Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 3

Thu, 22 Mar 2012

• 1. Tikkun Olam (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Tikkun Olam (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Parshas Ki Sisa: Rav Shimon Schwab - Mordechai's Brings, Real Freedom For His Nation (Micha Berger)
• 4. . Re: Characterizing our era (Micha Berger) (Ezra Chwat)
• 5. A Solution in Sight For The Matzah Sensitive (Prof. Levine)
• 6. missiles and the amidah (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Purim on the 13th (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 8. Re: A Solution in Sight For The Matzah Sensitive (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Purim on the 13th (Micha Berger)
• 10. I am calling for ... (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Re: Characterizing our era (Micha Berger) (Micha Berger)
• 12. baal tosif? (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 13. Re: baal tosif? (Allan Engel)
• 14. Re: baal tosif? (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Tikkun Olam (Micha Berger)

RnCL just noted on Areivim that many people presume that the source of
the liberal, non-O, conception of "tikkun olam" comes from Aleinu's
"lesaqein olam bemalkhus Shakkai", but it's not really the likely source.

I wanted to compile a canonical list of "tiqun olam" and "tiqun ha'olam"
in sifrei chazal, so that we can discuss just what the term means in
the original usage. FWIW, it looks like "tiqun ha'olam", with a hei,
is the bavli amora'im's term.

Mishnah Gitin 4:2-5:3
   The following rules are made mipenei tiqun ha'olam:

   1-  One may not convene a BD somewhere other than where the
       shaliach is giving the wife a get and anulling it. (4:2)

   2-  When writing a get, use every name and qinui possible. (4:2)
       Discussed in Y-mi BB 10:4 32a.

   3-  Eidim sign a get. (4:3) The gemara (3b) discusses whose shitah
       this must be. The Y-mi BB 10:10 33b also discusses this usage.

   4-  Pruzbul. (4:3)

   5-  If a slave was made collateral and freed, the owner is forced 
       to free him. (And a machloqes as to whether he owe the owner
       a shetar al damav.) (4:4)

   6-  Similarly we force an owner to free a chetzi eved chetzi ben
       chorin. (4:5)

       Edios 1:13 repeates #6, freeing the chatzi eved, chatzi ben
       chorin. But the reason given is that "lo nivra ha'olam ela lepiryah
       verivyah", and this fellow can't marry. The same reason is given
       by the gemara, Pesachim 88b, Chagiga 2b, and EIrakhim 2b.

   7-  We do not pay extorionist prices to ransom captives. (4:6)

   8-  We do not help captives escape. (4:6)

       R' Shimon ben Gamliel says both 7 and 8 are mipeniei tiqun
       hashevuyim. Is this clarifying tiqun olam, or disagreeing with
       the tana qama?

   9-  We don't buy sta"m from nakhriim at extortionist prices. (4:6)

   10- If a person divoces his wife because of a qonam, chakhamim allow
       them to remarry. (4:7)

   11- Someone who buys a field from a non-Jew but the field originally
       belonged to a Jew, he must bring biqurim. (4:9) Also discussed in
       Y-mi Demai 5:8 23b.

   12- Mortgaged property isn't used for improving property or supporting
       a widow or orphaned girls. (5:3) See also Y-mi 12:2 65a, and
       the gemara, BM 14b.

   13- We don't make a person performing hashavas aveidah make a shavu'ah.
       (5:3) Discussed in Y-mi ad loc 28b.

Tosefta Kesuvos 12:1:
    14- Do not make a woman's kesuvah from movable property ("unreal
        estate"?). See Kesuvos 56b, where they ask which situation it's
        talking about in which this would actually be tiqun olam.

Tosefta Gitin 3:8
    16- If someone made a neder after divorcing his wife that she can't
        get hana'ah from anything of his because she stol from him, he
        cannot remarry her even if she did.

Tosefta Terumos 1:14-15
    17- Orphans who were made dependent on a balebas made be fed with
        maaser. As may an orphan who begs for maaser be given it.

The first 12 are all, as RnCL characterized it on Areivim, to protect
"the down trodden of Chazal's society." Gittin 33a asks what "tiqun olam"
means WRT not anulling the get in an outside BD unrelated to the shaliach
and gets two answers: R' Yochanan says tiqun mamzeirim, Reish Laqish,
tiqun agunos.

