Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 83

Thu, 26 May 2011

• 1. Re: Sevara Rules (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: paskening by Nevuah (Lisa Liel)
• 3. More on Cooking on Yom Tov: A Halachic Analysis (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Upsherin (Prof. Levine)
• 5. border issues.....pikauch nefesh?? (Lisa Liel)
• 6. Re: Upsherin (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: border issues.....pikauch nefesh?? (Daniel Israel)
• 8. Re: border issues.....pikauch nefesh?? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: border issues.....pikauch nefesh?? (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: border issues.....pikauch nefesh?? (Micha Berger)
• 11. chas veshalom to make machlokes (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 12. Shvartz Shabbos (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Re: and if it was a nedder? (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 14. Re: and if it was a nedder? (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: and if it was a nedder? (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: and if it was a nedder? (Daniel M. Israel)
• 17. Re: chas veshalom to make machlokes (Rich, Joel)

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 03:41:55AM +1000, Meir Rabi wrote:
: Some say, there used not to be much machlokes, because everyone knew the
: correct halacha, and our current state of confusion is the result of our
: forgetting all that.
...
: But the Ritva Eruvin 13 cites a Medrash that every Halacha taught to Moshe R
: on Har Sinai was taught with many reasons for opposing conclusions, Muttar
: and Assur, Tamei and Tahor etc....

We have discussed this before, and the Ritva is far from alone. See R'
Moshe Halbertal's "Contoversy in Halacha"
<http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/Gruss/halbert.html>
and R' Michael Rosensweig's "Elu Va-Elu Divre Elokim Hayyim: Halakhic
Pluralism And Theories Of Controversy"
<http://www.lookstein.org/articles/elu_ve_elu.htm>
There are maamarei chazal indicating 2 or 3 positions. (RMH says
three, but I think what he calls the "accumulative" and "constitutive"
understandings coincide.)

I summarize and give my own 2 cents at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/03/eilu-vaeilu-part-i.shtml>
and <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/03/eilu-vaeilu-part-ii.shtml>

RHM describes the Ramban, Ritva and Ran as being of the constitutive camp
(ie authority is given to a poseiq to contitute law). The Rambam is of
the accumulative camp (ie that halakhah is built analytically from prior
halakhah). None of these major rishonim would therefore see Eliyahu's
role as restoring pesaq from memory.

But there woudl still be a role.

Constitutively, someone with mosaic ordination has more authority.

Also, we lost the art of making derashos. Eliyahu could restore an entire
means of accumulating new pesaqim from existing Torah. Not to mention the
whole problem of what other modes of reasoning we could use bolstering
with after generations of nisqatnu hadoros.

As per the famous mashal -- we may know more, but our ability to create
knowledge is diminishing. With Eliyahu, we would have both the knowledge
and the knowledge-creating skills.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 36th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 being a stable and reliable partner?

On Tue, 24 May 2011 11:57:47 GMT, "kennethgmil...@juno.com" 
<kennethgmil...@juno.com> wrote (v28i82m3):
>R' Micha Berger wrote that we'll follow him...
>
> > ... and because, pro forma, Eliahu haNavi has true semichah
>
>I'm not sure how relevant that is. IIRC, there were still some 
>Amoraim (maybe even Geonim?) who had True Semicha, yet they did not 
>pasken on these questions, leaving the Gemara with Tayku. Or maybe 
>they even *did* pasken, but for some reason (such as opposing 
>psakim) they were not generally accepted. Either way, if the answer 
>is based on this alone, Eliyahu is no different than the other True 
>Semicha chachamim.

Well, other than being alive.  And it's both his having real smicha 
and his having learned his Torah in a time long before machloket 
became a problem.

Lisa 

Not long ago I referred to the article 
at   http://cor.ca/view/169/cooking_on_yom_tov.html

In response someone wrote to me, "This piece states that Sabbath mode 
ovens allow the user to open and close the oven door at will, even on 
Shabbos." I just had another look at the article and I no longer see 
this in the article.

