Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 52

Thu, 31 May 2012

• 1. Re: Bene Israel of India (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 3. Re: Psak she'ein hatzibbur yecholin laamod bo (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today? (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Bene Israel of India (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: [Areivim] Asifa - Lose Olam Haba (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Strengthening Our Belief in Hashem and His Beautiful Torah (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Psak she'ein hatzibbur yecholin laamod bo (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Bene Israel of India (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 11. Re: Bene Israel of India (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 12. Re: Psak she'ein hatzibbur yecholin laamod bo (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 13. copying from Christian Thinkers (Eli Turkel)
• 14. Re: Psak she'ein hatzibbur yecholin laamod bo (Ben Waxman)
• 15. Bible Codes: a Lie That Won?t Die (Micha Berger)

On 30/05/2012 1:15 PM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> Interesting article in the current issue of Conversations on
> ?Learning from the Bene Israel of India?. They have an oral tradition
> which Rabbi Shafner somewhat describes.

Is this article available online anywhere?  It was my understanding
that when the Baghdadim discovered them in the late 18th century the
only tradition they had was to gather every Friday at sunset and say
the Shema, which they had memorised but had no idea what it meant.
And that the reason we trust their yichus is because in India nobody
could marry outside their caste, and divorced women could not remarry.
Is that not the case?  What other traditions did they have before the
Baghdadim began to teach them?


>  My questions is how do we know we got it right and they need to switch
> to our understanding of halacha?

Because we have a continuous mesorah from the Tana'im and Amora'im
who had the authority to decide halacha for all Israel.


> If they need to switch, why did later deviations (e.g. ashkenaz vs.
> sfard) not have to pick one approach once they rediscovered each other?

Ashkenaz and Sefard didn't "rediscover" each other; they were always
in contact, and their differences in halacha, as opposed to minhag, are
merely a function of which poskim each gives more weight to.  If the BY
had talmidei chachamim and poskim, working from the same sources as ours,
then we would have to take them into account once we discovered them,
and they would be entitled to follow their psakim as they had done before.
But they had no TC or poskim; they were amei ha'aretz who did things out
of tradition, which was mostly lost or garbled over the years.  And the
opinions of amei ha'aretz don't count at all.  "Kulei alma lo pligi"
doesn't include AH.

-- 
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

R' Gershon Dubin wrote:
> My recollection ... is that according to one man de'amar in
> the Gemara, Boaz collected the 10 zekenim to publicize the
> pesak of Moavi velo Moavis

R' Zev Sero responded:
> Which had nothing at all to do with the validity of Ruth's
> giyur; there is no indication that anybody ever doubted that,
> then or later.

Yet Naami certainly did see problems with Orpah's giyur. So much so, in
fact, that she not only allowed Orpah to return to avodah zara, but she
*encouraged* it. I suppose this is not a problem according to those who see
Ruth's giyur as taking place in the latter part of the story, by "amech
ami".

But what about according to those who hold that they both converted prior
to marrying Machlon and Kilyon? Naami treated both Ruth and Orpah the same
way, did she not? So if there were problems with the validity of Orpah's
giyur, there must have been problems with the validity of Ruth's.

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 09:54:12PM +0300, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: Everyone has been talking about whether a "psak" was given that bans the
: internet.

: Is there any significance to the fact that it is called a "psak" and not a
: "gezerah"? If a gezerah is made that the tzibbur just can't keep, my
: understanding is that the gezerah does not end up taking effect...

I take it from your invocation of "she'ein hatzibur yachol laamod bah"
that you mean taqanah or gezeirah in the strict technical sense, a narrow
definition of the terms.

I don't think a real taqanah or gezeirah is possible without a Sanhedrin.
The Rambam seems to say so in Mamrim 2:2, when he asks how you can
have a beis din that is gedolah beminyan, since every BD has 71 --
"zeh minyan chakhmei hador". So his disacussion of taganos is THE beis
din of the 71 top gedolim of the generation. Not just stam a poseiq,
or even "stam" a collection of gedolimn. The Sanhedrin.