The 13th is about encouraging hashavas aveidah, and thus protects
anyone who lost anything, whether the downtrodden or the wealthy and
powerful. Perhaps you could say they are needy "ledavar echad".

In most cases, it seems to be to avoid a marriage issue -- mamzeirus,
agnuah, the chatzi eved chatzi ben chorin. But not when feeding maaser
to orphans or when not helping one captive in order to prevent harm to
future captives.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

On 20/03/2012 4:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

>     5-  If a slave was made collateral and freed, the owner is forced
>         to free him. (And a machloqes as to whether he owe the owner
>         a shetar al damav.) (4:4)

Not the owner, who has already freed him; the mortgage-holder, who has no
rights over him, but who might not realise that, or might resent the way
the security on his loan was dishonestly wrested from him, and might
therefore ignorantly or maliciously initiate futile proceedings to
recover the ex-slave.  Having him write a get ensures that he's aware of
the law, and precludes any future action he might have taken.



>     6-  Similarly we force an owner to free a chetzi eved chetzi ben
>         chorin. (4:5)
>
>         Edios 1:13 repeates #6, freeing the chatzi eved, chatzi ben
>         chorin. But the reason given is that "lo nivra ha'olam ela lepiryah
>         verivyah", and this fellow can't marry. The same reason is given
>         by the gemara, Pesachim 88b, Chagiga 2b, and EIrakhim 2b.

AIUI that *is* the tikun ha'olam in question.


>     10- If a person divoces his wife because of a qonam, chakhamim allow
>         them to remarry. (4:7)

Look closer; it seems that the tikun ha'olam is in *not* allowing them
to remarry in the usual case, and the case where they were allowed was
an exception because the reason for the tikun didn't apply.


> The first 12 are all, as RnCL characterized it on Areivim, to protect
> "the down trodden of Chazal's society."

I don't think so.  On the contrary, the common denominator that stands out
is that they are all minor tinkering around the edges of the existing system,
fine tuning it to make it work better.


> Gittin 33a asks what "tiqun olam"
> means WRT not anulling the get in an outside BD unrelated to the shaliach
> and gets two answers: R' Yochanan says tiqun mamzeirim, Reish Laqish,
> tiqun agunos.

I don't see any indication that this has to do with agunos or mamzerim
being "downtrodden", but merely that they are an undesirable consequence
of the anomaly that was found in the law, so a technical regulation was
invented to fix it.  Now the system works well again.


> The 13th is about encouraging hashavas aveidah, and thus protects
> anyone who lost anything, whether the downtrodden or the wealthy and
> powerful. Perhaps you could say they are needy "ledavar echad".

It also works in favour of the *finder*, by removing a powerful
disincentive from fulfilling his obligation to return the metziah.
Again, the existing law was found to work against *everybody's*
interest, so a minor change was made and it could now work properly.


> In most cases, it seems to be to avoid a marriage issue -- mamzeirus,
> agnuah, the chatzi eved chatzi ben chorin.

Because hilchos gittin has such important consequences for people, it's
more important to debug it properly, and that's what that list is about.
Debugging a life-critical application.  In fact that's another word for
what I think "tikun ha'olam" is about; debugging halacha.


> But not when feeding maaser to orphans

Another technical fix.  The balabos could achieve the same result from
his own POV by expelling the orphan from his home and then giving him
the maaser.  But who would benefit from that?  How would anyone be better
off?  So Chazal wisely fixed the anomaly by allowing him to use his
maaser to feed the orphan while keeping him in his household.


> or when not helping one captive in order to prevent harm to future captives.

At the time that the tikkun was made, these captives were not "lefaneinu".
All captives were potential or hypothetical future ones.  And the tikun
helped them all, by reducing the probability that they would *become*
captives.  Ditto for STaM that don't get stolen in the first place because
the thief knows that he can't get too much for them.


