Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 27

Mon, 21 Feb 2011

• 1. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: kosher stores, rechovi (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Re: kosher stores, rechovi (T6...@aol.com)
• 4. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Zev Sero)
• 5. kal ve-chomer (Eli Turkel)
• 6. priorities (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: priorities (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: kosher stores, rechovi (Harry Maryles)
• 9. Some Comments BY RSRH on Shemos 32:1 (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: geirut for marriage (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 11. meshane Halachot, (SBA)
• 12. Chazal's understanding of the brain and the heart (M Cohen)
• 13. Re: kosher stores, rechovi (Goldmeier)

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:57:36PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> Whether they see it or not, it is her purpose, and at least those who
> ask her will know it.  So will everyone else, if she does it as part of
> the kiddushin ceremony.

RMF says the central problems are:
1- Chuqas hagoyim, which may be tied to
her trying to immitate their rite, and thus to her intent,
and
2- How people who see the wedding might think qiddushin is done. Which
clearly doesn't.

You called someone a liar because he reported what RMF wrote without
sharing your guess that RMF may have been okay with an exception that
he didn't discuss, if there is an announcement that prevents people
from mistaking what's going on. That's pretty harsh.

Skipping back in RZS's post:
>> But continue further, RMF writes that he is afraid people will conclude
>> wrong ideas about qiddushin from what they see at this wedding. This
>> kallah's intent or isn't has nothing to do with that cheshash.

> Of course it does.  It's precisely that she is pretending to effect a
> kiddushin on him that creates the problem...

That's not all RMF says, you stop 1/3 in, before RMF's whole slippery
slope argument. At this point, I can't add anything I didn't already say.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 
From: menucha _m...@inter.net.il_ (mailto:m...@inter.net.il) 


Rn TK is cholek on the meshane Halachot, but my original question  (and 
the reason this post was bounced by the moderators from areivim to  
avodah) is whether this is found anywhere in psak. 
sadly, this  strengthens my hypothesis that the long skirt bashing is not 
daas  Torah.....  menucha


T6...@aol.com wrote:

>   
> From: menucha <m...@inter.net.il>
>
>  
>  >> Is the restriction against long skirts found anywhere in psak? I  seem
> to be finding the opposite.
>
>
>  menucha
>
>  
> >>>>>
>   
> If the choice is mini-skirts or floor-length then yes, halavai they  
> should all wear long skirts.  But.

 
>>>>>
 
You seem to be defining "daas Torah" as "something that has a  written 
source."  If nobody can point you to a written source you say "it's  not daas 
Torah then."
 
I think daas Torah would be defined by most people as pretty nearly the  
opposite:  something that doesn't have a written source or that, whether or  
not there are written sources, is held by [most of] the rabbanim and poskim 
of  the day to be normative and/or preferred behavior for Torah Jews.  I  
speak of Torah Jews as people who want to live, not only a minimal  
letter-of-the-law existence, but an optimum Torah-true life.  
 
I must hasten to add that I have by no means exhausted all the possible  
meanings and permutations of "daas Torah" and I don't plan to write that  
5,000-page book any time soon.   I only mean to disagree with this one  narrow 
point, namely, that if a Rav says something for which there are no  explicit 
written sources, then what he said is not daas Torah.  On the  contrary, if 
he is a Rav, then what he says is ipso facto daas Torah.
 
OK OK just stumbled into a minefield, "What is a Rav?"  Not going to  write 
/that/ 5,000-page book any time soon, either.
 
Just this:  the set of "daas Torah" and the set of "written  sources" are 
not identical sets.
 



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



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

>   


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110218/0d581829/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: "Prof. Levine" _llevine@stevens.edu_ (mailto:llev...@stevens.edu) 


Some of the uniforms worn by Bais Yaakov girls here in Brooklyn have  
pretty long skirts.

YL

 
>>>>
 
 
Bais Yakov of Miami does not allow uniform skirts to be ankle-length.   
They have to be at least four inches above the ankle.  
 

