Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 1

Wed, 05 Jan 2011

• 1. Re: People of the E-Book? Observant Jews Struggle With Sabbath in a Digita (Simon Montagu)
• 2. Re: on nittel (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Re: [Areivim] More on Reviving a Ritual of Tending to the dead (Joseph Kaplan)
• 4. Re: More on Reviving a Ritual of Tending to the dead (Chana Luntz)
• 5. Re: More on Reviving a Ritual of Tending to the dead (Micha Berger)
• 6. RYBS on Avraham in contrast to the preceding doros (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 7. Re: More on Reviving a Ritual of Tending to the dead (Joseph Kaplan)
• 8. In Commemoration of the Yahrtzeit of RSRH, ZT"L (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: halachos of tahara (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Why is the Amora mentioned before the Braisa? (Yaacov Shulman)
• 11. Mar'eh Meqomos for Geneivas Da'as / MiDevar Sheker Tirchak (Micha Berger)
• 12. Refusal to pay, BM 17a (Yitzchak Schaffer)

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Hankman <sal...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> RSM wrote (on Areivim but moderator felt I should respond on Avodah):
>> My (Sony) ebook reader automatically turns itself off if nobody interacts
>> with it for 30 minutes. On my computers, screensavers cut in after the same
>> period or less.

> CM responds:
> So which is your point?

My point was in response to your statement quoted in my original message:

The image on water will degrade and self-destruct on its own without any
active mechika by the person, so it makes sense that it would not be
considered a viable image to which mechika applies. However the image
on your computer monitor will remain in place until a person actively
is involved in its mechika

The writing on the computer screen disappears automatically without
anybody being actively involved in its mechika, and this is an inherent
property of the medium (unlike your attempted analogy to writing on a
box filled with dynamite).

 
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 
From:  Saul.Z.New...@kp.org
"

>> in considering  how   different communities  act ,   it  seems  that   
the 
basis  could  be summed  up as  follows  [  though  i don't doubt  others 
will correct where i have it   wrong].
in chassidish communities  there are two issues. one   is  the idea  of 
klippa  and tumah ,  maybe the center  of the whole derech of 
chassidus--tuma and tahara.      adjunct to this is maase avos . 
in litvish  communities  the   ideology  can be simply summed up  , talmud 
tora kneged   kulam.....

....what i am not  sure  i understand  is why  communities who  believe 
that 
the world can't  exist  even a  moment  without tora , and  communities 
who   believe  that  the Klippa  power could lead to unmitigated  disaster, 
why  they  are not  vigourously   agitating  the other  communities to 
their   derech.


and it's odd that there would  be  an issue   of such  tantamount 
importance that  half of jewry  [  ie  eidot  hamizrach ]  wouldnt even 
have  known of the  issue's existence......

 
>>>>>
Eidot haMizrach would have been only marginally aware of nittel.  How  many 
christians are there in Arab lands anyway?  Not many, and they're  a very 
small minority of the pop.   The kochos  hatum'ah  generated by xmas worship 
wouldn't be very strong in Muslim lands.
 
 


--Toby Katz
==========



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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101229/1fb8a127/attachment-0001.htm>

Rn'CL, in discussing RYBS's famous statement advising Orthodox Jews not to
daven in a shul with mixed pews even if it means foregoing hearing the
blowing of the shofar, tries to explain his position thusly:

> The only explanation that makes sense to me is that by designating something
> as a shul, those supporting it are claiming that it has the sanctity of a
> makom tephila, and then by going there, even solely to hear shofar and not
> to daven, the individual is providing some support or strengthening for that
> proposition.  Perhaps you could phrase it as lifnei iver?  But the reason it
> can be considered lifnei iver is because it will cause people to believe
> that which is halachically not acceptable is acceptable.  And the psak is
> saying that a man is required to forgo a mitzvah d'orisa because it will
> lead people to believe that something completely different which is
> halachically not acceptable is acceptable.  
> 
> This is exactly the same logic that is often utilised regarding accepting
> halachic acts from the R or C movements as a whole.  That is, if we
> recognise these acts (eg  we recognise the shofar blowing) then it will lead
> others to believe that other acts done by these movements (such as the way
> they set up tephila) is acceptable. 

