Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 199

Wed, 05 Oct 2011

• 1. Brisker Chumeros and Shammuti Chumeros (Micha Berger)
• 2. Saying selichos after Shacharis (Marty Bluke)
• 3. Beis Shammai vs Beis Hillel, general approaches (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Brisker Chumeros and Shammuti Chumeros (Liron Kopinsky)
• 5. Re: Brisker Chumeros and Shammuti Chumeros (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: ribis and being elevated? (status??) (David Riceman)
• 7. Re: Rav Yisroel Salanter - Teshuva On The Same Aveiros, Year, After Year, After Year.... (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: avot (mishna? as binding??) (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 9. malachim & mistakes (Harvey Benton)
• 10. pairs and red (Harvey Benton)
• 11. national flag??? (Harvey Benton)
• 12. day trading (Harvey Benton)
• 13. Re: day trading (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: day trading (Harvey Benton)
• 15. Re: Beis Shammai vs Beis Hillel, general approaches (Lisa Liel)

After Mussaf, our toqeia blew a number of variants of the qolos. This had
me thinking.

First, about how many variants are there, and how many different consistent
ways could they be combined...

Teru'ah:
    - 9 short sounds
    - 3 short sounds, each 1/9 of a teqi'ah (Rashi)
    - a single sound that wavers 9 times (Frankfurt)

Shevarim:
    - 3 middle-length sounds
    - 3 short blasts
    - 5 sounds, each 2 beats long (*)

The idea behind this one: According to Rashi, a teru'ah is 1/3 of a
teqi'ah in total duraction, not 1/9. Therefore, each sound within our
shevarim would be one Rashi teqi'ah. So, RYBS came up with the idea,
and R' Chaim Brisker was masqim, of being yotzei both. We don't need 3
shevarim as much as shevareim that take as long as 9 short sounds. So, 5x2
exceeds 9 beats, with no one sound being a Rashi-teqi'ah of 3 beats long.

Shevarim-Teru'ah:
    - beneshimah achas
    - bishnei neshimos

Teqiah:
    - one flat note (Ramban, Ritva)
    - rising in pitch toward the end

They might not all combine consistently, eg does the reasoning that
connects the pieces of a teru'ah in minhag Frankfurt rule out the
possibility that shevarim-teru'ah bishnei neshimos can be considered
on sound?

Feel free to contribute to the list.


The topic that gave me more pause, though...

RYBS's idea grossly violates minhag avos (mimetic tradition). It's an
invention trying to be yotzei lekhol hadei'os that invents an entirely
new kind of sound. But in my experience, this practice of blowing various
variants after davening for those who wish to stay and listen is common.

In general, this is true of many Brisker chumeros -- the machmir is
being chosheish for shitos that minhag avos rejected.

In contrast, "ha'oseh... mechomerei Beis Shammai umechomerei BH, alav
hakasuv omer, 'hakesil bechoshekh holeikh'". (Chullin 44a, top) Rashi
(ad loc) clearifies that this is when the two shitos are soseros, so
that the chumeros of both leaves one with an inconsistent practice. Which
doesn't usually happen with Brisker chumeros but can -- and is what we're
doing here trying to be yotzei without taking a position on which qolos
are which.

Unlike hanging a mezuzah on a diagonal. There the goal is avoiding
attaching it like a doornail, and by not attaching it vertically nor
horizontally, one is avoiding all definitions of doornail. No problem
of inconsistency.

Here by shofar there is also another factor... The whole reason for
teru'ah vs shevarim vs shevarim-teru'ah was originally to be yotzei all
the shitos. Thus making my question about "hakesil bechoshekh holeikh"
not just on modern chumeros, but it is now a question about why the
gemara thought it was proper to say do all the sounds, even though each
shitah makes the other two superfluous, and unless your mesorah was
shevarim-teru'ah, a hefseq after the berakhah (over laasiyasan)?

But now that Chazal did make a single consistent practice by including
all three, how can we invent new ways to blow and lost that consistency?

In general, the whole thing makes me feel like we're expressing a lack of
confidence in halachic process; and thus that chumeros of this "maybe the
other shitah is correct" sort of carry with them a huge qulah WRT emunah.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I have been davening vasikin for the past year, but with the clock change in
Israel, selichos start around 4:50 at the vasikin minyan which is simply too
early for me.

