Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 80

Tue, 03 Jul 2012

• 1. 2 issues (saul newman)
• 2. ChatziH on Shevi'i Shel P and Drops of Wine - MaAsei YaDai (Meir Rabi)
• 3. Mechallel Shabbos to destroy a non-kosher phone? (Marty Bluke)
• 4. Re: Chatzi Hallel on Shevi'i Shel Pesach and Drops of Wine - AaAsei YaDai (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Halachic Discussion of Tow Truck Baby (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (Ben Waxman)
• 7. Mechallel Shabbos to destroy a non-kosher phone (Chana Luntz)
• 8. was this ok? (saul newman)
• 9. yeihareig val yaavor (saul newman)
• 10. Re: paskening from old/new information (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: was this ok? (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 12. Re: yeihareig val yaavor (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: was this ok? (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Mechallel Shabbos to destroy a non-kosher phone? (Zev Sero)

http://seforim.blogspot.com/2012/06/future-of-israeli-haredi-soci
ety-can.html

a long discussion with sources on the issue of democracy and its place in
the halachic state , which if demographics continue as is , ie
 pre-messianic times but with a haredi majority , the issues need be
considered

2. the different approaches , in different siddurim in re  tzeirei/segol
differences  [ ie verb vs noun] , and whether those translations have been
consistent in their approach
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120701/148af157/attachment-0001.htm>

> How can we lift a cup in celebration and praise Gd when Gd lost the
battle?
> How can we sing Gd's praises?

R Zev, you ask: How many times do you have to repeat: Hu eino sas aval
acherim mesis; which is an explicit gemara one can't argue with.

R Zev; Be prepared to repeat it 400 times. And may you be rewarded like Rav
PreiDa.

But allow me to observe, we do not argue with the Gemara: we offer praise,
somewhat muted, restrained and even saddened, because Gd did not achieve
His preferred outcome. This is accomplished by filing and then spilling
from the cup that we will raise in His honour.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120702/06e507bb/attachment-0001.htm>

Continuing the discussion from Areivim. The Toldos Avraham Yitzchak Rebbe
made a series of statements against non-kosher phones. One of the things
that he is reported to have said was that if they find a non-kosher phone
on Shabbos they can be mechallel shabbos to destroy it. He also said that
the destroyers would not have to pay for the destroyed phone.

Interestingly enough R' Daniel Eidensohn posted yesterday (
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/rav-sternbuch-dest
roying-television-to.html)
the following from R' Sternbuch about a child damaging his parents
television.

Question: A baal teshuva, when visiting his parents who have a television,
damages it in order that the family members will not watch it. Is it
permitted for him to damage so?

He has a rather lengthy answer, his conclusion is the following:

"... I feel that every such action requires a consultation with a rav. We
see clearly in the above gemora, that the pious person indicated that he
should have been more patient and not have been so hasty to rip the
garment. Also we see that Yaakov did not approve of this theft which Rachel
kept concealed from him and in fact he cursed the person who stole the
idols - and she died from the curse. (We see that sometimes a pious act
causes much more spiritual harm then if no action were taken. And that
instead of glorifying G-d - the reverse happens as is known from many
incidents.). It could also be that in our case it is not the appropriate
time to stop them from watching television and an act that is premature can
cause much harm. Thus even if the act itself is permitted it might be at
the wrong time. Therefore the act can not be done in isolation of context
and it is necessary to get permission with a wise person as to what is
appropriate and to follow his words. It is also a good idea to speak with
the parents and to try to explain to them that television causes much harm.
And so even if they enjoy it for the moment - it will eventually cause
severe harm to the entire family. In fact there is nothing comparable to
its harmfulness. In conclusion, concerning damaging or destroying the
television, even if he is willing to pay for it, it is best if he asks a
posek before he does anything."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120702/760f8c60/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 06:40:26PM +1000, Meir Rabi wrote:
: But in spite of Gd's best efforts Paroh remained obstinate, defiant,
: unrepentant and insistent that he will not admit defeat. So he won and Gd
: lost.
...

Actually, G-d worked to keep Par'oh obstinate. "Vayachazeiq Hashem es leiv
Par'oh" and all. That starts only with the reprieve after makas shechin,
though.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 1/07/2012 5:41 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> At http://tinyurl.com/6tawbv7 R. Gil Student concludes

> I suggest, albeit tentatively, that the husband who flagged down someone
> to help was doing the right thing in trying to secure either a woman or
> gentile to assist.