Well, that may be the only way it makes sense to Rn"CL, but that's simply
not what RYBS wrote or said.  He never extended his position, which he
reiterated a number of times, to any halachic act other than davening in a
mixed pew shul -- a critical issue to the Orthodox community in the 1950s
when these statements were made and when many shuls with mechitzot were
changing to mixed pews.   If one reads his statements (I wonder whether
Rn'CL did that), it's all about mixed pews; there's no indication that it
can, or should, be extended to any other "halachic act from the R or C
movements as a whole."	It wasn't a case of not "recognizing the[ir] shofar
blowing"; it was a case of keeping the O Jews out of mixed pew shuls. The
clear implication, if one actually reads what he said (a number of his
statements on this issue can be found in Baruch Litvin's "The Sanctity of
the Synagogue"), is that if the C Jew who blew the shofar in the mixed pew
shul would come to the O Jew's house 
 to blow it for him/her after davening, there would be no problem.   Thus,
 applying this well-known position of RYBS to the issue under discussion
 about C and R Jews performing taharot simply doesn't wash.  Perhaps it's
 true about others who said this, but that not the case with RYBS (whose
 publically stated position on this is, I believe, the one that most often
 quoted).

Joseph Kaplan

 RJK wrote:
> Well, that may be the only way it makes sense to Rn"CL, but that's simply
> not what RYBS wrote or said.  He never extended his position, which he
> reiterated a number of times, to any halachic act other than davening in a
> mixed pew shul -- a critical issue to the Orthodox community in the 1950s
> when these statements were made and when many shuls with mechitzot were
> changing to mixed pews.

I wasn't suggesting he did, or at least, that wasn't the thrust of my
post (or in other words it is irrelevant whether he did or he did not),
what is relevant is the logic applied. If it will make you happier, I
will refer to the Movement For Mixed Pews (MFMP) as opposed to the C or
R movement as the one where RYBS felt there need to be a line in the sand.

The point is the same. We have a situation where a specific halachic
situation is innocuous (shofar blowing) and yet the psak is that an
individual should not avail themselves of this halachic situation in order
to fulfil their obligation (even in circumstances where no other option is
available), because of other surrounding problematic halachic situations.

Which group or scenario it is that is deemed sufficiently problematic
and in what circumstances is secondary. A halachic purist would say,
if this particular halachic act is mutar, what is the problem? What is
noteworthy is that this is often not the approach taken, and once one
takes a different approach, then it is just a matter of identifying
which groups or scenarios one regards as sufficiently problematic to
apply the logic.

>    If one reads his statements (I wonder whether Rn'CL did that), it's all
> about mixed pews; there's no indication that it can, or should, be extended
> to any other "halachic act from the R or C movements as a whole."  It wasn't
> a case of not "recognizing the[ir] shofar blowing";

> it was a case of keeping the O Jews out of mixed pew shuls. The clear
> implication, if one actually reads what he said (a number of his statements
> on this issue can be found in Baruch Litvin's "The Sanctity of the
> Synagogue"), is that if the C Jew who blew the shofar in the mixed pew shul
> would come to the O Jew's house to blow it for him/her after davening, there
> would be no problem.

That is precisely the point I was making, it is this fact that
demonstrates that the act of shofar blowing was itself deemed halachically
innocuous (if there was a problem with the individual coming to the house,
then one might say there was an intrinsic problem in the shofar blowing,
ie the person could not be an appropriate shaliach or whatever).

Once it is clear that the shofar blowing itself is halachically innocuous
and mutar, then it becomes clear that (according to some, including
RYBS) sometimes the mutar becomes assur because of the other things that
the environment or group doing the otherwise halachically mutar act are
doing (for example, having mixed pews). This is by no means intuitively
correct (and in fact I am not at all convinced that everybody by any means
would agree that it is correct in the kind of circumstances described).
But once you make that leap, then it becomes very easy to argue for it to
apply to groups different from the ones that perhaps RYBS applied it to,
wherever the line in the sand is now to be drawn. It is precisely the
same logic which might say, even if a tahara (shofar) by a C or R Jew
(MFMP) is halachically mutar, we need to keep people out of the domain
of C and R (MMFP).

> Joseph Kaplan

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 05:07:15PM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: You see, even for those who disagree with Rav Moshe and hold that even a
: member of the C and R rabbinate can be considered a tinuk shenishba...

I think many who consider C or R rabbis to be TSN do not feel they are
disagreeing with Rav Moshe. IOW, they two would agree that the rabbis of
the 1950s were not. The question is whether the metzi'us the IM describes
is still true, or if the current generation is a new situation engendering
a new pesaq.