Furthermore, I received the following:

I have seen Rabbi Heber's article on oven and stove use on Shabbos. 
In the article Rabbi Heber states that the Star-K Certified Sabbath 
mode ovens can be opened multiple times on Shabbos.  Please be 
advised that the Sabbath mode ovens certified by Star-K do NOT allow 
for multiple openings and closings of the oven door on Shabbos. The 
configuration or the sabbath mode was to allow changing of the oven 
temperature on Yom Tov through a gramma (random delay) . As you may 
know this is a point of dispute that Rabbi Miller in Toronto has 
taken issue with. However we do not suggest that one would be allowed 
to open and close these ovens at will on Shabbos. We consider that to 
be gram havara. We specifically  suggest a onetime opening and 
removal of all foods on Shabbos, so that the resulting havara would 
be unwanted as well.

We urge you to please correct this point in the article so as not to 
cause Chilul Shabbos.

Sincerely,

Avrohom Mushell

Star-K Certification






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110525/e6e1a1ef/attachment-0001.htm>

At 05:53 PM 5/25/2011, R. Micha wrote:

>On Wed the 18th, the day you sent the original above-quoted (after the
>":>>"s) post about upsherin, you also posted "Thinking Of Editing Shmoneh
>Esreh? Not So Fast". That post pointed us to <http://tinyurl.com/3wrtegd>,
>which (as you quoted) reads (in part, transliterations still mine):
> > Recently, it was reported that a Rabbi from Israel, on a visit to
> > America, spoke at a (nusach Ashkenaz) Shul and urged the people there to
> > add the word [le'artzeinu] at the end of the [berakhah] of [Teqa beShofar]
> > in the [Shemoneh Esrei]. This Rabbi is a lover of [Eretz Yisrael] and
> > presumably he wanted to strengthen the audience's connection to our holy
> > land in some way with such a gesture.
>
> >   ... And where does it end? ...
>
>So, on the Upsherin thread you ask some East Europeans who have the
>minhag of upsherin to reject it on the grounds of an argument that it's
>not a valid minhag. Sevara trumping minhag.

I did not write this!  It is from someone else.


>But WRT adding "le'artzeinu", which is an ancient nusach for the berakhah
>albeit not Ashkenazic, you argue that this rav was wrong to tell people
>to change from their minhag because of a sevara.

I did not write this!  It is from someone else.


>The sevaros have many points around which one can contrast them. I'm sure
>the minhagim do too. So, I have no doubt you can make a chiluq between those
>two cases. I asked where exactly you personally place that chiluq. You
>are of East European ancestry, and yet so support minhag Ashkenaz that you
>advocate here repeatedly for various Yekkish practices. (I think you
>forwarded all 6 of the last 6 posts on the "Treasures of Ashkenaz" blog.)
>Given how much time you spend discussing minhag with us, I fished for
>more detail on your position.
>
>: Almost all of what I post on Avodah is from sources and is not my
>: own.  I feel that it is important for people to realize that a lot of
>: what is done today has either no basis or the basis is shaky at
>: best.  For example, Upsherin has become the "in thing,"  even amongst
>: Ashkenazim....
>
>Upsherin is a generations-old minhag for many Ashkenazim.

What is your basis for this assertion?

>Albeit not
>Litvaks or Yekkes, but still, you can't say there is no basis. Similarly,
>if you feel free, as a "BT" to pick your minhagim, why can't others pick
>their minhagim as well? What makes it "wrong" that you need to comment
>on what they do?
>
>-Micha

I guess you do not realize that just because I post something does 
not mean that I agree with it.  Much of what I post is for 
informational purposes and to generate discussion and get people thinking.

Just because I comment does not mean that I expect anyone to follow 
me.  However, I do feel that many do not know the basis for some of 
what they do and my posts are to, again, get people thinking.