I've suggested in the past that this is why Rabbainu Gershom accomplished
his "taqanos" (in the loose, colloquial, sense of the word) through a
different mechanism -- the cheirem.

I also agree it's hard to pasqen that existing issurim of yichud or
directly lehistaqel banashim apply. But mine is a pretty uninformed
opinion.

But (as I wrote more than once on the original Areivim thread) I think
we're discussing a "pesaq", not an actual pesaq in the narrow technical
legal-process sense.

I think there has a been a good deal of linguistic slipperiness in public
pronouncements. Guzma rather than legal categories that (eg) anyone
could apply lomdus to. Another case I would assume is an example is the
labeling a wrong belief "apiqursus" while also believing apiqursus,
kefirah and minus are defined by the Rambam's 13 and yet the belief
doesn't touch the 13. One of the three lines on that triangle doesn't
fit -- and I'm assuming it's the literality of the label "apiqursus".

Back to our case... I recently batted around with RMSS about whether a
daas Torah proclamation could qualify as a pesaq.
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?se
ction=D#DAAS%20TORAH%20REREREREDUX%20PESACHIM%20112A
(or http://tinyurl.com/72ug5fb)
In v30n39 I wrote that this isn't something I think can be argued,
it's built into the meaning of the idiom:
> It's not an assertion, it's a definition. The concept of "daas Torah"
> is defined as turning to rabbanim for advice even when the question is
> not halachic, and not even about aggadita (eg weighing two conflicting
> Torah values). As R' Bernard Weinberger put it in the 2nd issue of JO
> (Oct 1963):
>    a lot more than Torah weltanschauung or a Torah saturated
>    perspective. It assumes a special endowment or capacity to penetrate
>    objective reality, recognize the facts as they 'really' are, and apply
>    pertinent Halachic principles. It is a form of 'Ruach HaKodesh,' as
>    it were, which borders if not remotely on the periphery of prophecy.

> Another formulation involves noting how Torah study enhances the shape
> of all their thoughts.

(But I think I said it too firmly, since he simply let me have the last
word just when I thought I was finally understood. And then RAM, Lisa,
Zev and I batted around my translation of the Rashi.)

RMSS didn't see the line I was drawing between a pesaq halakhah and a
daas Torah informed "pesaq" then, and I think his perspective is needed
to balance mine now.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
mi...@aishdas.org        but by rubbing one stone against another,
http://www.aishdas.org   sparks of fire emerge. 
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz

On 30/05/2012 4:32 PM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> I suppose this is not a problem according to those who see Ruth's giyur
> as taking place in the latter part of the story, by "amech ami".

Isn't that passage the source for most of hilchos giyur?  Isn't that
where she accepted the yoke of mitzvos, and went through a sampling
of "some of the light and heavy mitzvos" as required in SA?


> But what about according to those who hold that they both converted
> prior to marrying Machlon and Kilyon?

I'm unfamiliar with these opinions.  Who are they?

-- 
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

>  My questions is how do we know we got it right and they need to switch
> to our understanding of halacha?

Because we have a continuous mesorah from the Tana'im and Amora'im
who had the authority to decide halacha for all Israel.

> If they need to switch, why did later deviations (e.g. ashkenaz vs.
> sfard) not have to pick one approach once they rediscovered each other?

Ashkenaz and Sefard didn't "rediscover" each other; they were always
in contact, and their differences in halacha, as opposed to minhag, are
merely a function of which poskim each gives more weight to.  If the BY
had talmidei chachamim and poskim, working from the same sources as ours,
then we would have to take them into account once we discovered them,
and they would be entitled to follow their psakim as they had done before.
But they had no TC or poskim; they were amei ha'aretz who did things out
of tradition, which was mostly lost or garbled over the years.  And the
opinions of amei ha'aretz don't count at all.  "Kulei alma lo pligi"
doesn't include AH.