The bottom line is that none of these are social activism; none of them
are consistent with a radical political agenda.  On the contrary, they're
all profoundly *conservative* regulations, tinkering on the edges of the
existing system to lubricate it and make it work more smoothly while
disturbing it as little as possible.   In other words, debugging halacha,
not rewriting it.  The goal is not to help "the downtrodden" but to make
the whole system work as it was designed to.

-- 
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 Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 04:51:21PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> Frankly, this is a polemical trick which subverts the meaning of  
> "freedom" and substitutes a straw man for serious argument.  For a  
> definition of freedom see H. Teshuvah 5:1-2, cf. Niddah 17b...

Except it's a maamar chazal. "Ein lekha ben chorin ela mi she'oseiq
baTorah". The Rambam is discussing free will, a philosophical topic.
Humans have free will, even those with little freedom.

Perhaps we should be more aware, though, that we're using "freedom" as
a stand in "cheirus". Perhaps RDR could be happier if I framed the same
point this way:

Chazal are saying the Jewish value of cheirus isn't the same as the
English word freedom. Although clearly they wouldnt have made the point
if we didn't have a hava amina that they would be the same. Someone who
follows the Torah posesses more cheirus than someone who thinks they
are truly free. Because cheirus includes a lack of preconscious desires
that interfere with our reaching our conscious goals, but freedom only
refers to a lack of external restraints from doing what we desire.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

The definitive methodic article on Halakhic periodization (era division):
R. SZ Havlin, Al HaHatimah Hasifrutit KeYesod HaHalukah LeTkufot B'Halakha,
Studies in Talmudic Literature<http://aleph.nli.org.il/F
/?func=direct&;doc_number=000927001&local_base=NNLALL>, 1983,
pp. 148-192.
This includes much focus on what  Micah Berger observed: "The mishnah was a
kind of line, but there was blurriness around it." Rav Havlin tends to
over-emphasize the centrality of the canonized Halakhic literature as the
primary element. But this is Lisheetaso.

As for The Shoah as a dividing line, this does not fit Rav Havlin's model.
Nonetheless, a general observation can be raised. One need simply compare
to the control group- the Sephardic poskim. Rav Ovadiah has no qualms about
taking a stance against the Ben Ish Hai, or even RH Palagi. Whereas
Ashkenazic poskim after the Hazon Ish will be adverse to disagreeing with
the Mishnah Brurah without backup from other Ahronim (even though the MB is
clearly not intended to be a corpus of psak, rather a summary of ahronim).
The destruction of the Yeshivot in Europe can be seen as the central
element, a schism  that the Sephardic Halakhic realm did not suffer.

On the remark : " ...the line between ge'onim and rishonim. It had no
characterizing text...".  The Rif is one of the most landmark demarcation
lines in Halakhic periodization. Simply put, no one after the Rif  allows
himself to ignore the book referred to by the Rishonim as  "the Halakhot".
In the generation after the Rif, the RI Migash (Tshuvot, Warsaw 1870 no.
104) already determines that now that the Talmud has been summarized, no
one  is permitted to poseq based on Talmudic scholarship.



Dr. Ezra Chwat
The Department of Manuscripts/
National Librarhy of Israel
blog: Giluy Milta B'Alma: http://imhm.blogspot.com




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120321/d1ad0b35/attachment.htm>

Please see http://tinyurl.com/73tq8q7

Numerous Rabbonim, mashgichim and a member of the US GFCO 
(Gluten-Free Certification Organization) were anxiously awaiting the 
Rov's arrival. The next few days were tiresome indeed; baking spelt, 
whole wheat and gluten-free oats but Rav Katz's dedication on behalf 
of those who are wheat sensitive or celiac knew no bounds.

Why are so many individuals relying on these special matzah runs? Is 
it Celiac disease? Gluten intolerance? Wheat sensitive? Or maybe just 
those prone to constipation?

In this article we will discuss the matzah alternatives according to 
their halachic preference. Wheat matzah for the seder night always 
has preference over other grains for those who can handle wheat and 
so we will begin with the advantages of whole wheat matzah and then 
carry on to spelt and gluten-free oat matzah.

