Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 78

Tue, 17 May 2011

• 1. Re: Halachic Analysis: The Hillary Photo Controversy (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Halachic Analysis: The Hillary Photo Controversy (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Inviting Someone On Shabbos Who Uses the Eruv (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 4. Halachic Analysis: The Hillary Photo Controversy (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 5. Re: Inviting Someone On Shabbos Who Uses the Eruv, when You Don't (David Riceman)
• 6. paskening by Nevuah (Harvey Benton)
• 7. Re: Halachic Analysis: The Hillary Photo Controversy (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: Inviting Someone On Shabbos Who Uses the Eruv (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 9. Re: paskening by Nevuah (Ben Waxman)
• 10. Re: paskening by Nevuah (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Inviting Someone On Shabbos Who Uses the Eruv, when You Don't (David Riceman)
• 12. Re: Chasam Sofer Responds to Rav Yaakov Emden, Defends the Singular Ashkenazic Kaddish (Danny Schoemann)
• 13. Re: Chasam Sofer Responds to Rav Yaakov Emden, Defends the Singular Ashkenazic Kaddish (Danny Schoemann)
• 14. Re: Chasam Sofer Responds to Rav Yaakov Emden, Defends the Singular Ashkenazic Kaddish (Ben Waxman)

On 12/05/2011 4:57 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 12/05/2011 8:12 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>>> The Hasidic newspaper itself though should only adjust photos with
>>> permission
>
>> He's wrong about that, because no permission was needed.  It's not
>> copyright, and anyone is free to do with it whatever they like.
>
> The photo came with rights reserved in the form of the text:
>      The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be
>      used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails,
>      products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement
>      of the President, the First Family, or the White House.
>
> So as a matter of metzi'us, I think it is illegal.

No, it isn't.  The White House has no more right to impose such a
restriction than I do.  It's meaningless and of no authority.
A sheker, if you like.


>> From the perspective of midevar sheqer tirchaq, the caption should have
> read something like " ... (Secr. Clinton's image removed from the photo.)"
> To mislead people into thinking this was the actual scene (even if the
> scene was set up for the photo-up) is halachically problematic, no?

Why should it be?  How is anyone harmed by not seeing the whole set-up
photo?  Where do you find a mokor for such a problem?  And why isn't
there just as big a problem with the blurred document?  Why is national
security more important than tznius?



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

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 05:03:16PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> The photo came with rights reserved in the form of the text:
...
>> So as a matter of metzi'us, I think it is illegal.

> No, it isn't.  The White House has no more right to impose such a
> restriction than I do.  It's meaningless and of no authority.
> A sheker, if you like.

I still believe you're mistaken, but this is a discussion for Areivim
with opinions from the US lawyers among us, not for here.

>> From the perspective of midevar sheqer tirchaq, the caption should have
>> read something like " ... (Secr. Clinton's image removed from the photo.)"
>> To mislead people into thinking this was the actual scene (even if the
>> scene was set up for the photo-up) is halachically problematic, no?

> Why should it be?  How is anyone harmed by not seeing the whole set-up
> photo? ...

I'm talking about midevar sheqer tirchaq, and you are answering me
in terms of hezeq. Lying (leshaqeir) is assur. Misrepresenting the
truth without an outright lie (leshanos) is only mutar in specific
circumstances:

- darkhei shalom, if there is no other way to maintain the peace (Yevamos
  65b; CC Rechilus kelel 1:14)

Or the three cases on BM 23b-24a:
- masekhes -- downplaying your accomplishments in learning ("Do you know
  mes' X?" "No.")

- puria -- someone asks you about your sexual activities.
  Rashi: If asked directly, eg: "Did you have relations?" "No."
  Tosafos: If a man who was absent due to being a qeri is asked why he
    wasn't at the beis medrash, he needn't answer honestly

- ushpiza -- lying about a host to prevent the questioner
  from taking advantage of them
  Rashi: Playing down their largesse
  Rambam: Not giving them the correct name of the host

  Both are problematic. Rashi's example would often be motzi sheim ra.
  The Rambam's would often lead to someone else being victimized by the
  moocher looking for a host to take advantage of.
  
  See also CC kelal 9:3 and RMF's Diberos Moshe on that gemara in BM,
  and see if you can help me resolve these issues.

But in any case, such shinui isn't permitted for the sake of mere
tzeni'us, particularly since there was no chiyuv to carry the picture,
the picture could have been printed with an explanation, etc...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?

R' Isaac Balbin wrote about the host's responsibilities, where the guest is more machmir than the host:

> Acharonim discuss the situation where someone is at your house
> and you know THEY don't follow on a certain Psak in kashrus, but
> you hold that it's muttar, whether you have to tell them. The
> answer is yes.

