Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 244

Wed, 07 Dec 2011

• 1. Re: reality (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Rav Moshe Shternbuch: On Teaching Children Tanach (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: A woman as a sheliha to mekadesh a bride? (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Rav Moshe Shternbuch: On Teaching Children Tanach (T613K@aol.com)
• 5. Re: Brussel Sprouts (Isaac Balbin)
• 6. Re: Brussel Sprouts (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: A woman as a sheliha to mekadesh a bride? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 8. a woman shaliach (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Halachim ramifications of vision strength (Saul Mashbaum)
• 10. Re: Vegetable Peeler (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 11. Giving Tzedaka At Night (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: Giving Tzedaka At Night (Micha Berger)
• 13. Katzav goes to prison (Eli Turkel)
• 14. Re: Katzav goes to prison (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: halachic guidelines for kashrus (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 16. Re: a woman shaliach (Micha Berger)

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 04:03:32PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
>> Which the Maharal meant, IMHO, depends on is how events in higher  
>> olamos are connected to ones in ours.

> While there are hints of "higher olamos" much earlier than the Ari (cf.  
> Iyov 1:6-12), I don't think the concept was of much importance to the  
> Maharal (he was born before and died after the Ari, but I don't know of  
> any evidence that he read R. Hayyim Vital's works)...

The language proved a distraction, although REED (kedarko beqodesh)
does fuse Maharal with talk of olamos. (As I mentioned a couple of weeks
ago <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n204.shtml#12>. MmE I pp
304-312. Although admitedly REED's tendency to eliminate machloqesin in
aggadita is a bit extreme...

The Maharal does speak of three olamos: hatachtonim, mah shehu bein
ha'elyonim vetachtonim, veha'elyonim legamrei (Netzach Yisrael ch. 40,
cf Tif'eres Yisrael ch. 50). There is thus a basis for REED's notion
about olamos and where a person's perception is suspended in the source
he explains using this idea.

But in any case, here is where my head is...

Kayadua, at least among long-time members, possibly the first point of
departure (in logical, not historical, sequence) between Chassidim and
Misnagdim was the nature of tzimtzum. Chassidus asserted an illusory
tzimtzum, and thus emphasized Hashem's Immanence, which fits their
focus on acheiving deveiqus.

Another consequence of an illusory tzimtzum is that the connection
between forces in higher olamos and those in lower, all the way down to
physical ones, is innate. The Or Ein Sof of physics is fully connected
to the higher planes of metaphysics.

In contrast, R' Chaim Volozhiner asserts that there is only one thing
that spans multiple olamos, that is the union of all the kochos --
the human soul. See NhC 1:6
<http://he.w
ikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A0%D7%A4%D7%A9_%D7%94%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%A9
%D7%A2%D7%A8_%D7%90_%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A7_%D7%95>
(a/k/a <http://bit.ly/vfHFpS>). To RCV, the way physical actions,
eg mitzvos, influence higher worlds is via their effect on the soul.
I believe this is do to the belief that the Or Ein Sof was literally
metzumtzemes, leaving people as the sole connection.

In Chassidish thought, therefore, physics can influence metaphysics
directly. A person who eats treif unknowingly could still suffer timtum
haleiv. A mezuzah that is pasul doesn't have the same power to protect.
Etc...

The way I see it in NhC, physics influences souls which then interact
with metaphysics. This could then be subdivided: The mystical approach
would still allow a mezuzah that is unbeknownst to anyone pasul to have
a different interaction with the soul and thus provide less protection.

But (eg) Mussar takes a more rational approach in the relationship between
the world and the soul, the whole reason why Mussar sees sheilumus in such
psychological terms. I would think the more rationalist understanding
of the Litvisher position would require physics to have psychological
impact in order to have metaphysical impact. So if you don't know one
of the letters pealed off, that changes the metaphysics. And if you
can't know, or can't be held accountable for your ignorance, so that
the physics makes no personal demands that one might be ignoring, then
it should really make no difference one way or the other, metaphysically.

