Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 155

Thu, 11 Aug 2011

• 1. Re: God who knows the future (David Riceman)
• 2. Re: what = a brit? (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 3. Re: Do Women Need To Hear Eicha? (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: what = a brit? (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: what = a brit? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. Characterizing our era (was: Re: shabbas//mishum eiva, etc???) (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 7. eiva (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: cruelty to animals...... (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Do Women Need To Hear Eicha (Beth & David Cohen)
• 10. Re: Do Women Need To Hear Eicha? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: eiva (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Characterizing our era (was: Re: shabbas//mishum eiva, etc???) (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 13. Re: Ladies not making Havdallah (Aryeh Herzig)
• 14. ayn mazal ?? (Harvey Benton)
• 15. why davka? amalek?? (Harvey Benton)
• 16. Re: Cruetly to animals and shabbat (ada.jacobowitz@pcmail.maricopa.edu)
• 17. Re: napoleon ma'aseh: legend? (Micha Berger)

RAM:
> Logically, you are totally correct -- regardless of whether I actually 
> read tomorrow's newspaper, I can still choose whatever I want. But this 
> isn't a logical point -- it is an emotional one. The newspaper is 
> sitting there, and in that newspaper is reliable documentation of things 
> that I have not yet done. It isn't logical, but I am struck with terror 
> by the situation. Sure, I may FEEL like I still have free choice, but do 
> I really? I can choose to turn left, or to turn right, and I can change 
> my mind a thousand times, but ultimately, I WILL do what it says in the 
> paper. Is that free choice, or is it merely an *illusion* of free choice?

See Mishna Berachos 9:3 "If someone petitions about a past event (tzo'ek
l'she'avar) it is a false prayer. For example (keitzad), if his wife
was pregnant and he prays that the child is a boy, that is a false
prayer." Bartenura: "It is a false prayer because what happened happened
(mai d'haveh haveh)".

If what you say is correct it should be equally wrong to pray for a
boy before his wife got pregnant; after all, it was predetermined.
What distinction is the mishna making?

David Riceman

rZS, using versailles as an example of  forced treaty would  advance  the 
point that nothing good can come from unilateral consent....


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110810/854fa06d/attachment-0001.htm>

RZS writes:

> Af hein hayu be'otah pur`anut.  If there were a "chiyuv" on men then it
> should logically apply to women too.

This assumes that (a) the af hein b'oto hanes is a principle of logic that
we can apply to circumstances other than those listed in the gemara and (b)
that there exists a flipside principle of af hein hayu be'otah puranut.  

I had always assumed, however, that af hein b'oto hanes was a reason why the
rabbis enacted eg megilla specifically for women, not something that we
could assume applied where there was no specific mention of a specific
enactment.

Any source material out there that would give support to one position over
another?

I am trying to think of an example but struggling here.  The best I can come
up with is, if you hold that Hallel is obligatory on Yom Hatzmaut (which of
course makes the argument rather artificial, as most of the people debating
this probably don't) does that apply to women too *even when they don't
generally daven more than the brochos al pi the Magen Avraham* on the
grounds that af hein b'oto hanes? 

Actually maybe Hallel in general is a better example.  Women are generally
understood to be patur from Hallel on the grounds that it is a mitzvah aseh
shehazman grama (see eg the Shagas Arieh (shut 69)).  But why don't we say -
well actually, women should be chayav in Hallel on Pesach and Channukah (af
hein b'oto hanes) but exempt on Sukkos, Shevuos (maybe?) and Rosh Chodesh?
Doesn't that indicate that af hein b'oto hanes is not applied except where
the chachamim specifically said it was, and therefore (and even more so) af
hein hayu b'otah puranut does not exist as a principle unless specifically
enacted by the chachamim?

>  But I agree with you that there is no chiyuv on men either.
> 
> --
> Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment

Regards

Chana

On 10/08/2011 12:11 PM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
>
> rZS, using versailles as an example of forced treaty would advance the point that nothing good can come from unilateral consent....

Who said anything about good or bad?  The question was on the nature of
treaties.  They require the consent of two sides, but they do not require
that both sides consent of their own free will.