-- 
==============================================================
They claim a continuous mesorah as well.  If I were them I would argue that our forefathers breached halacha by writing the oral law down.
KT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:25:17PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
:> I think RnTK is right. Anyone who was firmly within the target audience
:> realized it was guzma. I -- and I'm not from that population -- listened
:> to the audio stream, it never struck me otherwise.
: 
:> Halakhah is made by going to your own rav, or his rav, or... and so on.
:> Posqim know it, even if publishers and promulgators might pretend
:> otherwise....

: I am not so sure that you are right, or within the mindset of the people who
: were making the claim.
: 
: There is a teshuvah of the Chatam Sofer (Choshen Mishpat 116) which
: discussed the calling of an "assifas hamevorim".  The local Sar had put a
: new tax on the community, and the community leaders were trying to work out
: how to raise the money to pay it.  So they called for all individuals to
: come to the asifa but only around 30 baalei battim came, and they agreed to
: choose nine balei battim - 3 wealthy, 3 middle class and 3 poor and they
: would agree with the  community leaders how to raise the money - and they
: all agreed to raise money in a certain way, all except one of the nine balei
: battim, who disagreed with the plan.  And the question to the Chatam Sofer
: was could they go ahead with the plan, even though it involved taking money,
: inter alia, from this one of the nine balei batim against his will and from
: the rest of the community which seems to have been passive in this whole
: thing.

: And the Chatam Sofer held that they could.  He held that despite only thirty
: baal habatim coming to the asifa (spelt aleph samech yud feh heh)...

This you yourself write, this is an idea one finds in choshein mishpat
in particular. How do you decide how to allocate communal funds when
you can't sit down every potential taxpayer and reach consensus?

Here in the US, it would be an executive branch question, not Judicial or
Legislative. My point was about the word "pesaq", which is interpretation
of law.

I don't see in this a template for pesaq, but a rule about taxation and
semi-random surveys. How would someone apply it to a ruling (if it was
such) about EhE?

(As for "asifah"/"aseifah", I don't think the yud is indicative. But
in his case, they were people ordered to arrive, not people who chose
to buy tickets and congregate. So either word would work. My objection
to calling the Citi Field experience an "Asifah" is that the organizers
should be using a word that can refer to subjects willingly gathering
somewhere, rather than objects being gathered up. And if they won't,
I will -- because I thereby brought the point to the chevrah's attention.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:19:07AM -0400, I forwarded a link to a vort
by RCJachter. It said in part:
> It is important to clarify that I do not seek to "prove" Hashem's
> existence, because as modern philosophers have noted, this is not a
> productive exercise. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik in his classic essay The
> Lonely Man of Faith cites Soren Kierkegaard's (a major mid-nineteenth
> century religious philosopher) reaction when hearing that the medieval
> philosopher Anselm of Canterbury engaged in prayer an entire evening
> beseeching God to help him formulate his celebrated Ontological Proof of
> God's Existence. Kierkegaard, in turn, asked, does a bride in the embrace
> of her beloved bridegroom require proof of his existence? Kierkegaard
> argues that Anselm's intense prayer constituted a more authentic "proof"
> of God than the Ontological Proof.

> Moreover, modern philosophers (such as Descartes and Kant) have
> demonstrated that one can "prove" very little, if anything. Descartes
> notes that one cannot prove that other people exist, as perhaps it is
> merely an evil demon that is painting a false image on one's brain to
> fool one into thinking that others exist. Despite the inability to prove
> the existence of others, I nevertheless am one hundred percent convinced
> of the existence of others. Similarly, I am thoroughly convinced of the
> Truth of Hashem and His Torah.

> Rav Elchanan Wasserman -- The Argument from Design

> Rav Elchanan Wasserman (in his Kovetz Maamarim) argues that it is
> obvious that there is a God from the fact that we see order in this
> world. Common sense teaches that this is impossible for this to happen by
> itself and thus it is obvious that the world has a Creator. Philosophers
> have traditionally referred to this type of proof as the argument from
> design. Many earlier Jewish philosophers such as Rabbeinu Bachya espoused
> this argument for Hashem's existence.

