Avodah Mailing List

Volume 29: Number 4

Tue, 10 Jan 2012

• 1. Re: Vayechi - Judge every person favorably (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: international dateline (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: international dateline (Zev Sero)
• 4. The Fast of the 10th of Teveth - Israel's Life Among the Nations (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: Vayechi - Judge every person favorably (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Vayechi - Judge every person favorably (Zev Sero)
• 7. unsolicited testimonial [was: Forms of Bittul] (Chana Luntz)
• 8. A great shiur on parenting and Emunah, + good stories (r Wallenstein) (M Cohen)
• 9. Re: hanging?? how to deal w/traitors?? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Balancing needs (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: hanging?? how to deal w/traitors?? (Harvey Benton)
• 12. Do we Owe Respect to Old Bones? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Do we Owe Respect to Old Bones? (Arie Folger)
• 14. Re: Forms of Bitul (Micha Berger)

>      This idea has ramifications for our relations with secular Jews, as
>      well as Reform and Conservative groups. Along with the justified and
>      necessary opposition to their views, is it not proper that we refrain
>      from rejecting outright the possibility that they are truly motivated
>      "for the sake of Heaven"? Must we always insist on accusing all of
>      them of acting out of personal interests, and viewing only ourselves
>      as acting "for the sake of Heaven"? This approach is neither true
>      nor healthy. "Judge every person favorably" (Avot 1:6).

The Tzedokim, Baytusim, and Minim in Chazal's day, and the Kara'im in the
days of R Saadia and the Rambam, were all acting "for the sake of Heaven".
So were the Kohanei Haba`al in Eliyahu's day, for a different value of
"Heaven"; i.e. they honestly thought the Ba`al was a true god who needed
to be worshipped.  That didn't change how we were supposed to relate to
them.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 02:16:28PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> BTW, R Shlomo Goren held that the dateline is at 149 E, which puts
> it approximately through Canberra, with Melbourne on the correct side
> but Sydney on the wrong side.

This is roughly 114deg east of J-m. (Y-m is at 34deg 48')

To explain... The Brisker Rav put the date line 90deg east of Y-m,
RSGoren is arguing it should be 90deg east of the middle of the yishuv,
which in turn is 24deg E of Y-m. R' Goren gets the location of the middle
of the yishuv from the Rambam, Hil Qiddush haChodesh 2:13.

I looked this up once in relation to the molad, and I think I saw it in
an RZS posting in Mail-Jewish from about a decade back. Evidence from our
current announcement of the molad, minus slipage in the millenia since
the Sanhedrin (both days and months are longer, but once you remove the
29 longer days, there are fewer chalaqim left to the molad), is that this
is roughly the meridian actually used when we speak of "J-m Standard
Time" for announcing the molad. The math points more to 23deg than 24,
but that is only because I assume that zero error was when they were
qov'im the calendar, and not some earlier time (eg the abandonment of
the Lishqas haGazis).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 5/01/2012 11:54 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>  From an article by R Pahmer in the Journal of  Halacha and Contemporary Society vol 21 (1991).

> The various shitot of where the halachic dateline are:

> 1. Brisker Rav = 90 degrees east of Jerusalem.
> 2. CI = 90 degrees east of Jerusalem but stretched
> 3. Rav Tukishinsky = 180 degrees from EY
> 4. Rav Kasher

This is a false description of the views.  For one thing, R Kasher was
not present at the conference in 1941 where the various shitos were
laid out.  His idea was not one of the the ones discussed, and it did
not play a part in the decision.  Much later, he published a sefer with
maps explaining all the options (and he lists at least a dozen), and
then offers his own "no fixed line" opinion.

For another thing, it lists the BR and CI separately when they're
really variations of the same view; and it omits any options in between.
The shitos considered at the conference basically fall into three
categories: 1. 90 deg;  2. 135-145 deg; 3. 180 deg.  The middle group
is approximately where the current line lies, and it's the machria`;
on each side of it there are two against one.   In particular, the
option that the conference took to be the machria` was that of the
Bnei Tziyon, who holds that the dateline is not a thin line but a
thick band with the status of "bein hashmashot"; and that its western
edge is 135 deg east of J'm, i.e. 10 deg west of where the current
dateline runs.