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



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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110218/a49fab93/attachment-0001.htm>

On 18/02/2011 2:01 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:57:36PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Whether they see it or not, it is her purpose, and at least those who
>> ask her will know it.  So will everyone else, if she does it as part of
>> the kiddushin ceremony.
>
> RMF says the central problems are:
> 1- Chuqas hagoyim, which may be tied to
> her trying to immitate their rite, and thus to her intent,

On the contrary, *if* it's a real chukas hagoy, which RMF doubts, then
her intention doesn't matter.


> and
> 2- How people who see the wedding might think qiddushin is done. Which
> clearly doesn't.

Of course it does; if she's not trying to do a fake kidushin then there
is by definition no subversion of the laws of kidushin, and thus no
takalah.


> You called someone a liar because he reported what RMF wrote without
> sharing your guess that RMF may have been okay with an exception that
> he didn't discuss

Once again, it is *not an exception*, it's a completely different case.
Every single time he mentions the subject he states clearly what it is:
her attempting to be mekadesh him.  It has nothing to do with the ring.


> if there is an announcement that prevents people
> from mistaking what's going on. That's pretty harsh.

You seem to think RMF is worried about onlookers who have no idea what's
going on.  I don't know where you got such an idea.  This has nothing to
do with onlookers.



> Skipping back in RZS's post:
>>> But continue further, RMF writes that he is afraid people will conclude
>>> wrong ideas about qiddushin from what they see at this wedding. This
>>> kallah's intent or isn't has nothing to do with that cheshash.
>
>> Of course it does.  It's precisely that she is pretending to effect a
>> kiddushin on him that creates the problem...
>
> That's not all RMF says, you stop 1/3 in, before RMF's whole slippery
> slope argument. At this point, I can't add anything I didn't already say.

That *is* all he says.  What does "Avol hocho kesheyargilu shegam hi
titen taba`as *usekadesh*" mean?  What is that word doing there?  Answer
me that.  It's the pretended kidushin that's the problem, and it's the
pretended kidushin that he says we should forbid, lest hilchos kidushin
be subverted.  That is the entire issue, and he doesn't ever suggest
that there's something wrong with giving a ring for some other purpose.

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

I am struggling with trying to understand a kal ve-chamor. It obviously
doesnt correspond
to rules from standard logic.

As a simple example (one of many I have) consider the gemara in Baba Metzia
3b.
In short summary

1. R. Chiya says that 2 witnesses (on a portion of the loan) can force
a "modeh bemikzat" swearing just like a partial admission.
This is based on a kal ve-chamor that witnesses are more potent than an
admission

2. The gemara asks that based on logic a partial admission shows there is a
basis
to the full claim since the debtor won't fully deny a claim. This reasoning
doesn't apply
to witnesses

3. The gemara states that this is why a kal ve-chomer is needed precisely
because pure reasoning
wouldn't demand swearing against witnesses.

4. The gemara then starts a technical discussion whether witnesses are
really more potent
than an admission - which is not relevant to my question

I have other cases where the gemara uses a kal ve-chomer even though one
could
differentiate and say that the reason behind the "chomer" doesn't apply to
the "kal"/
It seems that this is a purely formal argument without looking at root
causes.
If it is not based on logical reasoning than what is the justification?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110219/236b0381/attachment-0001.htm>

In a continuation of a previous post in the very recent shiur of R.
Zilberstein
he reiterated (in the name of R. Elyashiv) that there is a difference in
choosing
priorities between private practice and a community.

One example was given a fixed budget to choose a drug that saves the lives
of a few
or one that relieves severe pain (bit doesnt affect pikuach nefesh) of the
many.
RYSE paskened that for the government they should choose to help the many
because
that is what most taxpayers would want. However, a private physician has to
save
the life of the individual. The priorities in the gemara affect the
individual and not the
tzibbur.
R Zilberstein used a similar principle in terms of choosing doctors and
administrators
in a hospital that the general rule is to choose the person that most
(discriminating)
people would choose.