IOW, Chassidim would say that the physical world is logically prior to
the world as percieved, whereas in this latter approach, all of physics
is a consequence of Hashem creating souls that should percieve the world
in particular ways.

All of which was phrased in terms of the relationship between physics and
metaphysics, without noting for the latter 4 paragraphs that Chassidim,
mystical Misnagdim, and more rationalist Misnagdim all divide various
forces among higher and lower olamos.

> I explained the Maharal's view of what Hazal were talking about when  
> they discussed science in an earlier post.  Neither "real world" nor  
> "reality as we are able to experience it directly" are accurate  
> descriptions.

Now, with the notions I was trying to compare the Maharal to spelled
out, I wish to repeat that he could fit either worldview:

He parallels metaphysical forces with what?

A- With the physics of the reality, because the metaphysics causes the
physics? (What I called the "Chassidic approach".)

B- With the physics of the reality, because the physics touches the
souls that live in it? (What I called the "mystical Misnagdic approach".)

C- With the way a soul experiences the reality?

I do not think the Maharal's shitah necessarily excludes any of the
above. If one says "as above so below" (lehavdil), one has to define the
"below". One could say it's the topic science studies, one could say
it's more Existential.

> Consider the example (the source is in a previous post) of Hazal's list  
> of sins which induce solar eclipses.  The Maharal explains that Hazal  
> knew perfectly well that solar eclipses can be predicted, and are  
> explained by astronomical phenomena.  What they meant was that God  
> designed human nature and the stellar bodies in parallel: the ability to  
> have solar eclipses and the ability to commit those certain sins are  
> parallel capacities.  I can't imagine how to fit that example into  
> either of your descriptions.

A/B- The orbits of the earth and moon are caused by physical forces
that are due to the same metaphysical forces that cause cycles of human
behavior. Therefore, the eclipse will coincide with a spiritual nadir
(of a particular sort).

C- People go through an eclipse because of the same metaphysical
forces that cause behavioral changes. Therefore they coincide, and
that forces the orbits to be such that the appopriate reality is
experienced.

In the case of observed reality, both sides coincide.

> Incidentally, the Maharal cites the pasuk "v'chofrah halevanah ubosha  
> hahama" (Is. 24:23) to demonstrate that the same capacity can parallel  
> something entirely different in eschatalogical time.

Much like REED's take on the Ramban's shitah about time during maaseh
bereishis -- that the 7 days of creation and the 7 millenia of history
don't just correspond, but are actually identical??

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 04:53:18PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
> I've heard yeshiva guys say "Chumash is for girls" and "Nach is bittul  
> Torah".  The latter probably stems from the early secular Zionists using  
> Nach as secular history.  Lionizing Ahab, for example.  I'm pretty sure  
> that's the kind of kefirah they're worried about.

Or Nimrod.

It seems so. The problem I have with this is that one would be presumably
taught Nakh by similar rabbeim to those who are teaching gemara. IOW,
while Nakh /could/ be taught al pi peshuto as a bunch of stories, why
presume that rabbeim immersed in chazal and rishonim couldn't relay Nakh
through their eyes?

If anything WRT chumash we err in the other direction, leaving kids who
can't remember what was chumash and what was medrashic!

Besides, the problem you describe only pertains to about half the books;
neviim acharonium, sifrei EMe"S, Qoheles, etc... don't lend themselves
to that treatment.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke

On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 09:27:07AM +0200, Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:
: Has anyone seen a discussion on whether a man can appoint a woman as
: a shaliah to mekadesh a bride on his behalf?

I didn't. But, thinking out loud, to start one... Wouldn't it depend
on the machloqes about whether men have a mitzvah of qiddushin, and if
so, whether women do as well? If qiddushin is a hekhsher mitzvah, then
a man needn't find a fellow mechuyav as his shaliach. If it is (eg Ramban),
but women aren't mechuyavos, then he couldn't appoint her.

