautify themselves in a way that is 
> designed to attract attention to themselves as women...

It was not a new phenomenon, it was a practice known to Hazal: One of
Ezra's takkanos was permitting perfumiers free access to Jewish towns,
and one of the reactions to Hurban HaBayis was restrictions on the
wearing of jewelry. From the first we can deduce that, contra RSS
(and contra my own allergic reactions), perfumes are a positive thing,
and from the second we can deduce something analogous about jewelry.

David Riceman

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:

> the hardness is merely a result of thinness of the matza, which *is*
> something that the poskim mention. Making a thin wafer-like dough *is*
> mentioned as a way to insure that the matza can be baked quickly,
> easily, and fully. The resulting hardness is not required - maybe not
> even desired - but is merely an inevitable side-effect.

Except that making "a thin wafer-like dough", as we do today, and which
results in this hardening, is *not* mentioned in any posek.  When the
poskim talk about making matzos thin, they mean reducing the thickness
to a mere etzba (2 cm).  Our matzos are perhaps a tenth of that.


> Perhaps someday, someone will figure out a way to make matzos which
> are cracker-thin and fully-baked, yet still soft. But if that does
> happen, I predict that a machlokes will arise over the definition of
> "fully baked", and some will claim that the softness is evidence that
> it is *not* fully baked.

Except that when you bake matzos an etzba thick (let alone before this
"new-fangled hiddur" was introduced and the matzos were even thicker)
they *must* be made soft or they will be inedible.   Until the late
18th century there were in fact very thick and hard matzos baked,
called "raib-matzos", which were inedible, and were ground into matza-
meal.  But all the poskim of ~200-250 years ago denounced these, and
the practise fell away.  That left them with the thinner matzos which
were to be eaten, and which therefore had to be at least somewhat soft
(though still difficult for old and young people, who therefore needed
to be allowed matza ashira).

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

for  critique's of  dr schroeder's  hasbara  work
http://ohrrabbiohrrabbi.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/genesis__th
e_big_bluff6.pdf 

book  at  the following  website 
http://torahexplorer.com/

Great. One guy who knows much more Torah than science critiquing another
guy who knows much more science than Torah. I'm just looking through the
first critique (pp 3--15), and Bogacz can do a great job of mustering
Torah sources (as if to say Schroeder shouldn't rely on Rashi as the
last word because he's just summarizing on a level most people can
understand and that can fit on the bottom third of a page of Chumash),
but then (p12) when he begins critiquing the science involved, he starts
his critique by quoting Newsweek. He couldn't go search out the actual
scientific papers, read them, and consult bioligists to determine whether
this is surprising in the least, instead of quoting a Newsweek reporter
who is very likely to have misunderstood the science? (I don't know
the credentials of the Technology Review reporter.) While he does bring
discussion of epigentics in the end (which explains that environmental
factors control the expression of certain genes, but don't directly
control their mutations), it points to the pitfalls of using phenotypes
(the way in which genes are expressed) to assess the truth of evolution,
and to the pitfalls of caricaturing modern science in terms of Darwin
(1809-1882), Lamarck (1744-1829), or Mendel (1822-1884) alone.

-Ken

>I happen to think we in our generation, and especially from an
>educational standpoint our young people, are more in need of examples
>of tziduk hadin and moving forward in life despite disappointment,
>loss and suffering, than we are in need of further gushes of chicken
>soup for our already entitlement-ridden souls. Because this genre has
>become so ubiquitous, and we are encouraging people to identify (as if
>they could!) `hashgacha pratis' in their lives, I fear we are weakening
>rather than strengthening the kind of emuna needed to make it through the
>real lives most of us lead, the ones in which people die, illness hurts,
>and hopes are dashed, at least sometimes....
I do not see this as all or nothing here. Although seemingly, for the one who 
received = "hashgosha protis" and for the one who lost = tziduk hadin (leaving 
everyone else = ?) what the story really tells is that the RBS"O runs the world - 
someone who is supposed to get will get and one who shouldn't won't.
( I seem to recall reading that this was the idea behind the relative explosion 
of these types of stories.)
 