I was thinking of doing the following, sleeping a little later and getting
up to daven vasikin (starting around 5:30), and then after shacharis at
vasikin go to a later minyan which is just starting to say selichos around
6:15 and just say selichos.

Does anyone see any halachic issues with this?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111005/d7cce1b7/attachment-0001.htm>

A few sugyos that came up in quick succession in the Y-mi made me think
of what might be yet another approach to finding a leshitasam to unify
all -- or at least the vast majority -- of machloqesin between batei
Hillel veShammai.

The best known and best established such approach is al pi Qabbalah, that
BH is based on midas haRachamim, whereas the Shamutim founded their pesaq
on midas haDin. This is what led BH to usually being the more meiqil,
to being the larger and less exclusive school (beis Shammai was gadol
bekhochmah), and as the Maharal notes on Avos 1, fits their roles. The
talmidim were guilty of shelo shimshu es rabosam, and sure enough their
derakhim follow the *jobs* of their rabbeim -- the students of the nasi,
the organizer of the community's social works, saw only their rebbe's
rachamim, and the students of Shammai saw only his persona as av beis din.

A second and pretty successful approach is that of R' Zevin in LeTorah
uLeMo'adim, opn ner Chanukah. He says that BH pasqens based on what /is/,
whereas Beis Shammai pasqens based on potential. The oil burning on the
first day was the smallest miracle, but the oil contained the most potential
-- seven more days. Therefore, BH lights only one candle, and increases
as the neis becomes further from teva. However, Beis Shammah lights 8,
and decreases as each day holds less potential.

I write about both in <http:/
/www.aishdas.org/asp/2010/04/reality-vs-potential.shtml> and then
talk about how the latter relates to Qiddush:

        Mishnah: These are the things which separate Beis Shammai and
        Beis Hillel with [respect to the laws of] a meal.
        Beis Shammai say: [In Qiddush] bless the day [i.e. make the
        berakhah referring to the qedushah of Shabbos], and then bless
        on the wine.
        And Beis Hillel say: Bless on the wine, and then bless the day.

        Talmud: What is Beis Shammai's reason?
        The sanctity of the day causes that the wine be brought, and
        one is already obligated to sanctify the day even when the wine
        hadn't yet arrived.
        What is Beis Hillel's reason?
        The wine causes that the sanctity of the day be declared.
        Another thought: The wine is [relatively more] frequent...
                    - Yerushalmi Shabbos 8:1, 56b

    ...
    Taking thes to our opening dispute, with Beis Hillel as explained
    by the first opinion in the gemara...

    Beis Shammai say the order of blessings in the night-time Qiddush is
    the order in which the obligations arrived. First it became Shabbos,
    then you sat at the table with the cup of wine. Therefore, Qiddush
    should start with the sanctification of Shabbos and end with the
    blessing on the wine.

    Beis Hillel instead focus on the order in which we are able to
    fulfill each obligation.

    So Rav Zevin's explanation works. Beis Shammai follows the order in
    which one gains the potential to do the mitzvah. Beis Hillel follows
    the order in which one can actualize that potential.

    Also, the Sephirotic interpretation: Beis Shammai look to the
    obligation, the chiyuv -- which also means "debt", even though the
    person has no ability to fulfill it. So, blessing Shabbos comes
    first. Beis Hillel take a more generous approach, and don't consider
    such a chiyuv to be fully real. Therefore, the sequence is when one
    can act upon it.

This same machloqes returns in Pesachim 10:2 on the seder, with a similar
discussion in the Y-mi (vilna 69b) about goreim.

Then shortly after, we have Beitzah 1:1 (1a):
    Mishnah: An egg that was laid on Yom Tov
    Beis Shammai say it may be eaten.
    And Beis Hillel say is may not be eaten.

    Talmud: What is Beis Shammai's reason? 
    It is prepared [for Yom Tov, and thus not muqtzah] on the back of
    its mother [having been set aside for Yom Tov].
    What is Beis Hillel's reason?
    It is like a set-aside [area for drying fruit whose contents] dried
    [and are thus ready, eg raisins, prunes, dried figs] and he did not
    know about it [-- he didn't know about the mother harboring an egg
    either].