The difference between disagreeing in pesaq vs saying the situation changed
is a significant one in terms of the mechanics of halakhah. IOW, if an LOR
claimed the former, I would be skeptical of his pitting his own opinion
against R' Moshe's. However, if he claimed the latter, why not?

Lemaaseh, it appears to be true. In the 1950s, many in JTS had previously
attended YU or another O yeshiva. Many in the practicing C rabbinate were
O Jews who made peace with the idea in order to get a job, and/or because
that's where they saw the bulk of American Jewry and thought they could
have the most influence.

Then Prof RSL was niftar. Then they accepted women into the ordination
program. Which in turn caused the relatively traditional wing of the JTS
talmudic faculty to quit and thus eroded the last pretense of being a
halachic movement. The ordination program requires more hours of
Biblical Criticism than of Jewish Law. And the next generation will be the
product of a JTSA where members of the "GLBT community" (by which I mean
more than just people with such taavos, but identify with the community)
are routinely ordained, and many speak of Vayiqra 20:13 as a verse that
needs reinterpretation.

Can you say that the products of such an institution are overly informed,
or that they have a background that would make accepting Torah umitzvos
more likely than the masses have?

I simply think RMF's teshuvah doesn't apply; not that it's wrong.

: is still a different equation when you are potentially talking about
: strengthening problematic movements as a whole...

And this I see as a difficult question of strategy. There is no actual
halakhos of taharah, it's minhag. Minhag Yisrael, but minhag. And we all
agree on what's preferred and what's inferior -- you want the person
doing the taharah to be both halachically Jewish and be more likely
to have the right kavanos. So, AISI, the open question doesn't revolve
around halakhah or minhag, but around the metzi'us. Which strategy will
maximize shemiras hamitzvos.

Meanwhile, C is in existential crisis. This has been going on for most
of a decade, but Sorsch's farewell speech in 2007 did them the favor of
making it an acceptable topic of conversation. I'm not too concerned
about strengthening it at the moment. Actually, if C ends up failing,
I would expect that the usual ratio of 60 intermarrieds to 1 BT would
hold. The former C community would not -- on average -- end up in more
religious places.

As I said, it's a matter of strategy and metzi'us. I think we really
agree on the halachic/minhagic theory.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

Here is a central idea in Judaism: kedushah attracts. This was perhaps 
the greatest discovery made by Abraham. The generation of the flood 
thought that beauty is fascinating and that it is man's duty to respond 
quickly to the aesthetic challenge, to succumb to the beautiful and 
pleasant. The generation of the dispersion thought that power is the 
idea that overwhelms man; technological achievement takes man prisoner, 
making him worship the genius who made this kind of achievement 
possible. Abraham proclaimed to the world that kedushah is the great 
attractive force.

Abraham's Journey, p.62

On Dec 30, 2010, at 5:50 PM, Chana Luntz wrote:
> Once it is clear that the shofar blowing itself is halachically
> innocuous and mutar, then it becomes clear that (according to some,
> including RYBS) sometimes the mutar becomes assur because of the other
> things that the environment or group doing the otherwise halachically
> mutar act are doing (for example, having mixed pews). This is by no
> means intuitively correct (and in fact I am not at all convinced that
> everybody by any means would agree that it is correct in the kind of
> circumstances described). But once you make that leap, then it becomes
> very easy to argue for it to apply to groups different from the ones
> that perhaps RYBS applied it to, wherever the line in the sand is now
> to be drawn. It is precisely the same logic which might say, even if
> a tahara (shofar) by a C or R Jew (MFMP) is halachically mutar, we need
> to keep people out of the domain of C and R (MMFP).

Yes, something mutar can become assur because of other things, but
it's the nature of the other things that's critical to this thread.
RYBS made his quite striking decision because of the crisis situation
in the US at that time concerning mixed pew synagogues which were on
the point of decimating O synagogues with mechitzot. He didn't do it
because of what a *person* thought or the ideology of a movement. IOW,
if there was a C synagogue that decided, on RH, to have a separate seat
davening, the decision of RYBS would not have applied even though the
rabbi, congregants and shofar blower all believed in C ideology; there's
no reason to believe that in such a circumstance he wouldn't have told
the young man who asked the question to go to that shul to hear shofar.
Similarly, since the actual tahara being performed by the C and R
chevrot follows O traditions (that's the assumption of this thread),
then RYBS's statement and the reasoning behind them cannot be used as
proof against the argument that the affiliation and beliefs of those
performing this chesed shel emet should not, certainly in a situation
here no tahara would take place without them (i.e., bedieved), deter
their use. One can, of course, make the argument that it should deter
their use; however, one can't base that argument on a conclusion drawn
from RYBS's statements concerning mixed pews.

