Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 138

Sat, 10 Jul 2010

• 1. Re: Klalei horaah (Joshua Meisner)
• 2. Re: sevara vs. psak (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: sevara vs. psak (David Riceman)
• 4. Re: Korach Question (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Chazon Ish on treifot (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Chazon Ish on treifot (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Gra on men taking care of babies (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Gra on men taking care of babies (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Gra on men taking care of babies (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 10. famous remarks (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 11. anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism" (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 12. Serrarah (Chana Sassoon)
• 13. Re: Rav on Women's Ordination - Rema's rationales (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Tzedaka & middot Q (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Gra on men taking care of babies (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism" (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Gra on men taking care of babies (Ben Waxman)
• 18. Be Careful of Looking Frum (Meir Rabi)

On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Joshua Meisner <jmeis...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Rich, Joel <JR...@sibson.com> wrote:
>
>>  Why did the gemara come up with klalei horaah (rules for psak) rather
>> than deciding each disagreement on its own merits?(e.g. was Rav always right
>> in cases of issurin?)
>> KT
>> Joel Rich
>>
>>
>
> I assumed that the klalei hora'ah were algorithms *based on* having decided
> each disagreement on its own merits.  Once this process was completed, the
> gemara states its conclusions that, e.g., Rav wins every machlokes in
> issurin over Shmuel, and that we only follow Abbayei over Rava in 6 cases.
> After all, even the exceptionless klalei hapsak don't always pan out
> la-halacha.
>
>
>
I was shown that the Rosh (BK 4:4) says the opposite of what I suggested,
namely, that the Chachmei HaGemara paskened like Shmuel b'dinei and like Rav
b'issurei because they recognized that these areas were each their fields of
expertise, in that they spent more time involved with them and hence were
more able to be m'dakdek and yored l'omek hasugya.

The implication would seem to be that the confidence that the Chachmei
HaGemara had in Rav b'issurei/Shmuel b'dinei was such that not only did they
reject the other in their favor, but that they did not even trust their own
sevara in defense of said other - although the Tosefos quoted by RJR in a
prior response may indicate that they were willing to go against their klal
in extreme circumstances.

Joshua Meisner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100708/50c963a5/attachment-0001.htm>

I've posted about this previously, but my post was very confusing and no
one responded.	Here's the same problem expounded very clearly in the
context of American constitutional law:

http://volokh.com/2010/07/07/mcdonald-and-the-voting-paradox/

It happens all the time in psak halacha.  Anyone know of any general discussions about the problem?

David Riceman

_______________________________________________
Isn't this the classic knock on the supposed S"A algorithm of taking best 2 out of 3 (Rambam,Rosh and Rif)?
OTOH if you take Hashem nitzav badat keil (or something along those
lines-I'm at work) as that the shechina is shoreh on a beit din, then it's
really not a problem (me-until the next beit din has to decide a case that
doesn't involve both issues?)
KT
Joel Rich
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.

On 7/8/2010 10:29 AM, Rich, Joel wrote:
<<Isn't this the classic knock on the supposed S"A algorithm of taking 
best 2 out of 3 (Rambam,Rosh and Rif)?>>

I'm not sure what you mean by "the".  The Rama's complaint is that it 
ignores what Ashkenazim consider binding precedent.  Who makes this 
complaint?

In principle one could apply the BY's algorithm to sevara rather than to 
case law (in practice the BY does neither consistently); I can't see the 
relevance to this complaint.
> OTOH if you take Hashem nitzav badat keil (or something along those
> lines-I'm at work) as that the shechina is shoreh on a beit din, then
> it's really not a problem (me-until the next beit din has to decide a
> case that doesn't involve both issues?)
>    
I have no idea what you mean by this.  If a BD is always right why do 
they need any rule of psak or any knowledge of precedent? If the same 
applies to psak halacha why do we need rabbis at all?

David Riceman

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 04:41:20PM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
> And where is it stated that the revelation at Mt. Sinai was the sole  
> proof that Moshe' prophetic messages were true beyond all  
> doubt?...