One of the participants asked what if a majority vote would be to fund a
football stadium and not
a hospital. R Zilbetsein quoted a R. Chaim that most people are "shotim" and
a majority vote
doesnt account for such people

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110219/3d4c0759/attachment-0001.htm>

One example was given a fixed budget to choose a drug that saves the lives of a few
or one that relieves severe pain (bit doesnt affect pikuach nefesh) of the many.
RYSE paskened that for the government they should choose to help the many because
that is what most taxpayers would want. However, a private physician has to save
the life of the individual. The priorities in the gemara affect the individual and not the
tzibbur.
 ================================
Did he give a makor for this chiluk?  Would he say this if one of the "few" was the melech? nasi? or does beit din decide when the masses are shotim?
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110219/a85c4c22/attachment-0001.htm>

--- On Fri, 2/18/11, T6...@aol.com <T6...@aol.com> wrote:


From: "Prof. Levine" llev...@stevens.edu


?
Some of the uniforms worn by Bais Yaakov girls here in Brooklyn have 
pretty long skirts.

YL
?
>>>>
?

Bais Yakov of Miami does not allow uniform skirts to be ankle-length.? They have to be at least four inches above the ankle.?
---------------------------------
?
Why?
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110220/0d37ec48/attachment-0001.htm>

Shemos 32:1

When the people saw that Moshe did not fulfill 
their expectation that he would come down from 
the mountain, the people gathered
against Aharon, and they said to him: Arise, make 
us gods who shall go before us; for this man 
Moshe, who brought us up from the land of
Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.

No one should ever imagine that the Torah should be adapted to
changing times; on the contrary, each generation is entitled to a present
and a future only inasmuch as it accommodates itself to the Torah.
The Torah is the absolute ultimate goal of the Jewish nation, and the
generation of the Lawgiving was still infinitely remote from that goal.
If, nevertheless, the Torah, with its unalterable ideal requirements,
came down to that generation, the implication is clearly this: The
Torah was not given to Israel so that the people should adapt it to
the changing times or to suit the people?s convenience. Rather, the
Torah was given to Israel so that this nation should shape and adapt
itself until it has elevated itself to the moral and spiritual heights of
this Torah.

In short, as soon as the Torah came down to Israel, over whom it
was meant to reign supreme, the golden calf incident presented it with
its first challenge: The Torah is to demonstrate its Divine power by
training this people to accept it out of complete submission, and the
Sanctuary of the Torah is to be first and foremost a place of kaparah, a
place of unceasing education toward a better and purer future.

It is a delusion to think that man needs to make for himself a god
? i.e., that, to ensure his future, he should set before himself things
of his own choosing and of his own making as the embodiment of his
own highest ideal, in respect to the Highest Power Who rules the world,
of Whom he has a vague perception. The heathen imagines that through
these things he shows his homage to this Highest Power, wins His grace,
and fulfills his duty by acknowledging his dependence on Him. It is
nonsense and a delusion to think of man?s basic dependence on God
? or on the power that he regards as his god ? in terms of fate and
in the passive terms of human relationships.

All these are delusions which from time immemorial have dominated
the highest aspirations of the members of the non-Jewish world,
and which have produced both crude and spiritual fetishism.
In opposition to these delusions stands the truth of Judaism, which
is meant to put an end to all the delusions of subjective idolatry, no
matter what form it takes.

Man cannot make for himself a god; he need not do so and he may
not do so. Man cannot draw God near to himself by representing the
godly in a corporeal form; rather, man should draw himself near to God
in every aspect of his life by filling his whole being with spiritual and
moral content and by subordinating all his activities to God?s commandments.

In order to attain closeness to God and to secure for himself God?s
protection and guidance, it is not God that man must influence, but
himself. He should be preoccupied not with shaping his fate, but with
shaping his deeds; the only way in which he can also influence his fate
is by suiting his way of life to God?s Will.

First of all, however, man must recognize that God has no physical
quality on which a coercive influence could be exerted through some
subjective action, in order to harness that quality to man?s own subjective
will. Rather, He Baruch Hu is a personal Being possessed of absolute
freedom, free will, and unlimited power, a Being Who rules the world
in freedom and Who has revealed to man His Will as the absolute
measure of all things and as the absolute norm for the free will of man.
To God?s Will man must surrender his whole being ? joyfully,
freely, and with all the strength of his personality. Only then will the
blessings of Providence shower down upon him and bring success to
the work of his hands. Obedience to God out of free will is always and
everywhere all that is necessary to bring blessing to man ? to the
community and to the individual; and there is absolutely nothing that
can take its place.