> Rav Elchanan takes this argument one step further arguing that it is
> also obvious that the Creator would provide a manual on how to function
> in the world He created. We may draw an analogy to a car manufacturer
> who provides a manual on how to operate the car he has created. So too,
> argues Rav Elchanan, common sense dictates that Hashem provided a manual,
> namely the Torah, for humans to know how to act.

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 02:03:02PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: And how does one respond to the question (especially on the R'EW approach),
: if it is so patently obvious, why does the vast majority of humanity
: reject your approach? AIUI R'EW's response was it's the yetzer hara.

Yes, as RCJ included in a later section, titled "Rav Yoel Bin Nun on
Megillat Esther":
> One may wonder why so many intelligent people are not convinced of the
> truth of Hashem and Torah. Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Kovetz Maamarim)
> ascribes such lack of belief to people's wish to justify engaging in
> inappropriate activities. He cites as proof the Pasuk in Tehillim (14:1)
> that states "a degenerate states in his heart that there is no God."

As per the intro... I agree with RCJ, Kant, Descartes, Kierkegaard, RYBS
et al... There are no real proofs. I believe that this is the Kuzari's
position, as written here in the past (but not recently).

RCJ describes the Kuzari Proof:
> For the Ramban (commentary to Shemot 13:16) and the Kuzari the most
> persuasive argument for faith in Torah is Tradition. As the Kuzari notes,
> the miracles associated with great events in Jewish history, Yetziat
> Mitzrayim and Maamad Har Sinai, were witnessed by millions of people who
> passed this information to their descendants year after year at their
> Seders. This is unlike the miracles claimed by other religions that are
> described as having occurred before a very limited number of people.

> One might argue that Bnei Yisrael accepted the Torah because they
> were a docile and gullible people who accepted anything and everything
> that Moshe Rabbeinu told them, because of his seductive and persuasive
> oratory. However, this is hardly true as Bnei Yisrael regrettably were
> constantly bickering and disobedient to Moshe Rabbeinu. Moreover, Moshe
> Rabbeinu was a very poor speaker. Virtually the only time we were unified
> was at Har Sinai (see Rashi Shemot 19:1). The reason we united at Sinai
> was that the authenticity of the Har Sinai experience was profoundly
> compelling and unquestionably persuasive.

> Similarly, we find in every generation that observant Jews are not
> passive and gullible people who are accepting of everything. Every
> significant Talmudic and Halachik issue is carefully examined and great
> experts and laypeople vigorously and rigorously analyze every new and
> old opinion. Yet observant Jews agree upon core values and beliefs such
> as the divine authorship of the torah. The Rambam (Hilchot Mamrim 1:3)
> indicates that if there is no dispute regarding a particular law then this
> law must originate as a tradition from Sinai. Examples of such laws are
> the Halacha that our Tefillin must be colored black and that our Mezuzot
> contain only the two Parshiot of Shema and Vihaya Im Shamoa. I have often
> surmised that these matters must be of heavenly origin; otherwise, we
> would be fighting rigorously about these laws in the manner we do about
> so many other Halachot.

> Incidentally, it seems that this is the reason why the Sefer HaChinuch
> (21) rules that women are obligated in the Mitzvah of Sippur Yetziat
> Mitzrayim...

I understood the Kuzari as denying the whole concept of philosophical
proof.
http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/yisro.pdf
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2004/12/kuzari-proof-part-i.shtml

I wrote back then an argument against "The Kuzari Proof": 
> The reason why I doubt that this is Rav Yehudah haLevi's intent is
> because he had the king already approach a philosopher as well as a
> Christian Scholast, and the king already rejected philosophical proof
> as unconvincing. The Rabbi provides as a counterpoint to his statement
> (Kuzari I, par 13), "The Rabbi: That which you describe is religion
> based on speculation and system, the research of thought, but open to
> many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do
> not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be
> established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and
> still much less capable of being proved."