I know it's forever ago in email list time, but I'm wondering.... According
to what I said this morning, the primary proof we had of Moshe's nevu'ah
was before this -- back at Yam Suf "veya'aminu Bashem uvMoshe avdo."

And there too was a national revelation -- ra'asah shifchah al hayam mah
shelo ra'ah Yechezqeil.

Ah, but doesn't RZL write:
> The Rambam all along was talking about the trust in the authenticity of  
> Moshe's prophecies that is /forever enduring/, not a belief that lasts  
> for only a short while...

If this was the emunah caused at Qerias Yam Suf, then how does it differ
from that gained *and demonstrated* during the actual night of yetzi'as
Mitzrayim?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Education is not the filling of a bucket,
mi...@aishdas.org        but the lighting of a fire.
http://www.aishdas.org                - W.B. Yeats
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:16:53PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> The CI defines the 2 millenia of Torah as one in which we were given
:> that authority. Not just the normal nisqatnu hadoros. He uses it to
:> explain the line between tannaim and amoraim.

: Yes but the Maharsha (I'll get the direct site at home) is pretty clear
: iirc that it's not that the last 2000 aren't torah, it's an additional
: feature...

Nu, so the CI doesn't have the same shitah as the Maharsha. Did you ever
find the mar'eh maqom?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

[Micha wrote:]
>: Yes but the Maharsha (I'll get the direct site at home) is pretty clear
>: iirc that it's not that the last 2000 aren't torah, it's an additional
>: feature...

> Nu, so the CI doesn't have the same shitah as the Maharsha. Did you ever
> find the mar'eh maqom?

Sorry - Sanhedrin 97a

KT
Joel Rich

In the thread titled "biography of R. Elyashiv", R' Zev Sero quoted a post which R' Ben Waxman posted on Areivim:

> The Gra writes in his perush on Pirke Avot that if someone hears
> his baby cry at night, he should ignore him and let his wife take
> care of the baby. Either the man is learning or sleeping in order
> to learn. Either way, the baby's problems are not his concern.

I am SHOCKED by this. If the Gra (or anyone else) would say such a thing,
surely they would point out that it only refers to people who never
interrupt their learning for any other mitzva.

And even if so, to say that "the baby's problems are not his concern" seems
absurd. Maybe his learning takes priority over his child's pain, but to say
that he should not be concerned seems cruel.

Can someone tell me where this appears?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 2000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4c36835263e22196f61st04vuc

In the thread titled "biography of R. Elyashiv", R' Zev Sero quoted a post which R' Ben Waxman posted on Areivim:

> The Gra writes in his perush on Pirke Avot that if someone hears his 
> baby cry at night, he should ignore him and let his wife take care of 
> the baby. Either the man is learning or sleeping in order to learn. 
> Either way, the baby's problems are not his concern.

I am SHOCKED by this. If the Gra (or anyone else) would say such a thing,
surely they would point out that it only refers to people who never
interrupt their learning for any other mitzva.

And even if so, to say that "the baby's problems are not his concern" seems
absurd. Maybe his learning takes priority over his child's pain, but to say
that he should not be concerned seems cruel.

Can someone tell me where this appears?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Interesting that this email appeared just a few hours prior to the announcement of the ptirah af R' Y Amital ZT"L of Yeshivat Har Etzion.
YHE's values have been epitomized as described by him :

When Yeshivat Har Etzion was first established, I was asked what would be
special about our yeshiva. I related the story told about Rabbi Schneur
Zalman of Liadi (the Admor ha-Zaken), author of the Tanya, who was once
studying Torah in his room, when all of a sudden, he heard his infant
grandson, the future author of the Tzemach Tzedek, crying in his cradle.
The Rebbe closed his Gemara, went into the baby's room and soothed him back
to sleep. He then went into the adjoining room, where he found his son, the
baby's father (known as the "middle Rebbe"), steeped in Torah study. The
Rebbe turned to his son in astonishment and asked: "Why didn't you get up
to pacify your crying son?" 

The bewildered son looked up and answered: "I was so immersed in my study that I didn't even hear him cry." 

The Rebbe then declared: "If someone is studying Torah, and fails to hear the crying of a Jewish baby, there is something very wrong with his learning." 