All subjective caprice is like heathenism and idolatry, for it is based
on the delusion that man can arbitrarily exert a controlling influence
on the shaping of his future, which is equivalent to the belief that man
can bend the Will of the Divine.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110220/fa0fd415/attachment-0001.htm>

I wrote:
> for reasons which I still don't understand, when Machlon and
> Kilyon died, Naami ENCOURAGED Rus and Orpah to go back to their
> old ways. Even if the conversion was "al tenai" or some other
> sort of quasi-conversion, why would Naami try to get it nullified?

R' Zev Sero asked:
> Who says they had undergone any sort of giyur?  As I understand
> it, M and K intermarried.

That certainly answers my question, but it opens others, centering on the
relationship between Rus and Boaz. If she had not converted in some manner,
then her marriage to Machlon had no standing in halacha, and it makes no
sense to consider Boaz as a "family goel" or to consider their relations
even a distant sort of "yibum".

For a more detailed exposition, see pages 48-52 in the Overview to
ArtScroll's "Ruth". There are big problems if one says that they did not
convert at all, and there are also big problems if one considers their
conversion fully valid.

I am open to other ideas, but so far, the only answer to this conundrum
that I've seen is the suggestion of Rabbi Scherman (pg 50-51) that "This
could well have constituted a coerced conversion... When Machlon and Kilion
died, Naomi put Ruth and Orpah to the test. Was their original conversion
sincere? ... Orpah turned her back... proving that her conversion had never
been sincere. Ruth withstood the test... proving that her membership in the
Jewish nation was entirely unfeigned."

I do have problems with this "solution", the biggest one being: How much
leeway does this sort of convert have, to show his true colors? If Orpah
can retroactively nullify the conversion after *ten years* of marriage, I
have to wonder how such a convert might achieve the status of a "Jewish
sinner" -- Given that humans are not perfect and will eventually lapse into
a certain amount of sinning, where is the line between "This one was
obviously sincere" and "That one never really meant it"?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Dermatologists Hate Her
Local Mom Reveals $5 Trick to Erase Wrinkles. Shocking Results Exposed
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d614e31ef10e391406st04vuc

From: menucha To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group 
: Re: [Avodah] kosher stores, rechovi

Rn TK is cholek on the meshane Halachot,
>>

Ladies! Ladies!!!!

It's "Mishnah" Halachot - not "Meshane"!!
IThat's how a few leitzim who wish to poke fun at the author pronounce it]

SBA

Recently there was a discussion on Areivim between
RNS and RYG wrt to Chazal's understanding of the brain and the heart
(as it affected definition of death)

of interest to this topic, the following was mentioned in the R Reisman
chumash shir...

Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky in Sefer Devarim on Pasuk 6:5 says a Chiddush. He says
it always disturbed him why there is no word for the brain in Tanach. Moach
in Tanach doesn't refer to the brain although it is used that way in modern
Hebrew. There is no word for the brain. 

Rav Yaakov is mechadeish that the word Leiv that refers to thought is really
a reference to the brain. Leiv is a reference to the emotional aspect of the
brain. The idea to serve Hashem with all your heart means with all your
intellect and with all your thought. So Rav Yaakov has this idea that Leiv
in Tanach is actually a reference not to heart and flesh but to the mind,
the emotional mind.

R Reisman writes that Rashi Shemos 4:14 seems to contradict that. Ra'ah
v'samach b'libo according to Rav Yaakov should mean, that he will rejoice
emotionally with his thoughts, in his mind. In the Zechus of that Aharon was
Zoche to the Choshen. 

The Choshen was not on his Leiv (brain) of thought, but on his chest near
the heart and therefore it is difficult to understand and it was in the
Zechus of v'samach b'libo. It would seem that the word Leiv is a reference
to the heart.

while I understand the point (they dont think the floor length skirts 
are tzanua), I still find it funny, and did a double take, to read that 
they *require* more leg be shown (albeit covered in tights I am sure)...

Kol tuv
Rafi Goldmeier



On 18/2/2011 9:38 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> Bais Yakov of Miami does not allow uniform skirts to be ankle-length.  
> They have to be at least four inches above the ankle.
>
> *--Toby Katz
> ==========*

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110221/70dafabd/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 27
**************************************

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..."