Getting back to R Kasher's opinion, the source quoted misrepresents it.

> = there is no Torah definition of the dateline and so the rabbis can
> set it at their convenience which is taken to be the international
> dateline.

That is completely false and nonsensical.  Man has no power to be
mekadesh hashabbos, and R Kasher does not claim that he does.

R Kasher's opinion is *loosely based* on the halacha that R Lisa
quoted earlier, about someone who's lost in the desert and has lost
count of the days.  The reason that person has a safek is because he's
lost count; but now consider someone who doesn't know where he is but
does know exactly how long he's been traveling.  He has no safek, and
keeps Shabbos 7 days after the last Shabbos.  Should he not worry that
he has stumbled into an area that has a different Shabbos?  No, says
R Kasher, because there is no such area.  So long as a person is
travelling his Shabbos is always 7 days from the last one.  Even if he
circle the globe like Phileas Fogg, his Shabbos remains the same, and
therefore different from that of the people in the cities that he
passes.  If he circles the globe twice then his Shabbos is two days
removed from the "local" one.   This continues until he arrives in an
established kehillah, at which time he becomes batel to them and must
recalibrate his Shabbos to theirs.

So when should a kehilla be keeping Shabbos?  According to which
direction its founders came from.  R Kasher assumes that all Jewish
kehillos on the Asian side of the current international dateline were
established by Jews coming east, while all kehillos on the American
side were established by Jews coming west, and so the dateline
happens to correspond to the halacha, not because it's convenient
but because it's the metzius.   The Bnei Tzion also has much the
same characteristic: his shita happens to correspond closely to the
current dateline, with a few tiny exceptions.  But in Samoa, where
there is no kehilla, R Kasher would say to keep Shabbos according to
where you come from, while the Bnei Tzion would say it has always
been and remains on the American side, and Shabbos is on what the
locals call Sunday.

But, for instance, R Kasher would be unlikely to hold that, when the
Philippines were on the American side of the dateline, the local Jews
should have kept Shabbos on Saturday.  Assuming that they came from
Asia he would have said that they should keep Shabbos on Friday.
(If it should be determined that they came from America then he would
say that they should now be keeping Shabbos on Sunday.)

>  Hence, all communities would keep shabbat on the local Saturday
>(dont know what he would say about Samoa).

Again, even if it *were* up to us, why should we pick "Saturday"?
Wouldn't it be much more convenient to pick "Sunday", when everything
is closed anyway?  (Especially back then, when this was more true than
it is now?)   And what of places that have no "Saturday"?  What of
places that don't even have a 7-day week?  When the USSR went to a
6-day week, could we have simply decided to keep Shabbos on whatever
it was that they called the rest day?!  That's ridiculous.

> Rav Kasher's opinion is in HaPardes 28th year, vol5, p3 for anyone
> who wants to read the original.

Actually he published a large sefer with maps, outlining all the shitos.

> As I previously wrote in actual fact all communities that I know
> essentially follow Rav Kasher

They could not be doing so, since their practises were established
long before R Kasher was born, let alone before he came up with his
shita.


BTW, R Shlomo Goren held that the dateline is at 149 E, which puts
it approximately through Canberra, with Melbourne on the correct side
but Sydney on the wrong side.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

The following is from RSRH's Essay Teveth V with the above title that 
is in his Collected Writings Volume II

We might wish to see our children and our grandchildren enjoying
freedom and equality among the nations. We can attain these objectives
only if we educate our children and grandchildren for that
freedom and equality. We must teach them respect and appreciation
for all the truly pure and human values that have ripened in the midst
of the nations. At the same time we must imbue our youth so
thoroughly with the glory of their life and calling as Jews, which
outshines all other human achievements, that they ought never to be
blinded by any other light or succumb to any temptation coming from
the outside. We must teach them the splendor of Judaism so that they
will understand that all pure human values are only fruits of the Jewish
spirit.