> In other words, the Rabbi's basis for belief is not one based on
> "speculation and system". It's not philosophical proof. Reducing his
> words to an argument of the style described above defeats the whole
> point Rav Yehudah haLevi is trying to make! As he later writes (par 63),
> "There is an excuse for the Philosophers. Being Grecians, science and
> religion did not come to them as inheritances."

I later <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2004/12/kuzari-proof-part-ii.shtml>
argued that the flaw with any proof is that it's just a web of logic
connecting givens. Unless someone buys into the same givens (first
principles, postulates), the rigor of the proof won't mean anything
to them.

> The deeper faith is one in which the principles of Judaism are
> postulates, not theorems that require proving. If we can, after the fact,
> gain greater appreciation for them through proof, or understand their
> implications, connotations are less fundamental details by giving them
> philosophical treatment, great.

> This is what I meant when I wrote that while there is an obligation to
> engage in machashavah amuqah, emunah itself is a middah -- an attitude,
> not the product of that deliberation.

> Just as we rely on information from our senses and generalizations from
> them to produce postulates about which we reason, we can also rely on
> mental experience. Einstein's heavy use of thought-experiments is one
> example. So is our acceptance of Euclid's posulate about parallel lines
> -- despite the impossibility of parallel lines of infinite length ever
> really existing.
...
> Proofs have a role in deepening understanding -- after the basic
> principles have been accepted. This is why the Kuzari has much to
> say philosophically, as long as one's belief is not on philosophical
> foundations.

(BTW, speaking of problems with the Kuzari proof, see the Mexica / Aztec
myth about being lead from Atzslan by the god Huitzilopochtli. Or the
Theban origin myth.)

Returning to RJS:
> Rav Soloveitchik -- The Argument from Halacha

> Rav Soloveitchik writes in his classic essay, The Ish Halacha, that the
> Halacha is the most compelling proof for the truth of Torah. I understand
> this to mean that the scholar (or student guided by a competent teacher)
> who plumbs the depths of the Halachic system will be overwhelmed with
> its beauty and majesty to the point that he is left with no other option
> than to accept the divine origin of this system. It also might mean that
> one who spends a lifetime dedicated to abiding by the Halachic system
> will conclude that it is indeed the finest prescription for leading a
> fulfilling and content life. He will also comprehend why a recurring
> theme in Sefer Devarim that the Torah's rules are "Litov Lach," serve
> our best interest.

This, like belief based on shemiras Shabbos, relies on the distinction
between finding a math proof beautiful (an aesthetic judgment) and the
properties of the proof being judged.

I do not understand this argument as being "I believe because I like it"
or "... it works for me". Rather: I believe because I had a religious
experience whose attributes are compelling. I believe in the halachic
process and the Torah's claim of coming from Sinai and developing
through that process since because of the reality of the results as they
reached me.

Admittedly, it won't work for convincing anyone other than yourself; it's
a judgement of truth based on experiences that aren't easily shared. All
we can do is give others *opportunities* to experience it for themselves.

The certitude the Qalam, Scholasticists, R' Saadia and the Rambam went
for isn't believed to be possible anymore. REW is right that someone who
looks at the world in an unbiased way can't help but see the design
behind it. And thus failure must be bias. But isn't bias just another
word for being swayed by a different set of experiences, being convinced
of a different set of givens that those experiences conveyed?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

I think there has a been a good deal of linguistic slipperiness in public
pronouncements. Guzma rather than legal categories that (eg) anyone
could apply lomdus to. 
====================================
Agree (e,g, were wedding takanot really takanot, does R' Krohn really want
to put internet commenters in cherem?).  Truth be told, I'm not sure that
psak today is same - i.e. is its force based on presumed neder/acceptance? 
If I ask a learned friend who doesn't have smicha, is it binding? One who
does but from an institution I am unfamiliar with?  What if I am a member
of 2 shuls and the rabbis come out with conflicting opinions....
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On 30/05/2012 5:37 PM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> They claim a continuous mesorah as well.