YL

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110525/9b6f3dec/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, 24 May 2011 15:37:44 -0700 (PDT), Harvey Benton 
<harvw...@yahoo.com> wrote (v28i82m14):
>there is a difference in kedusha and halachic status between areas 
>of eyisrael
>conquered by yehoshua, later by David (different categories, etc) and those
>promised to Avraham as a yerusha....
>do any of these distinctions make a difference nowadays to possibly giving up
>land for peace (as was rightly or wrongly done with the egyptians/in the
>sinai).
>--------
>or do we say, that for now, that even though these territories were 
>conquered by
>a non-torah, non-moshiach dika state, the inyan of pikuach nefesh takes
>precedence???
>hb

As I understand it, the territories that were conquered by war have 
kedusha only so long as we're living there.  But the territories that 
were granted to us by the goyim have permanent kedusha.  I remember 
seeing a map that showed sort of a butterfly-shaped area, roughly 
equivalent to Judea and Samaria and a mirror image of it to the east 
of the Jordan River, and said that was the extent of the return in 
Persian times.  If that's the case, then Judea and Samaria and a big 
chunk of Jordan have permanent kedusha.  And presumably, so do the 
areas that were offered to us in the 1947 Partition Plan, so that's 
the Negev, about half the Galilee, and a bunch of the coastline.

According to the Minchat Chinuch, milchemet mitzvah, an obligatory 
war, which includes wars of self-defense, takes precedence over 
pikuach nefesh.  We talk about there being only three exceptions, but 
really there are five.  Murder, avodah zarah, gilui arayot, chilul 
Hashem, and milchemet mitzvah.  As the Minchat Chinuch points out, we 
don't rely on miracles, so if milchemet mitzvah didn't override 
pikuach nefesh, the entire mitzvah of milchemet mitzvah would be torn 
out of the Torah.  Because people inevitably die in wars.

When non-Jews demand that we surrender land, particularly 
borderlands, that's considered a case of milchemet mitzvah.  I don't 
know what the excuse is nowadays for permitting it.

Lisa 

On 25/05/2011 7:21 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>> Upsherin is a generations-old minhag for many Ashkenazim.
>
> What is your basis for this assertion?

For one thing, it was practised by the Baal Shem Tov's talmidim at least
as long ago as 1748.

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

On May 25, 2011, at 8:45 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> According to the Minchat Chinuch, milchemet mitzvah, an obligatory
> war, which includes wars of self-defense, takes precedence over
> pikuach nefesh.  We talk about there being only three exceptions, but
> really there are five.  Murder, avodah zarah, gilui arayot, chilul
> Hashem, and milchemet mitzvah.  As the Minchat Chinuch points out, we
> don't rely on miracles, so if milchemet mitzvah didn't override
> pikuach nefesh, the entire mitzvah of milchemet mitzvah would be torn
> out of the Torah.	Because people inevitably die in wars.

Not disagreeing with your basic point, but does the M"Ch refer to three
really being five, or is that your comment?  Because the case of milchemet
mitzvah is not exactly parallel: one is you have to let yourself be killed
rather than violate.  The other is one has to put oneself at risk of death
in order to perform.

> When non-Jews demand that we surrender land, particularly borderlands,
> that's considered a case of milchemet mitzvah.  I don't know what the
> excuse is nowadays for permitting it.


Those poskim who permit turning over portions of E"Y only do so in the case
when the consensus of military and political leaders is that it will make
Jews safer.  Since the entire reason that defending against border
harassment is a M"M is the presumption that failing to defend them would
endanger Jews in the long run, if in this case it makes Jews safer, then
there is no M"M.  At least AIUI.

Which is why there are, it seems, fewer poskim who support "land for
peace."  Not a shift in psak, but in metzius (or at least, or information
about it).  Recent history has left fewer poskim who think that there is
any reason to believe "land for peace" can actually work.

--
Daniel M. Israel
dan...@kolberamah.org

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:12:37PM -0600, Daniel Israel wrote:
:> When non-Jews demand that we surrender land, particularly borderlands,
:> that's considered a case of milchemet mitzvah. I don't know what the
:> excuse is nowadays for permitting it.

: Those poskim who permit turning over portions of E"Y only do so in
: the case when the consensus of military and political leaders is that
: it will make Jews safer...

Getting back to the opening question, R Harvey Benton asked:
> there is a difference in kedusha and halachic status between areas of eyisrael
> conquered by yehoshua, later by David ... and those
> promised to Avraham as a yerusha....
> do any of these distinctions make a difference nowadays to possibly giving up
> land for peace...

First, as Lisa noted:
: As I understand it, the territories that were conquered by war have
: kedusha only so long as we're living there.  But the territories that were
: granted to us by the goyim have permanent kedusha...