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

R' Harvey Benton asked:

> what is a brit?
> if it is 2-sided (eg we do our part, then Hashem will do his
> part) then how can a "brit" be forced upon us??

There are two totally distinct questions here:

1) Is there a "quid pro quo", "tit for tat", an agreement that if we do our part, then HaShem will do his, but if not then the contract has been abrogated?

2) How can this brit be forced upon us? We never agreed to it. Our ancestors, many generations back are the ones who agreed, and we should be exempt.

I'll answer the second one first, as it is much simpler: While one can say
that that we never consented, that's not the only way to become obligated.
One can be born into it. The same way that we are obligated to do whatever
it is that our government demands of its citizens, so too are we obligated
to do whatever it is that our God demands of His chosen. I can see where
others might not be satisfied with that logic, but it is sufficient for me.

The first question is more complicated, and bothered me for many years. It
turns out that I was confusing "covenant" with "contract", and they are
actually two very different things. I finally understood what a "covenant"
is when I read about it in the new Koren Siddur, by Chief Rabbi Sacks of
Britain, on page xlvi:

"Many of the key terms descriptive of G-d are not precisely translatable
because they presuppose the concept of covenant: an open-ended pledge
between two or more parties to join their destinies together in a
reciprocal bond of loyalty and love. The nearest human equivalents are, (1)
the bond of marriage, (2) peace treaties between nations. The unique idea
of the Torah is that such a covenant can exist between G-d and humanity."

To me the key phrase here is "open-ended". A brit is *not* a contract,
where the each party's obligation is dependent on the other party's
fulfillment. Rather, a brit means: We're in this together, regardless of
what the future brings. 

This is how I understand what we say on Yom Kippur: "Anu Maamirecha, v'Atah Maamirenu" (cf. Devarim 26:17-18).

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e42c0513c578531a13st03vuc

Resonding to RMicha Berger's comment
 
>I didn't even know there /was/ a post-acharonic, although I have argued
that history would someday draw a line at the Shoah,<

RMoshe Y. Gluck wrote

>I like drawing the line at R' Chaim Volozhiner, and calling everything
afterward the era of the Roshei Yeshivos.<

     In pre-WWII Europe, the g'dolei Torah, with few exceptions, were the
     rabbonim, not the roshei yeshiva.	R. Chaim Soloveitchik was not a
     rosh yeshiva; he was Brisker Rov, as were his father and son.  R.
     Chaim Ozer did not have a yeshiva; he was Vilner Rov.  R. Moshe
     Feinstein was a rov in a shtetl. Even in the "new world," R. Yaakov
     Kamenetzky, e.g., became what he was a a rov, and only later in life
     became a rosh yeshiva.  Many had talmidim, but that was one of the
     functions of a rov, if he chose to assume it.  Where there was a
     yeshiva, its head either was, or was subservient to, the rav ha'ir.

     It was only after the churban of European Jewry, when the center of
     the Torah world shifted to the US and Israel, that the situation
     changed.  Rabbonus was unlike the European model: many of the demands
     made on a modern-day rabbi are not conducive to Torah growth. 
     Furthermore, by their attitude towards rabbonim and rabbonus, the
     roshei yeshiva willy-nilly discouraged major talmidei chachomim -- who
     might have elevated the status of the rabbinate -- from undertaking
     rabbonus. 

    In sum, RMYG is right: we are now in the era of the roshei yeshiva. 
    But RMB, too, is correct: the dividing  line at which this new era was
    ushered in is the shoa.

EMT

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4e42d09d5c271535569st06vuc

<<I'm not trying to reason from anything (yet), I'm simply trying to find
out what you see as the parameters of the post-1800 heter. Is it only
applicable to life-or-death situations?>>

To the best of my knowledge ALL Israeli hospitals including the
religious ones treat nonJewish
patients on shabbat. Hence, obviously eivah means that not treating
such patients would be
a PR disaster with its implications and certainly not life-or-death in
any direct sense.


-- 
Eli Turkel

RHB wrote:
> >> telling a calf/kid a kind word), then why are we allowed to leave a
fallen animal
> >> in a bor, all shabbas to suffer (eg, broken bones, etc)
>
RZS replied:

> > What choice do we have?  What heter is there to move it?