This has been the message of our yeshiva from its very establishment: to be
attentive to the crying child, in the widest sense of "crying" - that is to
say, to be alert to the needs of the Jewish people.


Yehi Zichro Baruch and may we all be consoled by this Tisha B'Av being a Yom Tov,

Joel Rich
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.

On 7/8/2010 22:01, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> In the thread titled "biography of R. Elyashiv", R' Zev Sero quoted a post which R' Ben Waxman posted on Areivim:
>
>> The Gra writes in his perush on Pirke Avot that if someone hears
>> his baby cry at night, he should ignore him and let his wife take
>> care of the baby. Either the man is learning or sleeping in order
>> to learn. Either way, the baby's problems are not his concern.
>
> ...
>
> And even if so, to say that "the baby's problems are not his concern"
> seems absurd. Maybe his learning takes priority over his child's pain,
> but to say that he should not be concerned seems cruel.
>

"Not his concern" presumably means it's not his responsibility, rather 
than "he shouldn't care..."

-- 
Yitzchak Schaffer
Systems Manager
Touro College Libraries
33 West 23rd Street
New York, NY 10010
Tel (212) 463-0400 x5230
Fax (212) 627-3197
Email yitzchak.schaf...@gmx.com

Access Problems? Contact systems.libr...@touro.edu

noting  the use in our  parsha of the incomplete word 'nachnu',  rav 
sonnenfeld  reportedly  connected the similarly worded psukim   naavor 
chalutzim  with   mareenu ufashanu ,  and  thus described the proper 
attitude to  the new denizens in Palestine .  rav kook however  noted a 
3rd  pasuk refering to the achim  kulanu bnai ish echad nachnu...

maybe it speaks to being  dan kaf zchut to camps  in yiddishkeit that are 
not  sufficiently focused on the  fashanu aspect , and  somehow are more 
focused on the bnai ish echad  aspect

and of  course the Jahrtzeit of aharon , the only one recorded in the 
tora,  focuses the fact that the death of the rodef shalom , getting up 
from his shiva , ties to the holiday of sinat achim....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100709/b2a390c5/attachment-0001.htm>

During a discussion on another group, someone posted the following list of
reasons for vegetarianism "acc. To Judaism".  I was wondering if anyone
knows of a source, article that refutes this list, item-by-item, to simply
save me the time of having to do it myself <g>.
I consider this of some importance b/c too many people have bought into the
following information as though it is indeed "true according to Judaism". So
please, be patient and if you can - assist me:

The quoted material:


The production and consumption of animal products violate at least 6 basic
Jewish mandates.
 
There is a widely accepted aspect of modern life that contradicts many
Jewish teachings and harms people, communities, and the planet -- the mass
production and widespread consumption of meat. High meat consumption and the
ways in which meat is produced today conflict with Judaism in at least six
important areas:
 
1) While Judaism mandates that people should be very careful about
preserving their health and their lives, numerous scientific studies have
linked animal-based diets directly to heart disease, stroke, many forms of
cancer, and other chronic degenerative diseases.
 
2) While Judaism forbids tsa'ar ba'alei chayim, inflicting unnecessary pain
on animals, most farm animals -- including those raised for kosher consumers
-- are raised on "factory farms" where they live in cramped, confined
spaces, and are often drugged, mutilated, and denied fresh air, sunlight,
exercise, and any enjoyment of life, before they are slaughtered and eaten.
 
3) While Judaism teaches that "the earth is the Lord's" (Psalm 24:1) and
that we are to be God's partners and co-workers in preserving the world,
modern intensive livestock agriculture contributes substantially to soil
erosion and depletion, air and water pollution, overuse of chemical
fertilizers and pesticides, the destruction of tropical rain forests and
other habitats, global warming, and other environmental damage.
 
4) While Judaism mandates bal tashchit, that we are not to waste or
unnecessarily destroy anything of value, and that we are not to use more
than is needed to accomplish a purpose, animal agriculture requires the
wasteful use of grain, land, water, energy, and other resources.
 