See the above URL for more.  YL

If a missile asttack occurs in the shemonei esre don't move

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4204590,00.html

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120322/ffe4c3a3/attachment.htm>

RMicha Berger wrote:

>On Y-mi Megillah 1a, there is a machloqes amoraim whether reading on the
11th and 12th was from AKHG, or if AKHG only left reshus that a later
generation utilized to allow it. The 13th was added later either way,
on the grounds that it was sandwiched in. (Which doesn't sit well with
me, but that's my problem.)<

     I don't believe that the Yerushalmi says the 13th was a later
     addition.	It says that there wewre to be days added "kayamim asher
     nachu," which was interpreted as the 11th and 12th.  To this, the
     question was asked, perhaps the days referred to shoulkd be the 12th
     and 13th, and not the 11th?  To this the answer is given that since
     they fought on the 13th, it wasn't "nachu."  Then the question is
     asked, why then do we read on the 13th?  And the answer is that it
     made no sense to be able to read before and after the 13th, and yet
     not be able to read on it.  There is no indication that this reason
     was not applied until some time after the original addition of days,
     rather than immediately when the 11th and 12th were added.

>Could we suggest that in AKHG's cheshbon (as in ours), Purim never fell
out on Wed or on Shabbos, and therefor they didn't have a need to permit
reading on the 13th?<

     I don't understand the question.  The purpose of the earlier reading
     was to have it be on'yom hak'nisa, either Monday or Thursday.  Since
     Purim can come on Tuesday and Friday, the 13th is a necessity. 
     Furthermore, from 3b it is apparent that if they kept the dechiyos, it
     was only not to have Purim on Shabbos and Monday (to prevent Yom
     Kippur from being on Friday and Sunday; i.e., they kept lo D"U, but
     not lo alef).  They had no need to have Purim not be on Wednesday.

>Given the level of observance among the olim miBavel, it would make
sense that AKHG would try to implement lo Adu rosh or another rule
that minimized chillul Shabbos. As RRW noted in the past, YT sheini
shel galiyos doesn't fit lo BeD"U Pesach except a safeiq of Shabbos
vs. Sunday -- there are no other pairs of adjacent days possible for
Pesach. So even if this hypothetical rule was in place during early Bayis
Sheini, it was apparently not in force between then and some time after
Abayei. Including when our mishnah was written.<

     Lo BD"U was only necessary to prevent RH from being on AD"U; and AD"U
     was not instituted to prevent chillul Shabbos, but to make its
     observance less onerous and potentially dangerous by having
     consecutive days on which vegetables could not be prepared for eating
     and the dead could not be buried.	

>Then, with the loss of the Sanhedrin, we were at a point of needing
to avoid tempting people into chillul Shabbos again, and the lo AD"U
and lo BeD"U rules were revived.<

     When there was no fixed calendar, lo AD"U could be observed without lo
     BD"U -- the number of days between Pesach and Rosh Hahana was not
     fixed, since there were not necessarily 3 29-day and 3 30-day months
     between Nissan and Tishri.  Thus, they could have had lo AD"U
     throughout Bayis Sheini, and not have needed lo BD"U.  (This assumes
     that the above-referenced Yerushalmi on 3b refers to the time after
     the fixed calendar was instituted.)

EMT



____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f6a6324e8d36278cff0st02vuc

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:28:13PM -0400, Prof. Levine quoted from
Jerusalem Kosher News at <http://tinyurl.com/73tq8q7>:
> In this article we will discuss the matzah alternatives according to  
> their halachic preference. Wheat matzah for the seder night always has 
> preference over other grains for those who can handle wheat and so we 
> will begin with the advantages of whole wheat matzah and then carry on to 
> spelt and gluten-free oat matzah.

I am not sure why JKN chose the title "A Solution in Sight For The
Matzah Sensitive", spelt and oat matzah are far from new.

But what I'm wondering is why wheat is preferable over spelt.

How do we get the 5 minei dagan (5MD) for matzah? A gezeiras hakasuv
from the 7 minim of birkhas EY. Chitah and se'orah in the berakhah
are broader terms than in the 5MD, and refer to what we think of as
5 species. These 5 leaven in a way halakhah considers chimutz, other
leavening is halachically sirachon. (See our annual discussions of
whether shibboles shu'al could actually be oats for more about this
derashah, the pasuq in Yeshaiah, etc...)