And RMB responded:

> We allow violation of a shevus for tza'ar ba'alei chaim, e.g. milking
> cows in a way that the milk can't be used.

Or more directly on point, the previous halacha in the Shulchan Aruch,
namely Orech Chaim siman 305 si'if 19:

An animal that fell into a pool of water if the water is deep and because of
this it is not possible to sustain it in its place one can bring pillows and
coverings and put them beneath it because of tzar ba'alei chaim even though
this involves [the rabbinic prohibition of] being mevatel kli mechono

> If here the problem is karmelis, which is also derabbanan, one might
> make a similar argument.
> 
> >> are there chilul hashem issues also involved, eg, if goyim walk by
> >> and see us running home to chulent, while a donkey or horse brays in
pain??

But that shouldn't happen either.

After all, as both the Magen Avraham and the Shach make clear it is also
mutar to tell the non Jew to bring up the animal.  So while you cannot do an
issur d'orisa in relation to the animal, and you cannot bring it up with
your own hands*, you can (and it would seem you should) hang around and make
sure it is sustained in the hole in which it now finds itself until after
shabbas, and/or provide cushions to assist it and/or try and arrange for a
non Jew to bring it up.  That doesn't sound like running home to chulent to
me. 
 
* When I say you cannot bring it up with your own hands, implying this is
even if the cushions fail to work and the animal will die, this is according
to the Magen Avraham, but according to the ER brought by the Mishna Brura in
siman 305 si'if katan 70, while you should try the cushion first, if that
does not work you can bring the animal up with your own hands.

For a further discussion on this point see my post at:

http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol26/v26n101.shtml#17 - in the second half.

Regards

Chana
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 3582 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110810/69e6802f/attachment-0001.bin>

Rn Chana Luntz wrote:

"Firstly, as far as I was aware, recitation of Eicha is a minhag, not a
rabbinical enactment (unlike Megilla).  We don't make a bracha on its
recitation, for example."

It is our communities minhag to amke a barcha if any of themegillot,
including Eichah are read from a klaff. Of course, on Tisha B'av, unlike the
the reading of the other megillot, shehecheyanu is not said.

David I. Cohen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110810/fbfe161d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:24:25AM +0100, Rt Chana Sassoon (nee Luntz) wrote:
: Firstly, as far as I was aware, recitation of Eicha is a minhag, not a
: rabbinical enactment (unlike Megilla).  We don't make a bracha on its
: recitation, for example....

Although this doesn't explain why there is no berakhah in Ashkenazi
minyanim (when there is no kelaf). Ashkenazim do make berakhos on
minhagim, or perhaps as the Brisker Rav suggests, on those minhagim
that imitate dinim that get berakhos. IOW, I understand why there was no
berakhah in the Sassons' minyan, but not why there wasn't in mine. The
rabbi was reading Eikhah from pretty much where he stood last Chanukah
and lit the menorah with a berakhah.

Tir'u baTov!
-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

On 10/08/2011 12:52 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> <<I'm not trying to reason from anything (yet), I'm simply trying to find
> out what you see as the parameters of the post-1800 heter. Is it only
> applicable to life-or-death situations?>>
>
> To the best of my knowledge ALL Israeli hospitals including the
> religious ones treat nonJewish
> patients on shabbat. Hence, obviously eivah means that not treating
> such patients would be
> a PR disaster with its implications and certainly not life-or-death in
> any direct sense.

Huh?  I would have thought in EY of all places the danger is obvious and
direct.  We saw what the Arabs did when their leaders made up a story of
poor little Mohammed al-Durah; imagine what they would do if it became
known that the Jews didn't save some kid's life because it was Shabbos!
In every blood libel the majority knew that the story wasn't true; imagine
if the majority knew that this time the story circulating *was* true!


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

RMoshe Y. Gluck wrote
>I like drawing the line at R' Chaim Volozhiner, and calling everything
afterward the era of the Roshei Yeshivos.<

R' EMT:
     In pre-WWII Europe, the g'dolei Torah, with few exceptions, were the
rabbonim, not the roshei yeshiva.  R. Chaim Soloveitchik was not a rosh
yeshiva; he was Brisker Rov, as were his father and son.  R. Chaim Ozer did
not have a yeshiva; he was Vilner Rov.  R. Moshe Feinstein was a rov in a
shtetl. Even in the "new world," R. Yaakov Kamenetzky, e.g., became what he
was a a rov, and only later in life became a rosh yeshiva.  Many had
talmidim, but that was one of the functions of a rov, if he chose to assume
it.  Where there was a yeshiva, its head either was, or was subservient to,
the rav ha'ir.
<SNIP>
----------------


them (the previous generations, too) now rather than how they interacted
with their own generation. 