When the story was posted here with obvious horror, as it it was clear
that he was wrong and a "chassid shoteh", I assumed that the issues R Gil
discusses were well-known to the Areivim, including to the person who
posted it, and that the horror came from the fact that he was entrusting
his wife's safety to a random nochri, which is also against the shulchan
aruch.  I assumed the person who posted it meant that since they were on
the roadside where there weren't any bnei yisrael to assist, it's obvious
that the husband should have treated it as pikuach nefesh and assisted
himself.  If this were to happen in EY or in an area where it's likely
that a passing driver would be from bnei yisrael, then surely it's obvious
that he did the right thing, and why would anyone question it?

I will say that I was somewhat puzzled that nobody answered at all, and
thought perhaps all of this was too obvious to be worth mentioning.  But
perhaps not.  In particular I see that the issue of a nochri, and the
danger that the SA ascribes, seems not to be tofes makom with R Gil at
all;   this is of course in keeping with our common-sense observations of
the usual metzius in the USA, which does not seem to accord with what the
metzius used to be, and still is in places like EY, but nevertheless I
would have thought that it could be used as a snif leheter in this case.

By the way, this was what I was obliquely referring to in my posts about
EMTs, when I said that there are rare situations where pikuach nefesh does
*not* trump all, and one needs a posek to decide them.

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

On 5/22/2012 5:36 PM, Doron Beckerman wrote:
> Either way, Rav Moshe held that Yeshiva students are absolved from army
> service in Israel. See IM Yoreh Deah IV:33.
> http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14679&;st=&pgnum=263

I've often wondered how is it that there is no psak on this issue. Rav 
Moshe's tshuva is, WADR, not an exception to this point. In just a few 
sentences with little or no explanation, he rules that Talmud Torah 
overrides army service. He cites one source, no explanation on the 
source (who is a rabban, what shimrah do they not need (for example Rav 
Melameid ruled that this is only dealing with theft)), no dealing with 
the various Rambams and other sources, what if the rabbanan in question 
demand shmirah or in their actions show very clearly that, yes they do 
need shmirah (ya'ani running away from rockets).

Ben

[Cross-over from Areivim. -micha]

On 28/06/2012 4:11 PM, Andy Levy-Stevenson wrote:
> Just so I'm clear here: The question being discussed is NOT (1) whether
> one may take someone else's phone and destroy it?

And RZS replied:
>That's right, the Rebbe was clear that phones may be confiscated and
> destroyed, and there is no obligation to compensate the owner.

On what halachic basis? (Or is the claim that Rebbes are above the
halacha)?


>> Surely (2) is moot ... it's not your phone. Why would one believe 
>> it's permitted to steal and destroy someone else's phone?

>Because they have no right to have it in the first place.  Uvi'arta 
>hara mikirbecha.  If you see a Jew eating treif, do you not have the 
>right and obligation to take it from them and destroy it?

If it was a form of treif on which there was an issur han'ah - eg basar
v'chalav d'orisa then it has no value and therefore if stolen the ganav
would indeed be patur from paying. But if the treif was a form on which
there may have been an issur achila, but no issur hana'ah, on what basis
is he patur from paying?

But to even argue that a phone is an object the subject of an issur
hana'ah, we need some level of halachic justification. How can this
particular Rebbe just impose an issur hana'ah on the property of his
followers who do not agree to it (and clearly if they actually agreed,
despite being one of his followers, they would not have the phone)?

I notice you quote uvi'arta hara mikirbecha - but where do you find that
this pasuk entitles one to steal (even issurei hana'ah and certainly
something that does not have a din of issur han'ah)? It appears to
require one to bring somebody (or something, like a bird that has killed)
to beis din for judgment, and for a beis din to judge somebody who is a
treifa who has murdered - but where do you find on this pasuk the right
for somebody to go and remove even somebody else's property, even were it
to have an issur hana'ah on it (even if they would be patur from paying
if they did so)?

I wondered if in fact you were thinking about lo tishcon b'ohelotecha
avla - but even there, while it is forbidden to keep in one's house
a false shtar, or incorrect sifrei TanaCh, the solution in the latter
case that the Chachamim came up with when they discovered the people
were being lax about this was to pay the sofrim from the trumos halishka
to fix the sfarim, not to barge into their houses and confiscate them.
(Maybe the comparison would be to pay from community funds to provide
top notch filtering software and for experts to install such software).