As far as needing more examples of tziduk hadin, we may need them but
I think that human nature makes that difficult - everyone likes and spreads 
a geshmak story, not so much when not (unless you are a Magid...)
 
kol tuv,
Sender Baruch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS MESSAGE IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE LISTED ABOVE.
This record has been disclosed in accordance with Subtitle 3 of 
Title 4 of the Health-General Article of the Annotated Code of 
Maryland.  Further disclosure of medical information contained 
herein is prohibited. 
If you are neither the intended recipient nor the individual
responsible for delivering this message to the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure of 
patient information is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this
email in error, immediately notify us by telephone or return email.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100505/2d56d1b8/attachment-0001.htm>

R Zev Sero replied to me as follows:
"> The theoretical average frum Jew, otoh, thinks that the law itself has
> no application to him, that he is permitted to disregard it with
> impunity and any attempt by the State to impose a penalty is per se
unjust.
> IMHO, the attitudinal difference is what causes the chilul Hashem.
Assuming this attitudinal difference really exists, how does the non-Jew
know about it?"

Just take a look at the public pronouncements concerning the shaimos dumping
without a permit, as quoted in the local press (whether accurate or not) and
you can see just how the non-Jews know. And I will hazard going one step
further --- just like Caesar's wife, shouldn't a frum Jew be especially
extra careful not to violate a law just so there is not even a possibility
for the non-Jew to  erroneously think that the frum Jew flaunts the law, so
that there is no possibility of a Chilul Hashem?

David I. Cohen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100505/de133468/attachment-0001.htm>

Beth & David Cohen wrote:
> R Zev Sero replied to me as follows:
>>> The theoretical average frum Jew, otoh, thinks that the law itself has
>>> no application to him, that he is permitted to disregard it with
>>> impunity and any attempt by the State to impose a penalty is per se 
>>> unjust. IMHO, the attitudinal difference is what causes the chilul Hashem.


>> Assuming this attitudinal difference really exists, how does the non-Jew
>> know about it?"
  
> Just take a look at the public pronouncements concerning the shaimos 
> dumping without a permit, as quoted in the local press (whether accurate 
> or not) and you can see just how the non-Jews know.

Which pronouncements in particular?  Remember that the Shaimos guy
*didn't* flout the law, on the contrary, he took reasonable care to
clear what he was doing with the local authorities, and it's not his
fault that the DEP decided to involve itself.  I saw various opinions
expressed, but none that the law has some sort of built-in exemption
for Jews and not for others.

I think this whole distinction you're drawing is spurious; a normal
person sees nothing wrong with breaking the law whenever he finds it
convenient, as proved by the fact that he *does* so.   Yes, when he's
caught he accepts that the penalty is reasonable (provided that it *is*
in fact reasonable), and doesn't expect an exception to be made for him.
But the only lesson he draws is to be more careful next time, not that
he did wrong and deserved to be punished!  It follows that he cannot
possibly look down on others who do exactly as he does.


> And I will hazard 
> going one step further --- just like Caesar's wife, shouldn't a frum Jew 
> be especially extra careful not to violate a law just so there is not 
> even a possibility for the non-Jew to  erroneously think that the frum 
> Jew flaunts the law, so that there is no possibility of a Chilul Hashem?

Flouts, and no, there *is* no chilul hashem.  This whole idea that
breaking the law is a chilul hashem has no foundation.  The notion
that one must obey the law simply because it is the law is abhorrent,
and the fact that Germans believe it and Americans don't explains a
lot about those nations' recent history.

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

In Avodah V27#109, RLK started his d'var Torah by writing:
> 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.... <
Perhaps not just any "other Jew" -- see RAK's thoughts (quoting the Zohar)
at (this URL courtesy of a search I just did -- hopefully it works for
other clients besides pagers :))
http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/92077274.html?mobile=yes&;c=y .

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100506/3f4d816a/attachment-0001.htm>

From: Ben Waxman 
I know that rain after Pesach is not seen as a good thing, but last night's
shower was simply great.
>>

The sefer Imrei Pinchos (Reb Pinchos Koritzer zt'l-  collection) - beshem
the Zohar - brings that rains between Pesach and Shovuos are gishmei brocho
and a cure against ailments. It says that during rain in Iyar one should
slightly uncover their hair  and open their mouth to catch some of the drops
(I dunno about women and hair..).

Generally the month of Iyar (Roshei teivos Ani Hashem Rofecho) is a segula
for refuos (Ayen Taamei Haminhagim page 251). 

Interestingly the TH there adds: "Ve'ata be'avonoseinu harabim omrim
'Chodesh May hu mesugal lerefuah...  Anyone hear of that?)

SBA



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 112
***************************************

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..."