And, BTW, a major flaw in my argument is the influence of the Chassidic
Rebbes.

KT,
MYG

I have a theory.

Yerushalmi Berachot says we say Havdallah in Chonen Hadaat because : Im Ein
Daath Havdallah Minayin".  Since Nashim Daatan Kaloth they can not make
havdallah. ( Maariv is reshus so ladies don't daven Maariv anyway so it is
only relevant on Havdallah al HaKos.)

Does this theory make sense?

Aryeh Herzig


Toby Katz wrote :

"And in general there seems to be a widespread custom for women to avoid
making havdalah -- where there is no such hakpada against women making
kiddush
 for themselves.  My mother amu'sh for example, and numerous other  women I
know who live alone, will go to a neighbor for havdalah or have one of  her
grandsons come in and make havdalah for her, but won't make havdalah for
herself -- although she has no hesitation about making kiddush for  herself.
My Lub next door neighbor comes to my house for havdalah when her  husband
is out of town, and again, she has no problem making kiddush for  herself.
It's something I've seen all my life but I don't know the  reason."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110810/0ff9f452/attachment-0001.htm>

heard today from someone (he couldn't recall the source)
that the reason we say "mishane makom, etc) even though
there is a concept of "ayn mazal b'yisrael, is that as a whole, 

the whole jewish nation is "above" mazal, while we, as in-
dividuals, are still subject to mazalot (and their influences).......
and therefore, mishane makom, mishane mazal, etc, 

is still applicable and true (and people also change their
names, etc,) 

is this true??
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110810/e049707d/attachment-0001.htm>

why does Hashem say regarding the battle with amalek, that His throne will
not be complete, until "amalek" is destroyed?
2 questions: what does amalek represent (so reprehensibly) that Hashem's
throne won't be complete??
weren't/aren't there more depraved, evil, etc, people(s) on the earth that have
existed, that "quote/unqote" been in existence, stood against Hashem's glory 

and his teachings??? 

Why davka Amalek??
2. do we hold that the battle of amalek is both a physical one (as well as a 

spiritual one?? or is one (you choose the one) sufficient a battle to engage in??
2a. some hold that amalek = doubt, or sowing the seeds of doubt (eg in a 

rational or philosophical way), but wouldn't that be more in the realm of "greek"
philosopy?? where nothing, to a degree of 100% certainty (eg, our reality, 

torah's validity given that we weren't there, other philosophical constructs including
the validity of math, reason, logic, euclidean geometry (basic building blocks 

of western societies' thinking, etc) can ever be proven..............
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110810/03c59fd5/attachment-0001.htm>

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach praised my sister for having a 'good heart'
for she came and asked what poultices etc. she could make to relieve a
wounded dog she found suffering on shabbat.

He told her what she could do because of Tzaar baalay Hayim.

It is easy for us to be mahmir at the expense of someone or an animals
pain but a talmud hohom is machmir on tzaar baalay Hayim.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 08:13:54AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote to
Areivim:
: http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2011/08/on-napoleo
: n-tisha-bav-legend-tracing-it.html 
: 
: i don't know if this is better on avodah...

This reply does, so I'm moving it here.

: if the napoleon story [like the Golem] is made up, does it matter after
: after it has been incorporated in countless drashos over the years?

Li nir'eh that for the purpose of talmud Torah, the fact that this is
what Jews over the generations were willing and capable of believing,
and considered important enough to incorporate into divrei Torah is more
relevent than history.

This fits both with what I said in the past about chazal's attitude toward
aggadic stories (that caring about historicity is itself a non-mesoretic
attitude), and with what I've written about halachic process being more
about how an opinion is developed down the generations than what the
baal mesorah originally intended. So, at least I am consistent.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 155
***************************************

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..."