I don't need Dinei Bein Adam L'Makom for that. Bein Adam L'chaveiro is
already enough to tell me that I must inform them that they might not feel
comfortable with my kitchen.

Akiva Miller



____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4dcc51e09a23f3bded7st02vuc

>>The Hasidic newspaper itself though should only adjust photos with
> >permission

>He's wrong about that, because no permission was needed.  It's not
>copyright, and anyone is free to do with it whatever they like.

He didn't say they are legally obligated to do it; he said they "should" do
it; i.e., he gave them advice on how to handle these types of situations in
the future.  IMO it is good advice. Others might give different advice but
that, of course, doesn't make RYH wrong.

Joseph Kaplan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20110512/af06a2cb/attachment.html>

RMB:

<<Does that mean a single cheit, or is it literal -- he only brings one

qorban because he only had one forgetting ("shegegah")?>>

I think your distinction is forced.  If each action is a new heit why
shouldn't there be a new korban? The Rambam purports to answer that, but,
on your reading, he doesn't.

<<I would like to say that the real cheit is actually the crime of neglect
implied by forgetting, not the act done beshogeig. But it's a claim
that I would like more solid grounding for.>>

See Ramban, Toras HaAdam, ed. Chavel, p. 270 (start at line 11 "keitzad, harei she'achal helev b'shogeig ff.").

David Riceman

eliyahu paskening:
will Eliyahu pasken by svara (from the Gemarra and/or other mekoros)? or will he 
pasken by Ruach Hakodesh? 
If by Ruach Hakodesh or Nevuah, one could always say, Torah lav Bashamayim Hi - 
and thus discount his answers as not binding halachically.....
However, didn't Moshe Rabeinu pasken by Nevuah with regard to Bnos Tzelopchod? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110512/7bc15510/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:59 PM,  RMB wrote:
> The photo came with rights reserved in the form of the text:
> ? ?The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be
> ? ?used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails,
> ? ?products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement
> ? ?of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

Actually, I am not sure that that is legally relevant, and should be
looked into in greater detail. The reason why the White House's
conditions may not be legally relevant is that by law, such kinds of
material produced by the Federal Government of the USA is immediately
in the public domain. Howvever, I grant that it is surely not nice to
go against the White House, and may arouse eivah.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Meditating on the Tragedy in Japan
* Ode an das Pessachfest und den Fr?hling
* Denkmal an den deportierten l?rracher Juden
* Holiday Art
* Will the Judge of the Entire World Not Do Justice?
* When Theodicy Is No Theodicy

I had written:
> I understand that they have the right to follow whichever posek
> they choose to follow. This would apply to any time they are on
> their own, choosing to do whatever their posek allows. But if I
> hold that m'ikar hadin it is assur, why am I not violating lifnei
> iver when I ask them to do it?

R' Zev Sero answered:

> Because you recognise that the Torah gives them the right to
> follow that psak, so in doing so they're neither blind nor
> stumbling.

I see that I was not clear. I'll try it again.

My understanding is that as a practical matter, given that we have no
Sanhedrin today, none of us really knows for sure what the Halacha is,
i.e., what HaShem wants us to do. And therefore as a practical matter, each
of us follows the halacha as we've been taught it, and as we understand it,
and as we figure HaShem wants us to act.

Therefore, suppose my posek paskens and/or my understanding of halacha is
that in a certain area, the basic halacha is that HaShem doesn't want ANY
Jew to carry there on Shabbos. If so, then as a practical matter I will not
interfere with someone else's psak/decision to carry there, especially
since my posek and I have no guarantee that we are right. But given that my
posek and I do have this understanding that HaShem doesn't want ANY Jew to
carry there, then how can I ask another Jew to do that which I hold to be
assur? Logic tells me that I must treat Meleches Shabbos and Lifei Iver the
same.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Soaring 3000%
Sign up for Free to find out what the next 3000% Stock Winner is!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4dcc84a2a0a503c4912st03vuc

That is the difference between Moshe Rabbeinu and everyone else and why the
Rambam writes (IIRC) that there was no difference between Yehoshua and Rav
Ashi in the way they paskened.

Ben
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Harvey Benton 
  However, didn't Moshe Rabeinu pasken by Nevuah with regard to Bnos Tzelopchod? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110513/d6fdc3f9/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 01:50:40PM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
: That is the difference between Moshe Rabbeinu and everyone else and why
: the Rambam writes (IIRC) that there was no difference between Yehoshua
: and Rav Ashi in the way they paskened.