This is the basis of kibush sheini qidsha leshaata veqidsha le'asid lavo.
Although R' Chaim explains the qedushah of bayis sheini being permanent
not in terms of their being granted to us, but because they became Jewish
through settlement, not war. That which was acquired in war can be lost
in war; but that which became holy by us living there as Jews is eternal.

In any case, the holiness of the land in question doesn't appear to be
a milkemes mitzvah issue. David acquiring Suria was just as much a MM.

I /think/ the primary issue dividing Lisa's post and RDI's reply is
whether defending borders is a MM issue bizman hazeh, or if today a MM is
only if it will make Jews safer. Lisa seems to assume is does, unless her
point is that one can take it for granted that retaining current border
lands saves lives. RDI explicitly limits contemporary MM to safety.
As did RYBS, when he wrote in Qol Dodi Dofeiq that if the generals and
politicians would conclude that giving away the Kotel Plaza would save
more Jewish lives than it would cost, we would be obligated to do so.
IIRC, ROY holds similarly.

One would need to be a specific type of Religious Zionist, the messianic
sort found among followers of R's Kook and Gush Emunim, to take it for
granted that there is a chiyuv to acquire and retain territory as part
of aschalta dege'ulasa. If today is still a full-fledged part of Galud
Edom, I fail to see how a milkhemes mitzvah is possible (aside from
that derived from piquach nefesh) without a king -- and perhaps even
confirmation by both Sanhedrin and urim vetumim is required.

The Rambam is even more limiting. To him (Melakhim 5:1) a MM is only
against the 7 amim, Amaleiq -- specific chiyuvim whose "cheftzah shel
mitzvah" is irretrievaly lost -- or defensive. OTOH, he holds the king
only needs confirmation for milkhemes reshus.

I think the position that retaining territory even when the experts
believe it will cost lives -- even a life -- net-net overall is far more
defensible from the sources.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger             Today is the 37th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507               require one to be strict with another?

On 26/05/2011 6:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote:

> I /think/ the primary issue dividing Lisa's post and RDI's reply is
> whether defending borders is a MM issue bizman hazeh, or if today a MM is
> only if it will make Jews safer.

Indeed, this is the issue, which ultimately boils down to a machlokes
of the Rambam and the Ramban, whether kibbush ha'aretz is one of the
613 mitzvos, and therefore applies at all times, or was a specific
mitzvah once, and will be again, but isn't right now.


> As did RYBS, when he wrote in Qol Dodi Dofeiq that if the generals and
> politicians would conclude that giving away the Kotel Plaza would save
> more Jewish lives than it would cost, we would be obligated to do so.
> IIRC, ROY holds similarly.

So did the LR, with the caveat that only the opinion of active military
experts may be listened to, not politicians, because they must be
speaking from a purely military point of view, without taking into
account any political or diplomatic considerations.  The only question
they may be asked is "will this deal *in itself* make the country easier
or harder to defend"; if they say that in itself it will make it harder
to defend, but if it works it will reduce the chance that the country
will need to be defended, we must stop listening to them, because the
halacha explicitly rules that out as a valid consideration.  And when
the question is put in those terms, the answer from the experts has
always been that any territorial concession, and even any *talk* of
concession, emboldens the enemy and endangers Jews.

IOW the above all paskened like the Rambam, that mitzvas kibbush
ha'aretz does not apply bizman hazeh.



> One would need to be a specific type of Religious Zionist, the messianic
> sort found among followers of R's Kook and Gush Emunim, to take it for
> granted that there is a chiyuv to acquire and retain territory as part
> of aschalta dege'ulasa. If today is still a full-fledged part of Galud
> Edom, I fail to see how a milkhemes mitzvah is possible

Because they hold that the mitzvah doesn't depend on the end of galus
or the beginning of geulah; it's noheg bechol hadoros, and the only
reason we did not try to fulfil it before was that we were unable to.
The moment we are able to raise an army and conquer the land, we must
attempt to do so, without regard to whether we're in galus or geulah.
Only when we have a specific commandment *not* to go, as the Ma`apilim
did, may we refrain.   At least, this is how I understand the RZ shita.