This goal will not be attained if we adopt the ways of modern
sophistry and th~e _ delusions of today's "priests and prophets" and
educate our children according to their thinking. We cannot tolerate
that non-Jewish culture becomes the standard to which Jewish values
and Jewish learning must defer.

We should never tolerate that our unique Divinely-ordained institutions
that survived over thousands of years should come to an
absurd end through our own fault.

But it would be a mistake if, frightened by the past experience of
such aberrations, we were to educate our children only for isolation
and keep them from all contacts with the nations. We must teach them'
to understand and appreciate the genuine values of the nations and not
only to fear them. No matter what we do, our children will certainly be
thrust upon a life' among the nations. We have to prepare them for this
test. The danger that they will be lost will be all the greater if we do not
prepare them for this test. Life among the nations, with all its facts and
errors, will take them by surprise if we have not trained them til distinguish
the true from the false, to know the difference between universal
values and notions still mired in human delusion. We will fail our
Jewish education if we have not trained our youth amidst free contacts
with European civilization, to love their Judaism, and particularly
their true, genuine lives as Jews, and to maintain these Jewish values
above all else.

In times such as ours we take this warning from the tenth day of
Teveth: Jerusalem fell because its people had not learned to hold fast
to Jewish truth in its dealings and contacts with the nations of the
world. May all of us hear this warning and take it to heart.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120105/92b1014c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 01:15:04PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> The Tzedokim, Baytusim, and Minim in Chazal's day, and the Kara'im in the
> days of R Saadia and the Rambam, were all acting "for the sake of Heaven".
> So were the Kohanei Haba`al in Eliyahu's day, for a different value of
> "Heaven"; i.e. they honestly thought the Ba`al was a true god who needed
> to be worshipped.  That didn't change how we were supposed to relate to
> them.

As per the Rambam on Qaraim, the 2nd generation onward are blameless. No?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On 6/01/2012 2:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 01:15:04PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> The Tzedokim, Baytusim, and Minim in Chazal's day, and the Kara'im in the
>> days of R Saadia and the Rambam, were all acting "for the sake of Heaven".
>> So were the Kohanei Haba`al in Eliyahu's day, for a different value of
>> "Heaven"; i.e. they honestly thought the Ba`al was a true god who needed
>> to be worshipped.  That didn't change how we were supposed to relate to
>> them.
>
> As per the Rambam on Qaraim, the 2nd generation onward are blameless. No?

The Qaraim of the Rambam's day were hardly first-generation!  How did he
relate to them?  Certainly not as the article we'd discussing suggests.


-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

I wrote:

<<So how about the really classic safek - the timtum, or the koi? As I
understand the debate, some hold that the tumtum is a beriah in and of
itself, and some hold it is a safek, but those who hold such a person is a
safek hold that "really" such a person is a man or a woman, we just don't
know which, it is not as though essentially and to the Torah such a half man
half woman exists. Ditto a koi - we practice the halacha giving it the
chumras of behama and chaya, but the options appear to be that it is an
independent creation of its own, or it is *really* in the eyes of the Torah
one or the other, but we don't know which.>>

And RDR replied:

>See Rabbi Bensimon's commentary on Rabbi Rosen's commentary on the Rambam's
H. Shabbos (details below) pp. 23-29, where he argues that there are two
>distinct types of sfeikos, with different rules.  One type is a "safek
b'etzem", which includes both of these examples.  A safek b'etzem is
something >about which we know all of the relevant facts but still can't
decide how to categorize it halachically.  The other type is a "safek
b'geder siba", for >which if we knew all of the relevant facts (what is the
source of each piece of meat?) we would be able to categorize it
halachically.  So while I agree >with your basic point that RMB is confusing
two distinct categories, I think these examples are red herrings.

How would you characterise bein hashmashos using Rabbi Bensimon's typology?
I would have thought it would have be considered a safek b'etzem.  But bein
hashmashos is the fundamental safek from which RMB derives his philosophy,
and yet it was he who brought in the piece of found piece of meat where
there are nine shops, eight of them kosher, which is, using this typology, a
safek b'geder siba (and then he went from there to bitul in relation to
taste, which I was felt was confusing two distinct categories of bitul).