According to the Rambam, the word nevu'ah when used WRT MRAH refers to
something that is different in kind than the other usages of the word.
Moshe didn't just have a higher degree of nevu'ah, he had a different
thing.

In any case, all of Torah rests on Moshe's nevu'ah, we couldn't dismiss it
for pesaq or else there would be no Torah to pasqen from! "Lo bashamayim
hi" is said at the /end/ of the trip through the midbar for a reason. The
meqalel and the question posed by benos Tzelafchad preceded the pasuq.

However, there is a difference in authority between laws made by a navi
and laws made by another rav. Even though the process is the same, laws
made by nevi'im can be divrei soferim, a plane somewhere more than the
regular derabannan.

This is an issue we discuss with some regularity before Purim, since
the R' Chaim Brisker (?) is medayeiq in the Rambam to conclude that
megillah for men is midivrei soferim, but it is a plain derabbanan for
women. (The Behag and Rosh hold that women can't read for men for a
different reason -- because their chiyuv is lishmoa, whereas a man's
chiyuv includes qeriah too.)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 24th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507        taking control result in balance and harmony?

My previous post may have been too terse.  I hope you'll pardon more 
prolixity here.

RMB:
> I would like to say that the real cheit is actually the crime of neglect
> implied by forgetting, not the act done beshogeig.

I think you've neglected an important hilluk, which RHM cites RAS as
having made:

RHM:
> Rav Aahron Soloveichik held that anyone who uses the Chicago Eruv in
> West Rogers Park is being Mechalel Shabbos D'Oraisa B'Shogeg. And that
> those who gave a Hechsher to it are Machti Es HaRabbim B'Meizid.

In words, there's a distinction between professional rabbis, who ought
to know the halacha even when it's convoluted, and normal people, who,
in practice, may not have the time or ability to learn through all the
sugyos by themselves.

Arguably professional rabbis have a responsibility to review hilchos
Shabbos every Shabbos, and you might be able to argue that neglecting
that obligation induces a new shegagah. I don't see how you can say
this about RYL's friends, whom he portrays as relying on poskim rather
than being poskim.

David Riceman

RMB asked:
> Does anyone know if having multiple people say Qaddish at once predated
> the phenomenon of men who would go to minyan just because they were
> saying Qaddish?

When would you guess that phenomenon started?

The Kitzur in 26:18 already mentions multiple people saying Kaddish.

???? ??
???? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???????,
?????? ????? ??????, ??????? ?' ?? ?' ????.


> I'm wondering if the switch was accepted on the grounds that if we don't
> guarantee them a chance to say Qaddish each time they show, not every
> aveil would bother coming to shul.

His reason is to prevent Ktatot uMerivot - "disputes/arguing? and fights"

- Danny

 R' Moshe Lefkowitz wrote:
>
>>I know of a women who recited kadish from the Ezras Nashim
>>with the minyan answering amen,amen yhie shme raba etc.
>>She did every year on the yartzeit of her father.

The Kitzur in 26:20 reluctantly allows women to say Kaddish in a
Minyan at home, but not in a Shul.

???? ?
??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ?? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ????
????? ????? ?? ????? ????, ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?????.


> I saw the few times I davened during the week in the YI of
> Brookline. ?It was clear that this woman came every day, sat behind
> the mechitza, and said kaddish.

As a whole, it's sad that Kaddish is the main focus to "elevate" the
Neshomo. The Kitzur (26:22) says that - though Kaddish and Prayers
help - the main point is for the children to be Halocho-abiding
Yidden; this benefits the soul more than anything else.

So by finding Halachic-loopholes to say Kaddish one may be doing more
harm than good...

- Danny

Rav Henkin, in his tshevua on women saying kaddish, basically agrees with 
what you write: the kaddish is only as good as what comes before it. Someone 
who learns a daf and then says kaddish is one thing; someone who walks into 
shul when the shaliach tzibbur mumbles out "Rebbi Yishmael omer" and says 
kaddish is quite another.

However he mentions that by having people say kaddish, often people who 
didn't come to shul will continue even after the shana aveilut is over. So 
the benefit of getting people involved is what justifies the kaddish. And 
this benefit is relevant for men and women.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Schoemann" <doni...@gmail.com>
> As a whole, it's sad that Kaddish is the main focus to "elevate" the
> Neshomo. The Kitzur (26:22) says that - though Kaddish and Prayers
> help - the main point is for the children to be Halocho-abiding
> Yidden; this benefits the soul more than anything else.
>
> So by finding Halachic-loopholes to say Kaddish one may be doing more
> harm than good... 



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 78
**************************************

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..."