Here, the Rachamim vs Din analysis is harder to work out. BH are the
machmirim, so they aren't choosing simchas Yom Tov over issur.

The real vs potential model does work. Beis Shammai consider the egg as
a potential within the mother a real concern, and thereby the mother's
hakhanah extends to the egg. BH only deals with the egg itself, and thus
whether we can consider the egg mukhenes even though the owner didn't
know there was a basically ready egg inside the chicken on erev YT.



It occured to me also that we may be able to formulate a variant on R'
Zevin's theme, using R' Shimon Shkop's derekh halimmud.

One of the Design Patterns RSS uses that his rebbe R' Chaim Brisker did
not is "hitztarfus". RCB's derekh is reductionist. We make chiluqim to
pare the topic down to the one essential issue which is causing the din
in one particular case/shitah. RSS also has an element of holism with
his concept of "hitztarfus". Rather than always looking for one cause,
sometimes it's how the causes combine to make "the perfect storm" that
causes a given outcome.

R' Zevin explains Beis Shammai as looking at potential. In RSS's
terminology, this means that he is looking at the first element in the
hitztarfus even before the other elements combine with it. This is the
time in which the oil has the potential to burn, the chicken has the
potential to lay the egg, and there is a Shabbos to be meqadeish -- most
of the causes are there -- but the cause that realizes the potential is
not yet.

Similarly, BH looking at the real means that they focus on the final
cause, the one that combines with all the factors there already, and
makes the potential real. We thus order qiddush and hagafen not by the
times of their respective first causes, but the times of their potential
final causes.

Y-mi Chagiga 2:1 has a machloqes:
    Beis Shamai say that shamayim was created first, and then the aretz.
    Beis Hillel say the aretz was created first, then the shamayim.

Notice that in this formulation, both are saying that shamayim is the
more important concern. The machloqes ends up being whether that means
shamayim should have come first, or last. Sof maaseh, or bemachashavah
techilah.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

This year, I heard something new:
The shevarim's before the amida: all 3 blasts were one pitch.
The shevarim's during the amida: all 3 blasts went up in pitch at the end.
The shevarim's after the amida: all 3 blasts went up and then back down in
pitch.

This was done on both days and a different person blew each day, so I assume
it is minhag hamakom here.

Kol Tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111005/d669d106/attachment-0001.htm>

On 5/10/2011 11:35 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Here by shofar there is also another factor... The whole reason for
> teru'ah vs shevarim vs shevarim-teru'ah was originally to be yotzei all
> the shitos. Thus making my question about "hakesil bechoshekh holeikh"
> not just on modern chumeros, but it is now a question about why the
> gemara thought it was proper to say do all the sounds, even though each
> shitah makes the other two superfluous, and unless your mesorah was
> shevarim-teru'ah, a hefseq after the berakhah (over laasiyasan)?

AIUI, the takana of doing all three versions is not out of concern
that only one of them is right, but just the opposite, to show that
they're *all* right, and that those who do any one of them are yotze.
(I don't remember the source for this; something in the back of my mind
seems to be faintly whispering "Rav Hai Gaon".)

-- 
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

                    
                

RHB:

<<when the gemarra states that a few people are eleveated in status, 
(eg, king, etc) their sins are forgiven, what does this mean (eg what 
does it apply to?) dinei mamonis (if he charged a fellow jew ribis is he 
patur?) dinei shamayim? etc,>>

I think it refers to habit.  Sometimes people become so habituated to 
certain sins that they don't even notice doing them (Ibn Ezra's example 
is that, in his time, people swore oaths so frequently and so 
thoughtlessly that they would utter phrases like "I swear I've never 
sworn an oath in my life").  A change in status usually induces a change 
in lifestyle, and that gives a person the opportunity to rearrange his 
life to avoid these habitual sins.

David Riceman

RPL:

<<The Rambam says that real teshuva means that Hashem, who knows the 
secrets of your heart, must testify that you will never return to the 
aveira again.>>

This is a bad translation.  "me'id alav" means "designate Him as a witness".