So I don't think my examples of a timtum or a koi are red herrings.  These
examples, ie of safek b'etzem are at the heart of the form of safek that RMB
wants to utilise to derive his quasi quantum mechanical theology.  What you
might want to say is that not only are two distinct categories of bitul
being assumed to be the same, but two distinct categories of safek, and that
RMB should not be making a leap from bein hashmashos forms of safek, to a
safek b'geder siba.


>David Riceman

Regards

Chana

A great shiur on parenting and Emunah, + good stories (r Wallenstein)

http://koshertube.com/videos/index.php?option=com_seyret

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120109/4fd74bf2/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 11:58:53AM -0800, Harvey Benton wrote:
: traitors in the old days? were dealt with 
: how?? did the king [melech] handle 
: them on his (her in the case of a novi
: eg, devorah- was there a king??)
: or did it have to go to the sanhedrin??

See the Ran on Sanhedrin 91.

The king has the authority and responsibility to keep an orderly
society.

You are also raising issues of the mored bemalkhus.

Rambam Melakhim 3:8, Minchas Chinukh #295, Arukh haShulchan CM 1:26.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 10:50:29AM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: On a more philosophical note, is not this debate reminiscent of the
: debates over utilitarianism...

I think halakhah reflects a greater concern over deontological ethics
rather than consequentialist ones. IOW, we care more about minimizing
the number of murderers than minimizing the number of murdered. I'm
not utilitarianism fits, if I am correct.

This is why, when a group of Jews is told to pick one to be killed or
all will, they may not choose. (Unless one if chayav misah, or named
in the threat, and then machloqes abounds.) Even though whomever they
pick out is one of the "all" would would get killed anyway. Because
deontologically, by choosing one of their number to turn over to the
killers, they participate in the murder.

I suggested this in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n093.shtml#03>, and reffered
the chevrah to R' Michael J Harris's article in Torah uMadda Journal at
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/32656397/Untitled>.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

my question was raised, because aiunderstand it, 
dovid hamelech could have done what he did (re:
batsheva/_____) in a different way.....













________________________________
 From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
To: Harvey Benton <harvw...@yahoo.com>; The Avodah Torah Discussion Group <avo...@lists.aishdas.org> 
Cc: .saul newman <saul.z.new...@kp.org>; bens <sben...@hotmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Avodah] hanging?? how to deal w/traitors??
 
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 11:58:53AM -0800, Harvey Benton wrote:
: traitors in the old days? were dealt with 
: how?? did the king [melech] handle 
: them on his (her in the case of a novi
: eg, devorah- was there a king??)
: or did it have to go to the sanhedrin??

See the Ran on Sanhedrin 91.

The king has the authority and responsibility to keep an orderly
society.

You are also raising issues of the mored bemalkhus.

Rambam Melakhim 3:8, Minchas Chinukh #295, Arukh haShulchan CM 1:26.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger? ? ? ? ? ?  "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org? ? ? ? exactly the right measure of himself,? and
http://www.aishdas.org?  holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507? ? ? acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120109/17e79c72/attachment-0001.htm>

From RAFolger's recent blog entry by the same title as this
post
<http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/do-we-owe-respect-to-old-b
ones>:
    So there's this this debate going on in England about a skeleton that
    was displayed apparantly against the explicit wish of its erstwhile
    live person (should we call it its "owner"?), Charles Byrne, and
    people are arguing whether to finally bury it, or whether so much
    time has passed (some 230 years) that it is no longer relevant.

Sample of said debate and RAF's review of a comment ellided.

    ... True, if Byrne is burried, many more skeletons in musea throughout
    the world might become candidates for burial, but so be it. Who
    says we gain *as a society* by displaying our ancestors in glass
    cages? Does respect for the life and the living thereby increase? We
    should indeed bury them even if that represents a major loss to
    many musea.