How can they claim a mesorah when they are ignorant of almost all of
TSBK and TSBP?  A mesorah of amei ha'aretz is not a mesorah at all.
If they had the TSBK and TSBP, with some variances that they attributed
to their kabalah, then we'd have to address it in the same way that the
rishonim would have had to address the sefer "Amar Yehoshua" if they
weren't able to dismiss it as a hoax.  But to the best of my knowledge
they had none of these things (and Amar Yehosuha was a hoax).

-- 
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

R' Zev Sero asked:

> The Sifri says that "dor asiri" implies that the 11th
> generation is permitted.  Thus the plain meaning of the
> pasuk about a mamzer would seem to mean that the disability
> is not forever. ...
>
> But this doesn't explain why the Torah couldn't have just
> spoken plainly, said "ad olam" in both cases, and not
> mentioned the 10th generation at all.

As I complained in the thread about exaggeration, rhetoric is a difficult
thing. Which is the plain meaning? One must know his audience. What is the
plain meaning of Shir Hashirim? Is the plain meaning about two humans, or
about G-d and His people?

As for WHY an author (or Author) chooses a rhetoric-laden phrase over a
simple one, I don't really know, and I suppose that the reasons could vary
with the case, but I would imagine that in general it would be to add
emphasis of some kind.

I daresay that the "shot heard round the world" was not heard more than a
few hundred yards away, but the plain meaning of the phrase is to
illustrate the far-reaching impact of the event.

Perhaps "dor asiri" is an idiom that we're not used to, and that the
original audience understood it to connote a time even longer than "ad
olam". (I have nothing to support that; it's only an example of how
difficult it is to translate rhetoric.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4fc6c1612b4d57e87bst01vuc

R' Joel Rich asked:

> Interesting article in the current issue of Conversations on
> "Learning from the Bene Israel of India".  They have an oral
> tradition which Rabbi Shafner somewhat describes.  My
> questions is how do we know we got it right and they need to
> switch to our understanding of halacha?  If they need to
> switch, why did later deviations (e.g. ashkenaz vs. sfard)
> not have to pick one approach once they rediscovered each
> other?

I have long wondered this very question, especially in regard to the Jews of Ethiopia, but also in regard to the Bene Israel and all similar groups.

The egalitarian in me winces when I smell a presumption that the Mesorah of
these other groups is pasul. I wonder what the answer of the gedolim is, as
I have never seen them discuss the possiblity that they should just
continue in the future as in the past.

But between me and myself (and now I'll share it with Avodah) I have come
up with some ideas: RJR's question about the Ashkenaz and Sfard
"rediscovering" each other is (it seems to me) not a valid question, as the
lack of communication was never so great that the other side was forgotten.
Communities were fairly isolated, allowing customs to vary, and psak even
more so. But there was always a certain degree of communication, which
allowed the rough edges to get smoothened out. The works of the Raavad and
Rama are but two examples.

This sort of communication ensured that neither the Ashkenazim nor the
Sefaradim would drift too far off center. And it applied just as well to
groups like the Romaniotes, who stubbornly [I mean that as a compliment]
held on to their own ways, deliberately refusing to assimilate into the
Ashkenaz or Sefardi worlds.

But my understanding is that the Indian and Ethiopian communities were far
more cut off than that. Contact with other Jews was sometimes limited to
just one lone traveler in a few centuries. It is no wonder that some poskim
even question their Jewishness, and advise Giyur Lechumra. Under such
conditions -- specifically, a lack of checks and balances [shakla v'tarya]
-- I can easily imagine a very good chance that some of their practices go
too far (or not far enough) in one direction or another.