I did not encounter before the idea that se'orah and its subtypes are
inferior to chitah. It would make sense to me, since se'orah in general
is considered courser and less bekavod. And I would think oats even lower
priority than 
so, since 

But here we are talking about two of the three strains of chitah --
chitah (wheat) and kusmin (spelt). (The third being shifon, rye.) Given
that the pasuq itself refers to them by one word, why would we conclude
that there is prioritization between the three?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:23:16PM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
: RMicha Berger wrote:
:> On Y-mi Megillah 1a, there is a machloqes amoraim whether reading on the
:> 11th and 12th was from AKHG, or if AKHG only left reshus that a later
:> generation utilized to allow it. The 13th was added later either way,
:> on the grounds that it was sandwiched in...
: 
: I don't believe that the Yerushalmi says the 13th was a later addition.
: It says that there wewre to be days added "kayamim asher nachu," which
: was interpreted as the 11th and 12th. To this, the question was asked,
: perhaps the days referred to shoulkd be the 12th and 13th, and not
: the 11th? To this the answer is given that since they fought on the
: 13th, it wasn't "nachu." Then the question is asked, why then do we
: read on the 13th? And the answer is that it made no sense to be able
: to read before and after the 13th, and yet not be able to read on it.

But 1b also ties this to the question of whether one can darshen the
megillah. Thus, if it's misevarah and not the days of the pasuq, I
would think both sides agree it't use of reshus left by AKHG, and not
days they themselves chose.

:> Could we suggest that in AKHG's cheshbon (as in ours), Purim never fell
:> out on Wed or on Shabbos, and therefor they didn't have a need to permit
:> reading on the 13th?

: I don't understand the question....

Me either. I should have gotten Tues or Fri, which would avoid Yom Kippur
being on Mon or Thu, and thus my whole train of thought wouldn't work.

The following is now tangential:
: Lo BD"U was only necessary to prevent RH from being on AD"U; and AD"U
: was not instituted to prevent chillul Shabbos, but to make its observance
: less onerous and potentially dangerous by having consecutive days on
: which vegetables could not be prepared for eating and the dead could
: not be buried.

I understood lo AD"U to be for the sake of people who wouldn't have the
mesiras nefesh not to prepare vegetables for two days or leave a meis
out for two days, and they would cut corners.

WRT meisim, is it:
1- Some will bury their meisim anyway. Maybe via a shevus, kele'acheir yad
or some other excuse to self-justify.

2- Kavod hameis

3- Piquach nefesh. (And if so, does that depend on holding dechuyah?)

But I'm glad you kept 3b alive, because it's REALLY bothering me...

R' Yosa says that Purim couldn't be on Monday or Shabbos. So, we know
something about the calendar in the days of the early amoraim.

1- They held of two of our 3 dechuyos. Or, as REMT put it "they kept lo
D"U, but not lo alef". Or, lo Be"D Pesach.

I already wrote:
:                                 As RRW noted in the past, YT sheini
: shel galiyos doesn't fit lo BeD"U Pesach except a safeiq of Shabbos
: vs. Sunday -- there are no other pairs of adjacent days possible for
: Pesach...

The equivalent in the Y-mi's day would leave more opportunities for
sefeiqos: Wed-Thu, Thu-Fri, Fri-Shabbos, Shabbos-Sun.

But...

2- In the days of R' Yosa they had a calendar that had no variability
from the Rosh Chodesh before Purim (Adar or Adar II) through Tishrei.
Because he ties the day of the week of Purim to Yom Kippur.

We don't know how many days were in Shevat or Adar I, or even if these
were fixed numbers (as we have). But at the latest, everything from six
weeks before Pesach would line up the same every year.

The chasimas haY-mi predates Abayei's letter about minhag avoseikhem
beyedeikhem. This statement shows that much of the current calculation
for the calendar was in use before the end of qabbalas eidus.

But what kind of sefeiqa deyoma did the final generations of avoseikhem
have for Sukkos?

Second, the 9 weeks from Rosh Chodesh Nissan to Shavuos is long enough for
the news to reach Bavel. YT sheini shel goliyos for Shavuos is about not
minimizing people's perception of Shavuos compared to the other regalim.