    I am willing to respect one exception: skeletons older than, say,
    6000 years, i.e., from before Adam. That is because regardless on
    where one stands on the question of creationism and evilution, I
    believe that the Account of Creation of Man is a meaningful source
    of practical consequences. In fact, I wonder whether we'd say that
    such old skeletons convey tumah (ritual impurity imparted by, for
    example, bones of deceased people)

So the question RAF raises is one of age.

I was also thinking whether this has a nafqa mina lemaaseh. If one follows
R' Moshe Eisenman's take on the Ramban that the "afar min ha'adamah"
that HQBH blew a nishmas chayim into was one of many homo spaiens, would
the remains of these homo sapiens impart tum'ah? What about the bones
of apes? Adnei hasadeh -- which it is a violation of retzhichah to kill?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Thanks for bringing this to the Ovedim's attention. To a question
about how I reconcile the idea of talking about old bones with the
Account of Creation 5770 years ago, I wrote the following:

Well, that depends on how you want to generally deal with the seeming
contradiction between the literal Account of Creation and scientific
findings on fossils, astronomy, geology, etc.

If you are inclined to see the 5772 as totally literal, with the
universe being created in six of our present days, then you will
probably claim that the fossils were created old, in which case bones
demonstrably older than 6000 years should not have come from actual
humans and would not convey tum'a.

If, on the other hand, you are inclined to read the six days of
creations as six aeons, then the fossils did come from actual homo
sapiens sapiens, but I posit that even then, the account of creation
of man is halakhically meaningful, and bones coming from before adam
would not yet be endowed with tzelem E-lohim, which many Rishonim take
as relating to man's creative and, more importantly, moral faculties.
Thus, older bones would still not convey tum'a.

If you subscribe to Gerald Schroeders
both-Torah-and-science-are-literally-right-because-time-is-relative
interpretation of creation, then I would still point you to the above
reasoning, though it becomes difficult, because one suddenly needs to
define Adam - a person or a species - but I would tend to still
identify Adam as literally the first person endowed with Tzelem.

For these two latter interpretations, one would likely posit that the
creation of man was a second appearance of an existing primate
species, but this time around endowed with tzelem E-lohim, though for
the sake of full disclosure, I should point out that R' Walter
W?rzburger once told me he saw no difficulty in considering pre-Adam
honinids (including home sapiens sapiens) every bit as much 'afar min
ha-adama (i.e. they could have been the dust G"d gathered to create
Adam).

Finally, if you subscribe to what I call the programmer's model of
creation, i.e. that the world is a virtual reality in G"d's "mind" and
that the individual creations of the Six Days of Creation are kind of
subroutines (works perfectly with Rashi who speaks of everything being
created before the first day, but put in place on its day, and it all
only coming into function on day six, when Adam was made to come
alive), then the first answer above would fit, too.

So I went through the different models and each and every time found
the creation of man 5770 years ago (5770, not 5772, because in the
latter figure we count the present year, and consider the six days of
creation like year 1) to be a halakhically meaningful and relevant to
old human bones, regardless of one's understanding of the Account of
Creation.

But I'd love to hear who might have written on the topic.

========== AD KAAN ==========

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Wir ziehen um! ? We are Moving
* Muslims Question Their Calendar ? Could it Have Happened to Us?
* Technologie und j?disches Lernen
* Biblical Advice for the Internet Age iv
* The Disappearance of Big Ideas
* Rabbi, wie stehen Sie zur Ein?scherung?
* Biblical Advice for the Internet Age iii

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 12:16:37AM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: While the three pieces or Yoreh Deah siman 109 case of bitul is derived from
: acharei rabim l'hatos, the milk falling into meat stew min b'aino mino Yoreh
: Deah siman 98 type case of bitul appears to be derived from Bamidbar 6:19
: (which allows/requires cooking of the kohen's portion of the leg in with the
: rest of the nazir's shlamim, meaning that it will give taste to the shlamim)
: (see Chullin 98a).  And even though Tosphos appears to understand this as
: not being a drasha gamura, they, and the rest of the majority who hold that
: bittul b'shishim for min v'aino mino is min haTorah clearly do not base this
: assessment on acharei rabim l'hatos...