-- 
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 26, 2011 at 09:24:31AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 26/05/2011 6:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> I /think/ the primary issue dividing Lisa's post and RDI's reply is
>> whether defending borders is a MM issue bizman hazeh, or if today a MM is
>> only if it will make Jews safer.

> Indeed, this is the issue, which ultimately boils down to a machlokes
> of the Rambam and the Ramban, whether kibbush ha'aretz is one of the
> 613 mitzvos, and therefore applies at all times, or was a specific
> mitzvah once, and will be again, but isn't right now.

Only partly. One can also hold it is ledoros, but requires a melekh as a
prevondition. There is such a shitah WRT mechiyas Amaleiq, which is one
type of MM.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

http://revach.net/halacha/tshuvos/Rav-Mos
he-Feinstein-Israeli-Flag-In-A-Shul-Can-You-Daven-There/5070


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110526/a6c438b9/attachment-0001.htm>

According to Minhagei Bais Ha Knesses L'Bnei Ashkenaz that is put out 
by Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz, there are two Shabbosim during the year 
that are designated as Shvartz Shabbos - the Shabbos before Shavuous 
and Shabbos Hazon.  It seems that originally Av Harachamim was 
recited only on these two Shabbosim.   On the Shabbos before Shavuous 
the massacres of the Jews in 1096 during the first Crusade are to be 
commemorated.

For the details of what is supposed to take place on Parsha Naso please see

Please see http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/shvartz_shabbos.pdf


Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110526/686de3b3/attachment-0001.htm>

now, assuming  that she  could annul the nedder,  would it still invoke  a 
sakana entailing divine  retribution [eg the new husband  dying, or she , 
etc] --- in which case it would be muttar on halachic ground  but assur 
due to sakana?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110526/43c67a09/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 07:38:57AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: now, assuming  that she  could annul the nedder,  would it still invoke  a 
: sakana entailing divine  retribution ...

??? How could an anulled neder invoke an onesh?
If this were possible, what would hataras nedarim mean?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 26/05/2011 12:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 07:38:57AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
> : now, assuming  that she  could annul the nedder,  would it still invoke  a
> : sakana entailing divine  retribution ...
>
> ??? How could an anulled neder invoke an onesh?

The husband's kepeida.

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

Quoting Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 07:38:57AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
> : now, assuming  that she  could annul the nedder,  would it still invoke  a
> : sakana entailing divine  retribution ...
>
> ??? How could an anulled neder invoke an onesh?
> If this were possible, what would hataras nedarim mean?

I had a very similar response, except slightly more technical.  Mah  
nafshach, are we thinking halachically, or extra-halachically?  To  
create a prohibition on the basis of sakana is a halachic  
consideration, but the halachic obstacle has been removed with hataras  
nedarim.  Thinking extra-halachically (i.e., it is technically  
permissible, but perhaps one shouldn't do it anyway) we can recommend  
not doing it, but how can we import this into halachic categories and  
actually assur it as a sakana?

This fundamental machlokes seems to be the same as a question we  
discussed before, namely how we view trief food that has become  
permitted for some reason (say bitul or pikuach nefesh).  Do we say  
that once the halachic status changes there is no reason not to eat  
it, or do we say that the halacha permits it but it can still have an  
injurious effect on us?

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
dan...@cornell.edu

http://revach.net/halacha/tshuvos/Rav-Mos
he-Feinstein-Israeli-Flag-In-A-Shul-Can-You-Daven-There/5070
 ============================================================


From R' Aviner:

Flag of the State of Israel

Q: Does the flag of the State of Israel possess holiness? Does one have to
kiss the flag if it falls on the floor? Must it be put in the Geniza if it
is worn out?

A: No. It does not contain holiness. But one must obviously treat it with
respect (see Nefesh Ha-Rav, pp. 99-100. Shut Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:46.
We heard from Rav Aharon Rakefet that Ha-Gaon Ha-Rav Moshe Feinstein once
said that he did not regret any of the Teshuvot he wrote, aside from in
this Teshuvah about davening in a shul which has the flag of Israel using
the term "Wicked" when referring to those who made the Israeli flag).
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/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110526/8ba20f61/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 83
**************************************

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..."