Second is a mar'is ayin problem... Rumor might go around that they saw him
marrying the shelichah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 

From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
From  http://revach.net/article.php?id=437

The minhag in today's Yeshivos is  not to teach Tanach before learning 
Gemara. Rav Moshe Shternbuch (2:457)  explains that learning Tanach 
requires even deeper understanding than  learning Gemara. A Mekor for 
this is Rashi in Brachos (28a) who says that  one should stay away 
from too much Tanach.

The danger he says is that  people do not realize this. ...
This is not to say that Tanach is blacklisted, says Rav Shternbuch.  
One who has learned a great deal of gemara and poskim and has 
acquired a  great deal of Yiras Hashem is required to learn all of 
Tanach and must know  it thoroughly.(See also 
<http://revach.net/article.php?id=4351>Rav  Vosner's Tshuva on this subject)

 
>>>>
I knew Rav Sternbuch in South Africa but have not  seen him in years.  
However, if I ever do see him again, I would like to  ask him some questions 
about this.  I went to a very frum school* in which  the students were taught 
Tanach before ever learning Gemara, indeed, in which  Gemara was never taught 
at all.  And then in Johannesburg, while R'  Sternbuch was there, I myself 
was a teacher in such a school** -- in  fact, I taught Tanach -- and I don't 
recall that he ever voiced any  objection.  So far I still haven't gotten 
around to learning  Gemara.  I would really like to ask him what he thinks 
about that.
 
*Bais Yakov of the Bronx
**Bais Yakov of Johannesburg
 
 
 

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




_____________________
 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111206/b4ccc044/attachment-0001.htm>

> From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
> "Groipen" means groats, i.e. hulled grain ready for cooking.  Kashe
> is cooked groipen.

In our tradition, kashe is only buckwheat, which makes it your groipen
but not all cooked groipen are kashe.

On 6/12/2011 6:22 PM, Isaac Balbin wrote:
>> From: Zev Sero<z...@sero.name>
>> "Groipen" means groats, i.e. hulled grain ready for cooking.  Kashe
>> is cooked groipen.
>
> In our tradition, kashe is only buckwheat, which makes it your groipen
> but not all cooked groipen are kashe.

What tradition is that?  In Yiddish all cooked grain is kashe.  Buckwheat
is shvartze kashe.


-- 
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

                    
                

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:\
>
> Second is a mar'is ayin problem... Rumor might go around that they saw him
> marrying the shelichah.
>

Why would this affect whether the other kiddushin would be chal?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111207/73622ba9/attachment-0001.htm>

Has anyone seen a discussion on whether a man can appoint a woman as a
shaliah to mekadesh a bride on his behalf?

[The point here is that a woman can't be mekadesh a woman, but that's
because kiddushin are not tofsin - not because the ma'aseh kinyan was
improper. However, can she do the ma'aseh kinyan  as the sheliha of a man,
where kiddushin are tofsin?   Or am I just revealing my amaratzut?]>>

I am confused. Does anyone claim that the bride's brother cannot be a
shaliach because he cant do the kiddushin for himself? For that matter
can't a mamzer be a shaliach for kiddushin?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111207/1b3c8d1e/attachment-0001.htm>

I cited SA Och 293:2:

293:2 One should be careful not to do m'lacha Saturday night until 3
small stars are seen (ie, can be seen SM).

RZS:
>>>Ordinary stars, not small ones.

Since the mechaber wrote "kochavim k'tanim",  my citation is accurate.
No correction was necessary

RZS:
>>>>>
But one must know which stars count as "ordinary", which is why this
siman is not given to everybody
>>>>

Indeed, the poskim say that mitzad hadin, 3 medium-sized stars are the
siman for the end of Shabbat, but since it is difficult to determine
which stars are medium-sized, the mechaber wrote "small stars".

RZS further on in his posting notes that halachic measurements derived from
how far a person walks in a certain period of time are based on the average pace
at which people walk. I believe he means to infer from this that dinim
based on sight would be according to average eyesight. This
supposition is indeed very plausable, and I am inclined to accept it,
but it is not airtight.