David Riceman

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> ... pirqei avos are avos in the sense of avos malakhah. (The
> Bartenura's translation, not mine.) IOW, they aren't rules of
> behavior, they are values and rules of what you should be which
> interact with the situations you face to produce those rules of
> behavior codified in the other mesechtos -- as well as telling
> you which way you're pulled when acting lifnim mishuras hadin.
>
> So, aspiring for its goals is obligatory, but the specific
> behaviors used to exemplify those goals may not be obligatory
> in every situation and context.

Your conclusion (that "the specific behaviors ... may not be obligatory") might be correct, but I don't see how you get there from your starting point.

On the contrary, to my ears, the comparison being made by the Bartenura is
that Pirkei Avos lists broad categories, and that similar things (that
Toldos of these Avos) are equally important. In other words, wherever these
particular actions stand on the obligation-to-option spectrum, there are
many more similar actions which we also must/should/ought follow.

But the comparison to Avos Melacha does not specify where Pirkei Avos falls
on that spectrum. Alternatively, one could easily argue that the actions
prescribed/proscribed by Pirkei Avos are equally as binding as Hilchos
Shabbos is. I don't see where you see this Bartenura teaching that "they
aren't rules of behavior".

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
57-Year-Old Mom Looks 25
Mom Reveals Free Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e8c9d2378805a63e9dst02vuc

malachim making mistakes???

people think that maybe their marriages don't work out because the malach"
who either named them, or set up their zivug (didn't hear correctly)

how is this possible?

hb

1. why did peretz stick his hand out? (and more importantly, why did
the midwives put a red string around his hand??)

legabei inheritance (or some other?? obligation or mitzva, would it matter??)

2. why red string by yericho (yehoshua)/

why red string by azalzel??

why red by marking bechorim for maaser???

hb
mecz

Question was there a national flag for ancient bnei yisrael? if so,
what did it consist of, if so, is the current israeli flag, neged hatorah
[chukas hagoyim??]

hb

is day tradin ok in halacha?

hb

On 5/10/2011 3:57 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> is day tradin ok in halacha?

Huh?  What's the hava amina that it shoudln't be?

-- 
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

                    
                

much of day trading is based on speculation (not on actual
fundamentals of companies,? which, if interpreted as i under
stand it, would ffall under the category possibly of? njot binyan
olam

?
hb


________________________________
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
To: Harvey Benton <harvw...@yahoo.com>; A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Avodah] day trading

On 5/10/2011 3:57 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> is day tradin ok in halacha?

Huh?? What's the hava amina that it shoudln't be?

-- 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111005/02a95a19/attachment-0001.htm>

On 10/5/2011 1:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> The best known and best established such approach is al pi Qabbalah, that
> BH is based on midas haRachamim, whereas the Shamutim founded their pesaq
> on midas haDin.
What kabbalah is this?  Do you have a source for it?
> A second and pretty successful approach is that of R' Zevin in LeTorah
> uLeMo'adim, opn ner Chanukah. He says that BH pasqens based on what /is/,
> whereas Beis Shammai pasqens based on potential.
According to R' Nachman Cohen in /Mirrors of Eternity/ and /Esther's 
Plea/, the basic distinction between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai is a 
"mystical" vs. "practical".  Similar in a way to the potential vs. 
actual dichotomy, descriptions in Midrash of Adam HaRishon as a giant 
striding the world are attributed to talmidim of Beit Shammai, while 
descriptions of Adam as a human being are Beit Hillel.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0006RT1DO/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1877650013

In those two books, he goes through the midrashic machlokot of R' Yehuda 
and R' Nechemia, and between R' Yehoshua and R' Eliezer HaModa'i.

What I found fascinating about that explanation is that this is similar, 
in a way, to the divide between Hasidim and Mitnagdim.  At least as 
they've developed.  With Hasidim taking what's basically a more Beit 
Shammai position.  Which in turn made me think of the statement that in 
the future, the halakha would be like Beit Shammai.  And in many ways, 
this has started to come true, in large if not in every particular.

Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20111005/1e84d2fe/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 199
***************************************

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..."