5) While Judaism stresses that we are to assist the poor and share our bread
with hungry people, over 70% of the grain grown in the United States is fed
to animals destined for slaughter, while an estimated 20 million people
worldwide die because of hunger and its effects each year.
 
6) While Judaism stresses that we must seek and pursue peace and that
violence results from unjust conditions, animal-centered diets, by wasting
valuable resources, help to perpetuate the widespread hunger and poverty
that eventually lead to instability and war.





Thanks,

Shoshana L. Boublil

RJK writes:

> The discussion back and forth on this issue has my head spinning. So I
> would find it very helpful (and perhaps others as well), if we could go
back
> a step or two and someone could present the elements of serrarah; that
> is, to have serrarah there must be a, b c, & d.  Of course, if there is a
> dispute on the elements, it would be helpful if that were pointed out as
well.

But you should know by now that the halacha doesn't work like that.  Serarah
is a handy word that is used to encapsulate a topic under discussion, and
hence can have a range of different meanings.

So, let's start from first principles.

The Torah says:

Devarim 17:15
Then you shall surely put over you a king whom the Lord your G-d will chose;
one from amongst your people shall you put a king over you; you may not set
a stranger over you who is not your brother.

And then the Sifri says (in all versions):

Sifri Devarim Parshat Shoftim pesika 157:15
...
King: and not a Queen;
...
From amongst: and not from outside the land [of Israel];
Your brothers: and not from others
...
You shall appoint: a positive command;
Do not set over you a stranger: a negative prohibition;

Then there is a version not in the classic Sifri, but which has been found
in various genizas, and which is considered by historians to be authentic,
or at least (almost certainly) the version the Rambam had which says: 

A foreigner:  from here a man is appointed a parnes [community leader] on
the community and a woman is not appointed a community leader on the
community;

Now there are various gemoras the discuss the situation vis a vis a convert
eg:

Talmud Bavli Kiddushin 76b
The host of Rav Adda bar Ahavah was descended from a convert.  He was
quarrelling with Rav Bibi.  One said, I will run the town, and the other
said, I will run the town.  They came before Rav Yosef.  He said to them it
is taught: [Devarim 17: 15] you shall surely put over you a king. from
amongst your brothers - all appointments that you make shall only be from
amongst your brothers. Rav Addah bar Ahavah said to him even if his mother
is from Israel?  His mother is from Israel - he is called from amongst your
brothers. . Rabbi Zeira would deal with them [and appoint them].  Raba bar
Avuha would deal with them.  However in the west, even to the inspect of
weights and measures they would not appoint them.  In Nehardea they do not
appoint them even to the position of supervisor of irrigation.

And there are other gemoras, particularly ones who deal with gerim being
dayanim etc.  However nothing that specifically deals with a serarah type
concept vis a vis women in the gemora.

The Rambam however says this vis a vis converts:

Rambam Hilchot Melachim perek 1 halacha 4
A king shall not be appointed from the community of converts, even after
many generations unless his mother is from Israel, as it says [Devarim
17:15] do not put upon yourselves a foreigner who is not your brother, and
not to the kinship alone,  but all "sareros"  in Israel, not a sar [ie
prince] of the army, and not a sar of fifty or a sar of ten, even the one
given authority over the waters that they divide from there for the fields,
and it is not necessary to say a judge or a nasi that he should not be
except from Israel as it says "from the midst of your brothers shall you
place on yourself a king", all appointments which you shall place shall not
be except from the midst of your brothers.

And in the following halacha he says this vis a vis women:

Rambam Hilchot Melachim perek 1 halacha 5
We may not appoint a woman to the kingship as it says on you a king and not
a queen, and so for all the appointments [mesimos] in Israel we only appoint
to them a man.

Now, you can see for yourself that the word serarah is only mentioned by the
Rambam in connection with gerim, and not in connection with women, the term
used vis a vis women is different.  In addition, this setting out of not a
sar of the army and not a sar of fifty and not a sar of ten and not one who
divides the water is only said vis a vis gerim even in the Rambam.  And even
the alternate version of the Sifri, which discuss limiting positions
available to women, mentions only parnes al hatzibur.

But, the tendency is when discussing the issue, to use the term serarah, as
it comes (inter alia) from the Rambam in relation to gerim, and apply it to
women.