Saul Mashbaum
,

R' Aryeh A. Frimer asked:

> I must admit that I never understood why there should ever be a
> problem with a peelr, since the peeler always remove the klipa
> (peel) with Ochel (food) - hence the peeler NEVER does borer.

I suspect that you are referring to the case of removing an insect from
one's soup, where one inserts his spoon into the soup, and scoops out some
soup, and the insect happens to be in the middle of that soup. A similar
example is where some unwanted thing is on one's meat, and he cuts out that
part of the meat, discarding the unwanted thing along with it.

I was taught that both of these are muttar, despite the fact that they
clearly get rid of the garbage, and make real improvement to the original
item. The question now is WHY this is allowed.

By my recollection, it is because the actual division is being made between
ochel and ochel, and the bad stuff is removed incidentally. When one puts
his spoon in the soup to remove the bug, both the inside and outside of the
spoon are touching edible soup, and the bug simply "happens" to be floating
in the middle. Thus one has not separated bad from good, but only good from
good.

In contrast, when one uses a peeler, the exact opposite is happening. The
actual cut of the blade is intended to remove the portions that he doesn't
want, and that is exactly what happens. I concede that the fruit is curved,
while the blade is straight, and this causes some fruit to be cut off
together with the peel. But it is the fruit which is being separated
incidentally, and is of no consequence. This is the exact opposite of the
soup, where the insect was separated incidentally, and is of no
consequence.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4edf79bd619d8873426st06vuc

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=745

Btzel HaChochma: Giving Tzedaka At Night

It is written in the name of the Arizal that we don't give tzedoka at 
night. If so asks the Btzel HaChochma (5:143), it is a Mitzvas Aseh 
SheHazman Grama, a time dependent mitzva and women should be exempt. 
Yet we see that the Chinuch says both women and men have the mitzva 
of tzedoka. Why did the Arizal say not to give tzedoka at night?

Nighttime is a time of Din and since tzedoka is an act of Chesed its 
appropriate time is during the day. Therefore explains the Btzel 
HaChochma, since the Shulchan Aruch clearly states the amount one 
must give for tzedoka it is better to give it during the day because 
that is the proper time. If you need to give tzedoka at night it is 
preferable to set aside the money by day even if the poor person can 
only take it at night. Nevertheless if a poor person asks for money 
at night you are certainly obligated to give him and are not exempt 
even according to the Arizal.

----------
I have to admit that I find it annoying when someone who wants 
tzedaka rings my bell late at night.  YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111207/05b59305/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 09:40:07AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://revach.net/article.php?id=745
> Btzel HaChochma: Giving Tzedaka At Night

> It is written in the name of the Arizal that we don't give tzedoka at  
> night....
> Nighttime is a time of Din and since tzedoka is an act of Chesed its  
> appropriate time is during the day....

Why is tzedaqah associated with chesed? I would think that it's
"tzedaqah", ie tzedeq, din.

As for:
>        If so asks the Btzel HaChochma (5:143), it is a Mitzvas Aseh  
> SheHazman Grama, a time dependent mitzva and women should be exempt...
>        Nevertheless if a poor person asks for money at night you are 
> certainly obligated to give him and are not exempt even according to the 
> Arizal.

Peshitah!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner

Former Israeli president goes went to prison today.

This even has halachic aspects. I am giving some shiurim on mesirah mainly
based on the article of R Broyde (other material is welcome).
One of the objections to mesirah in modern days is the claim that prisons
are a dangeous place with much violence from inmates and even the guards.
Katzav went to the Maasiya prison. This prison has a religious section
without TV and with a nice library of seforim. One can even get the
hechsher of the Badatz. His cell-mate will be Beb-Izri a former Shas
knesset member. In short a relatively nice place where one can become a
nice kollelnik without violence. As such I would assume that in Israel
mesirah for white collar crimes would be permitted (mesirah for a violent
crime is usually permitted by all poskim to protect society).