Joseph Kaplan  

Today is the Yahrtzeit of RSRH who passed away in 1888.

RSRH's influence is not limited to Germany Jewry. 
He has had a profound influence on Yahadus in 
America also.  For more on this, please see 
"<http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/rsrh_america.pdf>Rav 
Samson Raphael Hirsch and America ? an Historical View"

Below is a selection from his commentary on 
Shemos 6:14 - 30.  These pesukim trace the genealogy of Moshe and Aharon

Note what he says about prophecy and other religions assigning divinity to men.

14?30 Immediately conspicuous is the interruption 
of the narrative by a genealogical
register interposing in its midst and concluding with the words:
hoo Aharon  v' Moshe .. (v. 26), hoo Moshe 
v'Aharon, heim hamedarbrim ...  (v. 27) ? as though
these people were complete strangers to us, with whom we were becoming
acquainted here for the first time. Only in verse 29 does Scripture
return to the beginning of the narrative, repeat it, and continue it!
Let us now consider this genealogical register. It is not limited to
the lineage of Moshe and Aharon; rather, it briefly outlines the two
preceding tribes. So, too, in the tribe of Moshe and Aharon, the register
shows not only their direct lineage, but also the side branches: uncles
and cousins, great uncles and second cousins. Thus, we are shown the
relationship of their tribe with the preceding ones, and the relationship
of their family and house with the families and houses of relatives, in
previous generations and among contemporaries. We are also told the
advanced age reached by their father and their grandfather, which shows
us that not much time separated their demise from the rise of Moshe
and Aharon. Then, pointing to these two in the midst of this wide circle
of family and friends, Scripture repeatedly says: ?these were the same
Moshe and Aharon? ? on the day that God spoke to them! (see vv.
26?28).

If we further consider the point at which we are given this list of
their lineage and family relations, we can perhaps come to understand
the significance and purpose of all this information.
Until now, the efforts of Moshe and Aharon have been completely
frustrated. Were it not for later events, there would be no need for such
an exact list of their lineage and family relations. Now, however, begins
their triumphal mission, the likes of which no mortal had ever accomplished
before them or will ever accomplish after them. Now it is of
critical importance to present an exact list of their lineage and relations,
so as to attest thereby for all time to come that their origin was ordinary
and human, and that the nature of their being was ordinary and human.
Right from the earliest times it has happened that men who were
outstanding benefactors to their people were, after their death, divested
of their human image and, because of their ?godlike? feats, were invested
with a ?Divine? origin. We all know of a certain Jew, in later times,
whose genealogical record was not available, and because it was not
available, and because he brought people a few sparks of light borrowed
from the man Moshe, he came to be considered by the nations as begotten
of God; to doubt his divinity became a capital crime.

Our Moshe was human, remained human, and will never be anything
but human. When his countenance had already become radiant
from what he was allowed to see of God; when he had already brought
down the Torah from Heaven, and had already miraculously led the
people through the wilderness and won for them victories of God, God
here commanded him to present his genealogical record and thereby
affirm the fact that b'yom diber HaShem el Moshe 
b'eretz Mitzraim (v. 28), on the day that
God first spoke to Moshe in the land of Egypt, everyone knew his
parents and grandparents, his uncles and aunts and all his cousins. They
knew his whole lineage and all his relatives. For eighty years they had
known him as a man of flesh and blood, subject to all the failings and
weaknesses, worries and needs, of human nature, a man like all the
other men among whom he had been born and raised. Hoo Aharon u Moshe,
hoo Moshe v'Aharon, heim hamedarbrim el Paro   ? 
they were flesh and blood like all
other men, and God chose them to be His instruments in the performance
of His great work; they were flesh and blood like all other men,
and they carried out His great work.

This ?certificate of origin? is meant to negate in advance and forevermore
any erroneous deification, any illusion of an incarnation of
Deity in human form. It is meant to uphold this truth: Moshe, the
greatest man of all time, was just a man, and the position he attained
before God was not beyond the reach of mortal human beings.
The list of names is also meant to negate a second illusion, the
opposite of the first and no less dangerous. Thus the genealogical register
is not confined to the direct line of descent of Moshe and Aharon ?
viz., Ya?akov, Levi, Kehas, Amram, Moshe ? but lists also the tribes
that preceded Levi, with their descendants, and lists also the other
branches of the tribe of Levi. For although the certificate of origin
establishes as a fact the human nature of Moshe and Aharon, it might
also have fostered the belief that everyone, without exception, is fit to
become a prophet. A person who today is known as a complete idiot
could tomorrow proclaim the Word of God. God?s spirit could suddenly
descend upon an ignorant and uneducated person and teach him to
speak in seventy languages. Indeed, this phenomenon of imagined or
pretended prophecy is not uncommon in other circles. In their view,
the more intellectually limited and empty-minded the prophet of today
was yesterday, the more clearly this sudden transformation attests to a
Divine call.