I am not entirely conflating the two, I am considering them subtypes of
a single general issue. But in any case...

1- Lemaaseh, we actually hold 1:60 is derabbanan, and that even bishul
beta'aroves (siman 98 and Chulin 98) only requires a rov deOraisa. Which
means the derashah from the nazir's shelamim is an asmachta. So if my
theory is problematic on these grounds, it's only a problem according
to a shitah we don't follow.

2- Siman 109 is about real taaroves which is batil because of acharei
rabim. Even according to those who consider a cooked davar lach to be
a special case (requiring 1:60) deOraisa, there is still a connection
between taaroves and kol deparish. The question is specific to how
*liquids* mix. But again, I wasn't considering their shitah; my centerfuge
restoring the issur from out of the taaroves was specifically from the
context of how we hold. Now I am just trying to show that the existence
of a machloqes doesn't mean I got the basic hashkafic venue wrong,
even if I didn't bother exploring the other side.

Besides, the point about being from the same pasuq was one connecting
factor among many. So was the "mixture" language of chazal and the SA
when dealing with kol deparish. As is RYBS's shitah that safeiq uses a
multivalent logic (logic with values more than just the black-and-white
of "true" vs "false"), that defies the law of contradiction (ie halachic
logic allows considering something somewhat true and somewhat false at
the same time).

What I did was take this mixed logical state I heard from RYBS, or Rashi's
"'isa' lashon safeiq hu" (or the Torah's "erev"), and said it's a sibling
to physical mixtures. A different subclass of the same basic worldview.

This then allowed me to fit much of the laws of birur in my general
theory about what halachic "metzi'us" and "mamashus" mean.

...
: So, as I have been trying to argue from the beginning, I just don't see how
: you can bring any proofs or include in the discussion the Yoreh Deah siman
: 98 type case of taste bitul.  At most your discussion would surely have to
: be limited to comparing the Yoreh Deah siman 109 type case of bitul, and
: rov.  And even there, I am not sure you get the same results for a rov
: de'iqah leqaman and deleisa leqaman.

Why not? Kol deparish applies to both.

: And your linking up to regular forms of safek seems very difficult too.
: Those who understand the principle of safek d'orisa l'chumra to be d'orisa...
: (the Rashba, the Ran and Tosphos), do not, as far as I am aware, link it to
: any of the psukim referred to above.  And clearly the majority (according,
: inter alia, to Rav Ovadiah Yosef) who hold that the principle of safek
: d'orisa l'chumra is d'rabbanan basically are holding that once there is a
: safek, according to the Torah the matter is completely mutar ...

The way I see it, all agree that in a case of rov, it would be assur
de'oraisa, and in a case of mi'ut, it would not. The question becomes
whether the kellal is "assur if rov" or "mutar if mi'ut", with a nafqa
mina when the safeiq is kemechtza al mechtza.

From this way of looking at the world, saying safeiq deOraisa lechumera
doesn't eliminate the notion of safeiq from the deOraisa lexicon. Because
that would deny the whole spectrum, and thus also eliminate rov.

...
:> I hear chazal talking about safeiq as though it were a mixture. Why not
:> take that at face value, rather than imposing statistics on a model that
:> predates the field by just under 3 millenia (Sinai to Pascal or Fermat)?

: So how about the really classic safek - the timtum, or the koi?  As I
: understand the debate, some hold that the tumtum is a beriah in and of
: itself, and some hold it is a safek, but those who hold such a person is a
: safek hold that "really" such a person is a man or a woman, we just don't
: know which, it is not as though essentially and to the Torah such a half man
: half woman exists....

Hold on to this for RDR's post (below).

:> RYBS uses the notion of mixed identity, or as he put it, that halakhah
:> doesn't use a bivalent (black-and-white, true-vs-falase) logic in Ish
:> haHalakhah, as well as in a yarchei kallah shiur I attended one Elul in
:> the early 80s. Bein hashemashos is a safeiq yom safeiq lailah, but it's
:> also when the two days overlap (eg it extends the esrog's status as a
:> devar mitzvah to the subsequent day).