Though the article of R. Broyde quoted alarning statistics of the chance of
an inmate being violated it did not distinguish between prisons. I assume
that in the US there are also separate prisons, or sections, for violent
and white collar crimes.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111207/a6b6e5fa/attachment-0001.htm>

On 7/12/2011 10:53 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> I would assume that in Israel mesirah for white collar crimes would be permitted

The whole topic of mesirah is more complicated in Israel because the
issur is mesirah *legoy*.  Even if one considers the medinah and its
legal system as "goyish", and all its officers as "dinam kegoyim", I
doubt that this can be applied to these laws.  Just as the most fanatical
anti-zionist will concede that one is still obligated to give tzedaka to
a poor zionist, and to save a drowning one, he will surely concede that
one may be alone with a zionist, and take a haircut from one, and therefore
that it's at least plausible that there is no issur of mesirah to one.

-- 
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. Zev Sero asked:

> How could non-glatt meat be *less* expensive than glatt?  The labour
> involved in checking the lungs must surely make it *more* expensive.

     On the contrary, it is the _non-glatt_ whose lungs must be checked, not the glatt ones.

     Initially, all lungs are checked while still in the animal for the
     presence of sirchos.  Those which have none are glatt, and no more
     checking is necessary.  (Indeed, that is the source of the term:	the
     bodek's hand moves smoothly over the surface of the lung; "glatt" is
     Yiddish for smooth.)  The non-glatt lungs must have the sirchos
     checked, to see if they can be removed -- strand by strand -- without
     causing a puncture in the lung.  This is tested by inflating the lung
     and seeing whether or not water placed on the site of the removed
     sircha bubbles.  The sircha removal can be a very time-consuming
     process -- one which should be non-existent on glatt animals.

      I  write "should be" because apparently the high demand for glatt has
      resulted in a redefinition of the term, and a lung with one or two
      sirchos is now defined as glatt.	This was necessitated by the fact
      that true glatt is not common.  When my father z"l supervised one of
      the largest abbatoirs of the time, only 25% of the animals had no
      sirchos.	When cattle are not raised for slaughter, so that their
      feed is not controlled (as was the case for pre-American Jewry), the
      percentage is even less.

      In Europe, a hakpada on glatt was rare.  It was a middas chassidus,
      based not on a higher standard of kashrus -- non-glatt was not
      considered less kosher -- but rather as a hiddur, not to eat from
      basar shehoreh bo chacham, as Yechezkeil Hanavi prided himself
      (Chullin 37b).   [This only applies to Ashk'nazim.  S'faradim are
      required to eat only true glatt, since the M'chabeir paskens not to
      rely on the testing of lungs by removing sirchos.  Hence the newest
      term in kashrus marketing, "Beis Yoseif glatt," which is today's
      equivalent of what "glatt" meant forty years ago.  And of course, it
      does not apply to veal, lamb and goat meat, which must be glatt
      according to all opinions.]  Today, of course, we are all tzaddikim
      and lower-case chassidim, for whom all hiddur chumros are mainstream
      requirements.

EMT   



____________________________________________________________
LifeLock?? Official Site
Identity Theft Can Happen to Anyone So Get Protection with LifeLock.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4edfafbea69751f57361st01vuc

On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 10:32:40AM +0200, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
:> Second is a mar'is ayin problem... Rumor might go around that they saw him
:> marrying the shelichah.

: Why would this affect whether the other kiddushin would be chal?

When someone asks "can", they might technically be asking is it chal,
but the way people speak, intending "may" is just as common. I was
suggesting that subsequent confusion might create an issur; leaving the
question of whether such shelichus is possible.

On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 11:03:57AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I am confused. Does anyone claim that the bride's brother cannot be a
: shaliach because he cant do the kiddushin for himself? For that matter
: can't a mamzer be a shaliach for kiddushin?

A person must be in the inyan in general in order to be a shaliach. IOW,
a man can only be a shaliach leqabalah because a man could in theory
accept qiddushin for his daughter who is a qetanah. (At least, that's
the Y-mi's conclusion; I don't know what happened to the sugya since.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 244
***************************************

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..."