Now the next point to note is that, as came up in our various discussions,
most of the Rishonim appear not to posken like this Rambam vis a vis women
at all, nor is it brought in the Shulchan Aruch.

So how do you identify elements a), b), c) and d)?

What you do have, now skipping loads of generations, is a whole bunch of
recent teshuvos on the subject of women.  One of the key questions at the
time of the founding of the State of Israel was, of course, could women run
for parliament.  One of the strongest arguments that opponents of this had
was this Rambam, because whatever else one may say, prime minster would seem
to fall squarely within parness al hatzibbur.  That is why Rav Uzziel and
Rav Hertzog had to deal with the question.

As I have mentioned previously, Rav Uzziel's position is:

a) the majority of rishonim do not posken like the Rambam, so, no matter how
great he was, we can posken against him particularly given that the Shulchan
Aruch does not mention it; and

b) even if we do take the Rambam as halacha, he is dealing with "appointing"
as you can see from his language, and not from acceptance of the people
[kabala], which is linked to voting.  Hence any position achieved by popular
vote is not a violation of the Rambam.

Rav Hertzog's position is:

a) the gemora does not mention any problem with women being in authority,
which is strange considering that it was halacha l'ma'ase for them.  And in
the case of gerim being king, they made sure to mention that it was a
problem, even when they had sympathetic kings like Agrippa.  He therefore
concludes that while they felt having gerim was a breach of the pasuk in
Devarim, melech v'lo malka was an asmachta b'alma and not applicable
l'halacha.

b) The majority of the Rishonim do not posken like the Rambam and the
Shulchan Aruch does not mention it; and

c) Even if we do take the Rambam as halacha, as we learn it out from melech
v'lo malka, the Rambam can only be referring to positions that are similar
to that of a king, meaning that we are referring to positions which are
lifelong and hereditary, like a king's.  Therefore we are not referring to
positions in parliament etc, which are for a set term of years only, and
cannot be inherited. 

As mentioned, Rav Moshe also holds that the Rambam is a daas yachid, but
seems to take across the definitions from the halachos of hilchos gerim
about things like making decisions vis a vis water divisions for fields in
terms of being machmir l'kol hadeos.

Now RAF is coming, based (I would imagine inter alia) on some shiurim that
RYBS gave, to propose that RYBS had yet a different definition of serarah,
one that included shochtim and presidents of shuls, but excluded principals
of schools.  He also is arguing that RYBS believed that the Rema who ruled
against allowing women shochtim was basing himself on the Rambam, and that
this has implications for halacha l'ma'ase.

My posts in response were concerning various aspects of this, as many
aspects are very strange.

> With those elements, it might be easier to apply them to particular cases
> (shul president, school principal, rabbi, shochet etc.) and see which have
> all of the elements and which do not.  My sense (and it's not much more
than a
> sense) is that some part of our discussion of this issue involves
> differing understandings of the powers of those in certain of the
positions
> (president etc.) being considered as opposed to halachic disagreements.

Well, it is mostly about halachic disagreements.  Do we hold like the
Rambam?  If we hold like the Rambam, what does the Rambam mean?  Does the
postulated position of RYBS make sense halachically.  These were various
aspects of my various posts.  My (I think final) post, however, was about
reality, and the slightly bizarre suggestion that, if you do hold that we
posken like the Rambam, and you do define serarah in the widest sense, and
define it as assur, that you could possibly say that school teachers and all
the more so principals, do not have serarah over their pupils because they
may (perhaps) not have hire or fire power over their staff.  Teachers and
Principals hold the future of their pupils (and in high school these are
mostly halachic adults) in the palms of their hands.  I don't know that
there is huge disagreements vis a vis the genuine powers of any other
position, but I do get the impression that those who discuss the question
vis a vis principals are sometimes only focussing on the staff, and
forgetting about the student body. [And let us not forget the irony of
modern charedi life, where actually it is so often the schools, and
particularly the girls schools, who demand a certain standard, and when they
say to the parent's jump, the parents say, how high?  But that at least is
indirect, the power over students in a school is direct and tangible and
enforced more overtly than in any other situation in our society]
 
I hope that helps your head spinning.  Please let me know if anything does
not make sense here.