: But the esrog's status is rabbinic - and therefore the fact that the rabbis
: extended it because *we* are not sure, doesn't mean that there is anything
: intrinsically a mixed identity about bein hashmashos, just that we don't
: know what it is.

But "not sure" means "and therefore say it's both". Whether the
uncertainty is rabbinic or Torahitic, that's not the way we today (aside
from Quantum Mechanics) think of "don't know". Chazal treat unknowns as
a mixture, (1) for both kinds of unknown, and (2) that is entirely alien
to western culture, ever since Aristo codified the logical principles
of the Law of Excluded Middle and Law of Contradiction. In any context,
this is a novel idea worthy of playing out what it say about how chazal
see the world.

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:36:33PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> See Rabbi Bensimon's commentary on Rabbi Rosen's commentary on the  
> Rambam's H. Shabbos (details below) pp. 23-29, where he argues that  
> there are two distinct types of sfeikos, with different rules.  One type  
> is a "safek b'etzem", which includes both of these examples.  A safek  
> b'etzem is something about which we know all of the relevant facts but  
> still can't decide how to categorize it halachically.  The other type is  
> a "safek b'geder siba", for which if we knew all of the relevant facts  
> (what is the source of each piece of meat?) we would be able to  
> categorize it halachically.  So while I agree with your basic point that  
> RMB is confusing two distinct categories, I think these examples are red  
> herrings.

On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 03:33:21PM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: How would you characterise bein hashmashos using Rabbi Bensimon's typology?
: I would have thought it would have be considered a safek b'etzem...

It might depend on the nature of the safeiq.

If you hold that every moment is a safeiq, that the day switches at some
point in time between sunset and tzeis and we can't tell when, then it
is a safeiq begeder siba. If it's a safeiq whether the day switches at
sunset or at tzeis, perhaps that's because it's a sadfeiq be'etzem --
we know the two moments, we don't know which is halachically meaningful.

: So I don't think my examples of a timtum or a koi are red herrings.  These
: examples, ie of safek b'etzem are at the heart of the form of safek that RMB
: wants to utilise to derive his quasi quantum mechanical theology....

Timtum and koi are sefeiqos in pesaq, not in biology. Even if we gave
the metumtum a full body MRI, s/he is still begeder safeiq. It's a
safeiq be'eztzem.

The three chatichos are begeder siba, a safeiq because we don't know
the metzi'us.


Please, call my idea Kantian, Phenomenological, Experiential, Existential
or Psychological, but not QM. The essence of the whole theory (of which
safeiq is a part) is the rationalist version of the Nefesh haChaim's
stance, that it's only through the human soul that actions impact
metaphysics. And therefore halachic impact isn't based on what is, but
how what is impacts people. QM would be very much the opposite, tying
physics to metaphysics directly on a level well beyond human experience
or even anything that fits common sense.

IOW, I am suggesting that the sevara behind safeiq is a subtype of that for
mixtures because when a person is in doubt, he entertains both conflicting
possibilities.

BTW, I invoke a different dichotomy. If we ever further confuse matters
by going beyond kol deparish and into kol qavua, I would cite R' Aqiva
Eiger on the difference between a safeiq in metzi'us and one in din. We
don't know and never established if this was issur or heter, it's a safeiq
in metzi'us. And for that, we honor rov. If we once established a din,
but now don't know which piece the din went to, it is a safeiq in what
that din was, for which rov doesn't help.

So, I can now speak of three kinds of sefeiqos:

1- The safeiq is on the level of what is the metzi'us. Kol deparish.
2- There once was a known din, so the safeiq is in what that din is. Kol
   qavuah.
3- There is a safeiq in how to assign a din to a metzi'us -- safeiq
   be'etzem.

When I speak of safeiq being a kind of taaroves because safeiq creates
a mixture of identity in the affected people's minds, I am only talking
about #1. It's something I'm saying about what "metzi'us" means, and
therefore doesn't touch sefeiqos in a specific item that was qavua or
in pesaq on an issue in general.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org        once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 29, Issue 4
*************************************

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..."