The Benei Banim has a series of teshuvos (Shut Bnei Banim Chelek Sheni
siman 47, 48 and 49) regarding the halachic impermissibility of the common
practice in schools of taking the property of their students (such as
balls and the like), even if the intention is to return them at the end
of the day or the end of the term on the grounds that it is stealing
(this is a great one to raise at a shabbas/yom tov table where you have
a bunch of teachers as guests - you get howls of outrage about how this
is necessary and essential and a school cannot run otherwise). The shoel
of the Bnei Banim was similarly disturbed, and kept coming back on this.
In the second teshuva the shoel argues that since there is at least
theoretically a power for a Rav to hit a talmid, then surely there is
no problem with taking away his property temporarily in order to get him
to learn. And Rav Henkin says no. He points out that d'orisa the issur
l'hakot is pen yosif, not an absolute prohibition, but a prohibition not
to physically punish more than is required (not that he is recommending
corporal punishment for talmidim), while the prohibition on gezela is
absolute - and thus even if one might theoretically be entitled to use
corporal punishment on the talmid, one still cannot take away their
property, even with the intention to return it. (The final teshuva the
shoel comes up with the idea of getting the talmid himself to put the
property into a box, being presumably allowed to take it out afterwards,
without the teacher touching it, which Rav Henkin agrees is not a ma'aseh
gezel, although he rejects the other arguments put forward, such as the
applicability of hefker beis din hefker via the misrad hachinuch and
a tanai being put on attending the school, because a tnai against the
Torah is not valid and even if kiblu alehem it is an asmachta).

So even if there is a power of vigilantism that would allow one to prevent
another person from eating treif food (and not just an obligation on beis
din), it does not by any means follow that one can do this by stealing
the food.

So I repeat my question: what gives the Rebbe referred to the ability
to uproot the issur d'orisa of gezel by kum v'aseh, and to tell his
followers to do so (and if he does so, surely, given that ain shalich
b'davar averah, they are required not to dream of complying)?

Regards
Chana

sent this to the other list, but they felt that these are legitimate
halachic issues.....

heard that in town a donor noted, after giving a check that his iDevice
was missing. using the built in tracking capability, he was able to
locate it across town, and confronted the denying culprit by ringing
the number of the device, which was 'pores the simlah'. he demanded and
received his device and his check.

questions

1] were tracking devices in the bans

2] is it muttar to use such technology to recover a stolen device, when
the perp might be embarrassed [as in this case where the individual
denied before the ringer went off]

3] while i assume it's muttar to take back ones borrowed tech device,
what about the check-- what halachic parameter would allow him to ask
for his money back

4] would it be allowed to turn him into the police? could he? should he?

5] is there any hetter to tell anyone?

weren't there always stories from the alter heim about the local goniff?
did those ganovim steal from jews or from others?

how do we treat those who have violated those principles? is their
any practical behaviour we must comport to, for a known murderer,
adulterer, or one who did any act under the rubric of avodah zara?

what about eg the recently written about a haredi chayelet
<http://www.mpaths.com/2011/10/are-you-proud-of-me.html>? actually,
since elsewhere the contention has been made that it is a wall-to-wall
yeihareig, it should matter what stream of judaism you hold, correct?

On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 04:34:32PM +0300, Ezra Chwat wrote:
:> which would open up the door to findinng a set of dead sea set of
:> scrolls/egypt geniza set of sefarim, which would contain heretofore,
:> unknown sets of literature/commentary??"

: The door is wide open: On revision of psak based on newly-found
: sources, unavailable to previous poskim: RMA, HM 25:2, (no reason to
: believe Maran Hamhaber disagrees).

: On revision based on newly found nusach of known sources: RMM Kasher,
: Noam 16 (1973) p. 165-.

First, I'm not sure the assumption is correct. Saying the Tosefta or
Y-mi have a voice where shas does not (or some less extreme rule like
giving priority to named opinions in the Y-mi over the stam of the Bavli)
give a definitive answer does not imply that we have the power to revise
pesaq on the basis of newly found or newly corrected sources.

In one direction: The amoraim in the Bavli had access to the
Tosefta. Ruling differently than it may imply a rejection of the
Tosefta's ruling. Similarly rishonim who hold like one amora over
another. A newly found opinion that the rishonim aren't likely to have
seen wasn't actively rejected.

In the other direction: There is power to pishut; we often go with
textually weaker rulings because those happen to be the ones that caught
on and became centuries of practical precedent.

When Ashkenazim have some practice more justifiable from the Tosefta or
Y-mi than from the Bavli, it could well be because immigrants from EY
to Italy to Ashkenaz brought the Israeli practices with them, and those
ended up dominating the final pisqa or minhag of Ashkenaz as the various
immigrant communties conbined into one.

The threshold then shifts for ruling like the Bavli from a simple halakhah
kebasra'ei to needing enough justification to overturn existing pesaq.