> Joseph Kaplan

Shabbat Shalom

Chana

On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:12:19AM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: What RYBS does appear to do, as per RGS's translation, is give two reasons
: for the Rema's position vis a vis women shochtim.  The first is that of the
: Shach, that the Rema is following the Maharik and the Agur, that while vis a
: vis a halacha, we say lo rainu aino raya, with a minhag, we say lo rainu
: yesh raya.
...
: Now if you think about it, these two reasons brought by RYBS in fact
: contradict.  Because the second reason is a reason based on halacha - ie
: that there is a Sifri, and the Rambam poskens like the Sifri and the Rema
: poskens like the Rambam.

I thought of RYBS's argument as being a mima nafshach... If you hold it's
a minhag, and therefore our not seeing any women shecht is proof that the
minhag is they don't, then ... and if you hold like the Rambam and the Ritva,
you get to the same place...

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 03:10:39PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: Do the august members of Avodah have any recommendations for sources
: that may discuss the mitzvot of tsedaqa and 'hessed from this angle? I
: would also be interested in sources that may reject this reasoning.

Is tzedaqah supposed to be an expression of chessed? If so, why do we
call it the feminine form of the shoresh "tzedeq"?

As a hammer, let me refer back to my nail. Here's RSShkop's perspective
on tzedaqah, from the intro to Shaarei Yosher
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf> (Hebrew original in the
back):
    In my opinion, this idea is hinted at in Hillel's words, as he used
    to say, "If I am not for me, who will be for me? And when I am for
    myself, what am I?" (Avos 1:14) It is fitting for each
    person to strive to be concerned for himself. But with this, he
    must also strive to understand that "I for myself, what am I?" If he
    constricts his "I" to a narrow domain, limited to what the eye can see
    [is him], then his "I" -- what is it? Vanity and ignorable. But if
    his feelings are broader and include [all of] creation, that he is a
    great person and also like a small limb in this great body, then he is
    lofty and of great worth. In a great engine even the smallest screw
    is important if it even serves the smallest role in the engine. For
    the whole is made of parts, and no more than the sum of its parts.

    Therefore it is appropriate to think about all the gifts of heaven
    "from the dew of the heavens and the fat of the land" (Bereishis
    27:28) that they are given to the Jewish people as a whole. Their
    allotment to individuals is only in their role as caretakers
    until they divide it to those who need it, to each according to
    what is worthy for him, and to take for himself what is worthy for
    himself. With this idea one can understand how charity has the effect
    of enriching the one who performs it, as the sages say on the verse
    "'aseir ta'aseir -- you shall surely tithe' -- tithe, so that you
    shall become rich -- shetis'asheir" (Taanis 9a). Someone who is
    appointed over a small part of the national treasury who does a
    good job guarding at his appointment as appropriate will be next
    appointed to oversee a sum greater than that, if he is not promoted
    in some other way. If they find a flaw in his guard duty, no fine
    qualities to be found in him will help, and they will demote him to a
    smaller task. Similarly in the treasuries of heaven which are given to
    man. If he tithes appropriately, he satisfies his job of disbursement
    as he is supposed to conduct himself according to the Torah, giving
    to each as is appropriate according to the teachings of the Torah,
    then he will become wealthy and be appointed to disburse a greater
    treasure. And so on, upward and upward so that he can fulfill his
    lofty desire to do good for the masses through his stewardship of
    the treasury. In this way a man of reliable spirit does the will
    of his Maker.treasuries of heaven which are given to man. If he
    tithes appropriately, he satisfies his job of disbursement as he is
    supposed to conduct himself according to the Torah, giving to each as
    is appropriate according to the teachings of the Torah, then he will
    become wealthy and be appointed to disburse a greater treasure. And
    so on, upward and upward so that he can fulfill his lofty desire to
    do good for the masses through his stewardship of the treasury. In
    this way a man of reliable spirit does the will of his Maker.