This dangerous illusion, too, is negated by the family register. True,
Moshe and Aharon were men and nothing but men, but they were
chosen men.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110103/b68c4ee5/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB writes:

> RMF allows counting the rank and file C or R Jew towards a minyan, on
> the grounds that they are tinoqos shenishbe'u. The Satmar Rav would not
> count them, but I think that for most of us participating in an email
> discussion, the Igeros Moshe carries the day.

No, he allowed the rank and file (but not the rabbinate) to be given aliyos
on (quasi) tinuk shenisbu grounds (Iggeros Moshe Orech Chaim
chelek 3 siman 12).  Regarding counting in a minyan, he did not distinguish,
but allowed it generally, on the grounds that as the concept of minyan is
learnt from the meraglim, and you cannot get a greater example of rashaim
gamurim than the meraglim, even rashaim gamurim and ovdei ovoda zara can be
counted in a minyan (Orech Chaim chelek 1 siman 23).  This is sui generis to
Rav Moshe (the more general position of those who allow such counting is, as
you say, based on tinuk shenishbeu).

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana

I have a question on Gemara structure. Sometimes the Gemara reports a
statement of an Amora and then states, "and in fact a braisa says so too!"

Since the braisa preceded the Amora, it would seem to make more sense to
first quote the braisa, and then state that the amora said the same as the
braisa.

I came up with a provisional understanding of this structure, which i would
like to put forth, and request other people's thoughts.

This provisional understanding  is based on the fact that sometimes the
Gemara states explicitly that it does not recall the correct line of
transmission. For instance, Kesuvos 60a: "Rav Yehudah bar Chaviva said in
the name of Shmuel...others say that Rav Yehudah bar Chaviva taught in
braisa in Shmuel's presence."

Back to the original question, maybe the Gemara does not know if the Amora
was teaching what he had learned from the braisa, or if he had come up with
that teaching in some other way. if the Gemara would say that the braisa
says something and the the amora says the same, it would give the impression
that the Amora was aware of and commenting on the braisa. But if the braisa
says that the amora said something and then adds afterwards that a braisa
says the same thing, that implication is not made.

-- 
Yaacov David Shulman
Translator; Editor; Ghostwriter
Specializing in Torah and literary texts
shulmanwriter.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110103/aedaed76/attachment-0001.htm>

Apropos to our Areivim conversation, I copied a list of mar'eh meqomos
that the mods rejected as belonging here. For a period of time I
participated in a chaburah on mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro through the
aegis of mar'eh meoqomos provided by a "Linas haTzedeq -- Center for
Jewish Values" (HaMerkaz leLimud haHalakhos sheBALC).

Well, after bothering, I found they put the booklet we used up on
line! So, see <http://www.jewishvalues.us/uploads/104_Genevas_Daas.PDF>
for a list of sources about the limits of geneivas hada'as. They have
the sources copied into the booklet as well, along with comments
connecting the dots. My chavrusah and I found it valuable to fit the
sources ourselves, as we didn't always agree with the interpretation given
in the booklet -- and context helps.

For that matter, http://www.jewishvalues.us/Sugyos.html has dozens such
prefab chaburos. Worth a look!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

Hello all,

On BM 17a Rav Zvid speaks of the following case: beis din orders a loveh to
pay, he claims he paid, eidim testify he did not. Rashi fleshes out that
the BD issued the order, then the malveh confronted the loveh before eidim,
whereupon he /refused/ to pay. The loveh subsequently claims he paid after
the confrontation, but we do not believe him. Rashi says this is because he
was brazenly defiant of BD's order. See kushiyios haRosh. 

Sounds to me like Rashi sees the defiance itself as leading to a loss of ne'emanus. Two questions:

- what exactly is it about defiance of BD that dictates the loss of ne'emanus?

- why does he only lose it l'osah mamon?

--
Yitzchak Schaffer



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1
*************************************

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..."