It is my hope that, rather than assimilating wholesale into modern Judaism,
their leaders were able to carefully analyze each difference as carefully
as possible, so as to hold on to as much of their Toras Imecha as possible.
If anyone knows of any articles on this, I'd love to read them.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4fc6ca7b3a073582035st01vuc

R' Liron Kopinsky asked:

> Everyone has been talking about whether a "psak" was given
> that bans the internet.
>
> Is there any significance to the fact that it is called a
> "psak" and not a "gezerah"? If a gezerah is made that the
> tzibbur just can't keep, my understanding is that the gezerah
> does not end up taking effect. But presumably, if it's a "psak"
> then it's based on already existant and accepted halachot, is
> it intended that we have no choice?

I have noticed this also.

I tremble in fear at the thought of putting my words into the mouths of the
gedolim who spoke. But in reading the articles that were published, there
is a theme that I see recurring, and that is the d'Oraisa of Lo Siten
Michshol, not to put a stumbling block in front of someone. Not a fellow
Jew, not a family member, not even oneself.

My guess (and I stress that this is only my guess) is that if someone would
ask them RLK's question, they would insist that this ban is NOT a new
gezera of any kind, and that filterless internet-capable devices are an
example of a michshol. Perhaps they'd even compare it to a loaded gun.

This would not be a gezara, which is a new d'Rabanan, and would be
obligatory only if most people were capable of abiding by it, as RLK wrote.
Rather, it would be a psak regarding a pre-existing d'Oraisa, the psak
being that the Torah Prohibition does apply to this new device.

Suppose someone would say that speaking Lashon Hara over the telephone is
assur. Would anyone think that this is a new gezera? It is pretty
straightforward to me that it is not a new gezera, but an old halacha.

Of course, being a psak, others might hold differently, and argue (for
whatever reason) that the internet is NOT a forbidden michshol. I'm not
taking sides right now, just trying to suggest an answer to RLK's question.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4fc6cf9bd230a1ced7a0st02vuc

from an old post
<< "I was hoping people would understand that I was bothered by the very
fact
that RYBS would have based his most famous essay on Jewish thought on
Christian thinkers without even mentioning the fact.  From Brill, it seems
that the ideas were practically copied right out of books by Brunner and
Barth.  Does anyone else have trouble with this?" >>

In addition to R. Carmy's replies I am reading the recent book of
Blidstein, based on old essays, on RYBS.
He has an un depth discussion of the influence of Barth and Buber on the
writings of RYBS. In Halakhic Man and Halakic Mind RYBS explicitly
discusses Barth and so there is no doubt that he was familar with his
writings.

To claim that the ideas were copied from Barth is simply wrong. Blidstein
discusses at length similarities and differences in the approaches of Barth
and RYBS. It is no secret that RYBS read and was influenced by many
nonJewish sources such as   Kierkegaard. Among some of the differences in
approach is that Barth sees Adam II as a continuation of Adam I. According
to RYBS Adam II is a distinctly different entity than Adam I. Barth;s
version is based on Xtian theology while RYBS's is based on Jewish
theology.  Furthermore Barth stresses the idea of the corruption of sin
which again is Xtian and the consequence rebellion of the Jewish people
against G-d. The main point for Barth is the relationship of of Adam and
Eve which symbolizes the relationship of G-d to Israel and then the church.
OTOH RYBS stresses that the convenant is between three parties man, woman
and G-d and symbolizes the intrinsic part that G-d has with regard to man
both that the couple is dedicated to G-d and that G-d is involved in their
relationship. In that sense RYBS dedicated the work to his wife.

In summary RYBS as Rabbi Carmy stated RYBS was influenced by many sources
but he extracted the essence based on his Jewish knowledge. If one reads
the recent interview with RAL he too stresses that one can learn from many
different sources as long as one is able to see which parts align with
Jewish thinking and which parts are opposed.



-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120531/c77e52fe/attachment-0001.htm>

Its been  a while since I looked at lifnei iver, but if this is simply 
an old halacha, than wouldn't the rules of lifnei iver apply? For 
example, if you lived near someone or  who has an unsecured wireless 
modem broadcasting (assuming that it is OK to use someone's account) or 
you live near an Internet hot spot, than according to some opinions 
there wouldn't be any issue of lifnei iver (yes?).