I don't know how RSS is relateding tzedaqah to chessed. In the first
paragraph, before the "therefore", he is giving his definition of
chessed. However, in the idea itself, RSS discusses "their role as
caretakers until they divide it to those who need it".

BTW, someone who grew up in the Soviet Union asked me about "sheyechalqam
lenitzrakhim, lekol echad kecheileq hara'ui lo, velitol le'atzmo kefi
chelqo hara'ui lo". Compare and contrast this to "From each according
to his ability, to each according to his needs", written by Karl Marx
(Critique of the Gotha Program).

I haven't yet given this question all the thought it needs.

My instinctive response is that RSS avoids being a Marxist because he
doesn't discuss "each person according to his abilities" but rather what
HQBH gives the person. This is more than "just" the difference between a
rav and Marxist atheism, I'm pointing out the difference in the concept
of wealth implies by it.

But the entire concept of tzedaqah literally meaning "[social] justice"
and being a redistribution of wealth opens the question of exactly how
socialist halakhah expects us to be.

Thoughts?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

R Joel Rich retells the story I linked to in my response.


> when all of a sudden, he heard his infant grandson, the future author
> of the Tzemach Tzedek

The identity of the baby is not known, but it was one of the Mitteler
Rebbe's children, and therefore was not the Tzemach Tzedek.


> crying in his cradle.

According to the received version s/he had fallen out.


> He then went into the adjoining room, where he found his son, the
> baby's father (known as the "middle Rebbe"), steeped in Torah study.

Actually father and baby were in the same room.  People didn't have that
many rooms in those days.  The young MR and his family lived in one room
in his parents' house.

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

On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 07:26:03PM +0300, Shoshana L. Boublil quoted from
some Jewish Vegetarian argument:
: 1) While Judaism mandates that people should be very careful about
: preserving their health and their lives...
: 2) While Judaism forbids tsa'ar ba'alei chayim, inflicting unnecessary pain
: on animals...
: 4) While Judaism mandates bal tashchit...

The definition of risk to health, "unnecessary pain", and hashchasah are not
what the author presumes. Minor risk is permitted -- otherwise it would
be assur to cross streets or drive. TBC is allowed as long as what the
person wants (other than enjoying cruelty itself, eg bullfighting) is
not within reach in another way. Similarly bal tashchis.

The values needed to justify vegetarianism are inserted into the "while"s,
not inherent in the dinim being cited.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

My apologies to the group. I quoted from memory something that I read years
ago and was not accurate.

I saw the quote originally in Rabbi Lamm's book, Torah Lishmah. In his
footnotes he cited the Gra on Mishlei 6:8 where the Gra discusses learning
Torah. One can't allow  worries about his wife and children to interfere
with his learning (I read the commentary this afternoon and I hope that I am
quoting it accurately now).

What I referred to in my previous email was a something else in the book and
I quote:

"Rav Joseph Zundel, the student of Rav Hayyim, quotes the Gaon to the effect
that determined men, resolute in their faith, will engage in Torah and
mitzvot by and by night, even if there is no bread in the house, and remain
oblivious even to their children who cry for food; nothing will distract
them from their labors in the study of Torah.

Apparently this is based on a Gemara in Eruvin 22A.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <kennethgmil...@juno.com>

>
> I am SHOCKED by this. If the Gra (or anyone else) would say such a thing,
surely they would point out that it only refers to people who never
interrupt their learning for any other mitzva.
>
> And even if so, to say that "the baby's problems are not his concern"
seems absurd. Maybe his learning takes priority over his child's pain, but
to say that he should not be concerned seems cruel.
>
> Can someone tell me where this appears?

And here is another reason not to pursue or be perceived as pursuing
Chumros, especially when in a public arena or when eating amongst others;
One can be Mattir Neder based on the fear that being perceived as a Frumer
actually exposes one to a greater and more intense Divine Inspection of ones
"books". Nedarim 22a

Whats really interesting about this is that it has nothing to do with
whether one is actually Frum or not - it is about the way this person is
PERCEIVED by others. The Ran explains NirAh ShaHu MachZik AtzMo KeChassid.

Dare I suggest that this may be a contributing factor to our long extended
Galus?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100710/68489d08/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 138
***************************************

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..."