But what about the 6 weeks from RC Adar to Pesach? Would there even be
sefeiqa deyoma for Pesach?

This R' Yosa could well be the R' Yosi of Y-mi Eiruvin 3:9 (top of vilna
ed 26b). R' Avohu visited Alexandria on Sukkos, so they had no sefeiqa
deyoma that year. He told them to take lulav on the 1st day on Shabbos.
(R' Avohu obviously also disagrees about lulav on day 1 in EY too.) R'
Yosi writes the people of Alexandria telling them, "Even though you have
for yourselves siderei mo'ados, do not veer from your father's minhag
from which your souls rest."

This would allow for the possibility that before Abayei and R' Hilllel II
we had a fixed calendar from Adar to Tishrei (R' Yosi's siderai mo'ados),
but Marcheshvan through Shevat were decided more ad hoc; those were the
months in which Sanhedrin made adjustments. Even today, the computation
puts all variability in Marcheshvan and Kislev, within that period.

YT sheini shel goliyos as a minhag (as R' Tam seems to imply) or taqanah
rather than real sefeiqa deyoma predates Abayei and the final fixing of
our calendar.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

The phone rang not long ago and after I answered a woman told me that 
she was calling for an organization that I have never heard of, that 
is headed by a rabbi I have never heard of,  that gives out money and 
food to needy people all over the country.

I pointed out to her that there were plenty of needy people living in 
Flatbush where I live and suggested that she send in a donation to 
the Young Israel of Avenue J Chesed Fund.  That ended the call.

The point is,  "Why should anyone expect local residents of a 
community that has needy people to support  needy people anywhere else?"

A friend of mine who lives in Washington Heights has complained to me 
that he regularly receives requests from yeshivas in Lakewood (not 
BMG which he considers a national Mosad and hence worthy of 
nationwide support) ) asking for donations.  "Why should I donate to 
a yeshiva in Lakewood when Washington Heights has so many needs?" he asks.

And speaking of Lakewood, I have been told by someone who lives there 
that there are constant appeals for all sorts of worthy causes that 
are not Lakewood based despite the fact that many mosdos in Lakewood 
are in severe financial straits.  He claimed that there was talk of a 
move to focus people on donating to Lakewood Mosdos rather than to 
other Mosdos.  I do not know if anything ever came of this.

When I lived in Elizabeth, NJ no organization that was not based in 
Elizabeth could hold a fund raising event in Elizabeth.  Some people 
were not happy about this and apparently their unhappiness was 
expressed to Rav P. M. Teitz,  ZT"L.  I recall Rav Teitz publicly 
pointing out that the mosdos in Elizabeth were constantly in need of 
funds,  and hence it was not appropriate for non-Elizabeth 
organizations to appeal to Elizabethans for funds.

When I get a call asking me to donate money to Hatzala in EY,  I 
point out that I donate to Hatzala of Flatbush and that I feel that 
people in EY should support Hatzala in EY.  I am not implying that 
Hatzala in EY is not a worthy cause.  However,  shouldn't my support 
be focused on organizations where I live?

Indeed, is it really appropriate and halachicly proper for a 
non-local organization that is not national to appeal for funds when 
the local mosdos are in need?  YL

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 02:07:07PM +0200, Ezra Chwat wrote:
: As for The Shoah as a dividing line, this does not fit Rav Havlin's
: model. Nonetheless, a general observation can be raised. One need
: simply compare to the control group- the Sephardic poskim..

I actually agree, which is why I compared this shift to that between
geonim and rishonim. Leavning style changed, and there is a quantitative
treatment between geonim and rishonim, but rishonim didn't treat geonim
and qualitatively different than themselves.

Shifts that are viewed as qualitative changes also have authoritative
halachic texts in the same blurry region. After the SA+Mapah, all pesaq
is defined and justified based on how far it is from the SA. An acharon
can argue with the Greater SA, but only if they can muster sufficient
support. "Rishonim" then becomes a term for potential source of support;
"acharonim" for those from whom we expect such support.

But the end of the geonim had no mishnah, shas or SA.