Ben

On 5/31/2012 4:54 AM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> Suppose someone would say that speaking Lashon Hara over the telephone
> is assur. Would anyone think that this is a new gezera? It is pretty
> straightforward to me that it is not a new gezera, but an old halacha.

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:33:33PM -0400, Prof. Levine forwarded to Areivim:
> From http://tinyurl.com/7x2aza7
> Some Still Comforted by Making Faith Irrefutable as Physics

"Lie" is different than "false". It implies an intentional act of
misleading. The title is wrong.

> One reason that Bible Codes have gone out of fashion is that  
> mathematicians and statisticians have thoroughly, completely and  
> convincingly disproved them. For example,  
> <http://www.khunwoody.com/biblecodes/>Barry Simon of the Caltech  
> mathematics department has shown that any sufficiently large text will 
> have similar letter patterns in it. Famously, the same algorithms used in 
> the Bible Codes yielded similarly "prophetic" results when used on Hebrew 
> translations of "War and Peace."

Neither really did what the original code work claims. Yes, you can pick
pairs of words whose pairing (or 3, or 4) is semantically signficant
and find them as a "code" any large text. So, find one word, and then
repeatedly try different words as possible pairs and thirds until you get
a match. It's like saying a medication is effective by throwing out most
of the members of the clinical trial that fail to respond to the drug.

So, Drosnin's "prophecy" silliness was disproven by McKay. "Prophecy"
requires hunting for matching words, so of course it was found to fit
the above description.

But neither McKay or Simon actually addressed the original claim, that
prechosen pairings (or triplets or...) picked without an eye to what is
in the text are found abnormally often, and abnormally often they are
in relevent stretches of the chumash.

WRT the original claim, it boils down to whether we trust the authors
that the word pairs listed were chosen without any knowledge of which
would work. Did they really pick 32 random lab rats, or pick 32 successes
out of a pool of hundreds?

Simon writes:
    When mathematicians began to seriously look at the details, many
    questions were raised -- for example, it turns out that for 12
    of the 32 Rabbis, Prof. Havlin didn't use the Responsa database
    [42]. In response to a list of queries, Prof. Havlin provided a
    statement with various details about his construction of the list
    [43]. Prof. Havlin's testimony makes it clear that the list is not
    objective. That is, two well-meaning scholars starting from scratch
    and working independently would arrive at very different lists. He
    calls a large section of his document "Professional Judgements" and
    says he had to use discretion in making choices. Not even in Alice
    in Wonderland would a list that required judgements on the part of
    the list maker be called objective. Indeed, since he says in several
    places that he can't recall why he didn't include certain names,
    it is clear that not only wouldn't the list be the same if another
    scholar produced it, it wouldn't be the same if the same scholar
    produced it ten years later.

Notice he doesn't say Prof SZ Havlin admitted to knowing what would fit
an ELS before picking them. Just that there is enough "wiggle room", the
hundreds of possible lab rats do exist, whether or not they went to
the lab. Ironically, when Witztum and Rips went back with a cleaner list,
the effect was MORE pronounced.

As I posted a while back, my primary problem with the codes is not whether
or not they defy statistics. Frankly, few of us could assess that for
ourselves, and it will boil down to which subject authority we choose
to believe. My primary problem is that this is bad religion. R' Yochanan
reduced a talmid to a pile of bones because the student wouldn't believe
his statement about the pasuq until he saw it for himself. (BB 75a)
"Reiqa! Ilmalei ra'isa, lo he'emanta?! Melagleig al divrei chakhamim
atah!"

Mesorah has to have epistemic weight. It is a source of postulates,
no less sure than the postulates we collect through our senses (or in
this case, near-prophetic experience?). Somene who makes their Yahadus
depend on some outside proof missed the boat, and can't ever really
become a maamin.

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 52
**************************************

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..."