All of the above was formulated over long conversations here with RRW,
not reflecting the Rama. So now I opened the Rama, after I have already
developed a pet theory.... With that caveat, it really looks to me that
the Rama limits his comments to a textual context. He is saying, IIUC,
that halakhah kebasra'ei is only when basra'ei could have considered the
earlier arguments. But the subject of what to do when the question isn't
a new one, as in REC's "revision of pesaq" where there is an established
common practice, is not raised in CM 25:2.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' SZN:
sent this to the other list, but they felt that these are legitimate
halachic issues.....

heard that in town a donor noted, after giving a check that his iDevice was
missing. using the built in tracking capability, he was able to locate it
across town, and confronted the denying culprit by ringing the number of the
device, which was 'pores the simlah'. he demanded and received his device
and his check.

questions

1] were tracking devices in the bans

2] is it muttar to use such technology to recover a stolen device, when the
perp might be embarrassed [as in this case where the individual denied
before the ringer went off]

3] while i assume it's muttar to take back ones borrowed tech device, what
about the check-- what halachic parameter would allow him to ask for his
money back

4] would it be allowed to turn him into the police? could he? should he?

5] is there any hetter to tell anyone?

weren't there always stories from the alter heim about the local goniff?
did those ganovim steal from jews or from others?
--------------------------------


1) Don't see why this is material.
2) Why not? Are you not allowed to take a thief to a Din Torah?
3) I am thinking of two rationales: a) Mekach Taos - if it was the thief's
own tzedakah, he now finds out that the tzedakah is run by a thief, that
would be reason enough to take the money back. Whether he needs to change
the money to a different tzedakah (because hilchos nedorim) is beyond me,
though. B) He can take it back and give it to the tzedakah himself, because
otherwise he would be unsure whether it will get there! (OTOH, is he
stealing the thief's commission?) 


KT,
MYG

On 2/07/2012 11:37 AM, saul newman wrote:
> how do we treat those who have violated those principles? is their
> any practical behaviour we must comport to, for a known murderer,
> adulterer, or one who did any act under the rubric of avodah zara?

No more than for other aveiros.  "Yehareg ve'al ya'avor" doesn't make
an avera more severe; chilul shabbos (issur skila) is a worse aveirah
than murder (issur hereg) let alone nidah (issur kares), let alone mere
avizrayhu that get makos mardus, but they are all YVY and shabbos is not.
People have a tendency to treat these averos as "the Big Three", or even
as "Cardinal sins", but they are not.  They are merely the list of cases
to which the mitzvah of kiddush haShem applies even shelo bish'as hashmad;
bis'as hashmad they are no different from arkesa dim'saana.


-- 
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 2/07/2012 10:47 AM, saul newman wrote:
> 3] while i assume it's muttar to take back ones borrowed tech device,
> what about the check-- what halachic parameter would allow him to ask
> for his money back

This is obvious -- he would never have knowingly given money to a thief.


> weren't there always stories from the alter heim about the local goniff?
> did those ganovim steal from jews or from others?

Not just the alter heim.  The gemara says that in Nehardea "rov ganvi
yisrael ninhu", and one can therefore assume that a thief will treat
tefillin properly.

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

> Therefore even if it were allowed -- it is necessary to consult with
> a beis din before doing anything.

Which in this case has been done.  We are, after all, talking not about
random people deciding to do this on their own, but about a specific
instruction from the TAY Rebbe, who certainly has the authority of a
beis din.


> We see clearly in the above gemora, that the pious person indicated
> that he should have been more patient and not have been so hasty to
> rip the garment.

While R Ada did ruefully comment that he could have saved himself some
money by being more patient, the gemara does not think so.  On the
contrary, the *whole point* of the gemara in telling the story is that
R Ada's zeal and risk-taking is greatly to be admired, and halevai that
we would have the mesirus nefesh to do like him, and act leshem shamayim
without considering the potential cost.  It's very strange to use this
gemara to cool someone off and tell him that even if he's willing to take
such a risk he shouldn't!


> Also we see that Yaakov did not approve of this theft which Rachel
>  kept concealed from him and in fact he cursed the person who stole the idols

Because he didn't know that they'd been stolen for a good reason, and
thought Lavan was making the whole thing up.  There is no indication
that he would not have approved of Rachel's theft had he known of it.


> It could also be that in our case it is not the appropriate time to
> stop them from watching television and an act that is premature can
> cause much harm.

Not an issue in our case.


> it is necessary to get permission with a wise person as to what is
> appropriate and to follow his words

This sentence makes no sense as is, but I greatly suspect the words
"get permission" is a mistranslation, and should read "consult".
In this case, of course, we're talking about that "wise person's"
instruction.


> In conclusion, [...] it is best if he asks a posek before he does
> anything. One who acts according to the rabbis will always merit success.

Exactly.


On 2/07/2012 7:54 AM, Chana Luntz wrote:
> So even if there is a power of vigilantism that would allow one to prevent
> another person from eating treif food (and not just an obligation on beis
>  din)

There certainly is:  http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/7110.htm#25

And in our case, we are talking about shluchei beis din, who are certainly
allowed to do so:  http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/7102.htm#13


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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 80
**************************************

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..."