I would bemoan a future in which they view our generation with hindsight
and decide that the MB, which only covers OC, is sufficient to qualify
as that new poseiq acharon.

But the massive relocation caused by the Shoah did cause a change in
learning style and quality.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

is adding  something  to the k'aara for added  symbolism that some 
interest groups advocate [peace issues, gender issues,etc]   assur?  what 
about vegetarians  substituting a non-meat symbol for  zro'a?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120322/c4efc6f4/attachment.htm>

Not sure that the Korban Pesach had a vegetarian option.

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:15 PM,  <Saul.Z.New...@kp.org> wrote:
>
> is adding ?something ?to the k'aara for added ?symbolism that some interest
> groups advocate [peace issues, gender issues,etc] ? assur? ?what ?about
> vegetarians ?substituting a non-meat symbol for ?zro'a?

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 09:56:07PM +0000, Allan Engel wrote:
: Not sure that the Korban Pesach had a vegetarian option.

Maybe, but I've heard of using a piece of olive wood, to remember the
shipud, instead of a zaroa. The spit couldn't be metal, since that
would sear the meat by conducted heat, not tzeli eish. And most woods
are absorbant, so zayis in particular was used.

But still, the problem is as RAE points out, the entire concept of a
qorban Pesach is non-vegetarian. Unless one is vegetarian on religious
grounds -- not eating chullin, or not putting meat on your shulchan
until there is meat on HQBH's -- the whole thing becomes a tarta desasrei.

Besides, making a point about another message distracts from the seder's
actual purpose. So aside from my simply disagreeing with many of the
messages that they are trying to symbolize on the ke'arah, I wouldn't
think a message I do agree with does necessarily belong there. It's hard
to fulfil vehigadta levinkha if you're trying to simultaneously tell the
next generation two or more things. The further the cause is from what
it is we're supposed to be relaying, the more problematic it is. The
seder is not about freedom from oppression in general, it's about the
Yad Hashem in freeing us from Mitzrayim and qervanu la'avodaso.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 06:48:09PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> The first 12 are all, as RnCL characterized it on Areivim, to protect
>> "the down trodden of Chazal's society."
>
> I don't think so.  On the contrary, the common denominator that stands out
> is that they are all minor tinkering around the edges of the existing system,
> fine tuning it to make it work better.

I do not disagree, I just think your statement is too broad without mine.
There are lots of small taqanos; tiqun olam appears to only be used for a
tiny subset. They are all tinkering around the edges of existing dinim
in order to protect the downtrodden.

>> Gittin 33a asks what "tiqun olam"
>> means WRT not anulling the get in an outside BD unrelated to the shaliach
>> and gets two answers: R' Yochanan says tiqun mamzeirim, Reish Laqish,
>> tiqun agunos.

> I don't see any indication that this has to do with agunos or mamzerim
> being "downtrodden", but merely that they are an undesirable consequence
> of the anomaly that was found in the law, so a technical regulation was
> invented to fix it.  Now the system works well again.

And the anomaly just happens to be because someone will be harmed? And
in every case the someone happens to be an agunah, a mamzer, a yasom,
a future potential captive, or someone who lost an aveidah?

...
> The bottom line is that none of these are social activism; none of them
> are consistent with a radical political agenda...

The seifa wasn't under discussion.

We had two issues: it was agreed that halakhah doesn't align in lockstep
with liberal social agendas. But then the question was asked whether
tiqun olam refers to social agenda at all, or to something metaphysical
as per Aleinu's "lesaqein/lesakein olam".

In terms of tiqun (quf) vs tikun (kaf).

Lesaqein is, according to RSRH and RYBS, related to qoneh. It's repair in
the sense of remake, with implications of taking ownership. The original
qinyan (note the word!) was to make it yourself. Emphasis on the cheftzah.

Lesakein, with a kaf, is to prepare. Muchan. No connotations of
manufacture or resulting baalus. And the emphasis is on the tachlis.

I would therefore suggest:

Tiqun olam is to become a partner in HQBH's making of the world.

Tikun olam is to prepare the world for the era of His rule and its
perfection.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 3
*************************************

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..."