Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 111

Sat, 11 Aug 2012

• 1. Reasons for Shechitah (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 2. rega = sha`a / 58888 (Simon Montagu)
• 3. tzaar baalei chayim (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 4. Investigating Issues when Learning Gemara (Micha Berger)
• 5. Halacha: Understanding ' 'Shnayim Mikra V?Echad Targum' (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Oleh al shulchan melachim (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Brush teeth after seudat shlishit (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Tzaar Baalei Chayim (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Investigating Issues when Learning Gemara (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 10. Re: Shnayim Mikra (Ben Waxman)
• 11. Glasses look to keep women out of sight (Chana Luntz)
• 12. Re: Glasses look to keep women out of sight (Joel C. Salomon)
• 13. Re: Glasses look to keep women out of sight (Rich, Joel)
• 14. Re: Shnayim Mikra (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Reasons for Shechitah (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Reasons for mitzvos (Zev Sero)

R' Micha wrote:
> Besides, if shechitah were really in order to cause little or no pain, to 
> the exclusion of other meanings in the mitzvah, there would be permission 
> to kill in other painless ways. 

So then why isn't there permission to kill in other painless ways? Or
I should ask, is there any other reasons given other than it is a mitzva.

In Berachot 7a the gemara says that a rega is 1/58888 of an hour.

Are there any perushim that say where this number comes from? I assume
the Amoraim didn't pluck it out of thin air.

I gather from some internet research that there are variant readings:

http://web.nli.org.il/s
ites/NLI/Hebrew/collections/jewish-collection/Talmud/Pages/default.aspx?IsB
yManuscript=False&;Im_Ms=222&Fr_Co=4&Fr_Tr=01&Pe_code=00
7&Mi_code=01&Li_code=-1
or bit.ly/O845Pk has a marginal note saying that it should be 13824,
which fits the Yerushalmi 5a: "an `ona is 1/24 of an hour; an `et is
1/24 of an `ona; a rega is 1/24 of an `et"; but the Yerushalmi then
brings another opinion that a rega is 1/56848 of an hour, which is
much closer to our gemara.

For the record, 58888 = 8 x 17 x 433; 56848 = 16 * 11 * 17 * 19.

Then http://books.goo
gle.co.il/books?id=Agw6AAAAIAAJ&;pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=58888+h
our+moment&source=bl&ots=exVfiAaJr3&sig=OcfMDQb5mncNERyhHRjNSON
rqiw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WR0kUJvmD6ri4QTZnYD4AQ&redir_esc=y#v=one
page&q=58888%20hour%20moment&f=false
or http://bit.ly/Nqqfae has a footnote saying  "The correct number is
82,080; see Brodetsky in JR II p. 173". The reference seems to be to
Selig Brodetsky: Astronomy in the Babylonian Talmud in the Jewish
Review Vol. II No 8. July, 1911, but I wasn't able to find the article
online.

Any further insights welcome.

And a general question: I have been reading daf yomi and listening to
various online shiurim without going into great depth, but in most
dapim there are one or two issues like this one which catch my
attention and which I want to investigate further. What are good
places to look for more in-depth material? I usually look at the
Maharsha, Maharatz Hayes and Rashash, and then get stuck.

RLK wrote:
> In common law, it seems that the people enforcing the law seem to take it 
> for granted that if someone abuses their property, that property can be 
> removed from them. But in Torah law, it seems that the rights of the owners 
> on the property are stronger, and can't necessarily be removed for harming 
> their property. 

If someone abuses their property, that property can be removed from them.
ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE.

As a graduate of Westport Police Academy in Massachusetts, I can
authoritatively tell you that you can destroy every bit of your personal
furniture, car, other property. THAT, in and of itself, is not a crime
nor is it in violation of any Massachusetts statute. Aside of Torah
law, one has the right to destroy one's own property. Obviously, if
a person were to take his television in public and start smashing it,
he could be charged with disorderly conduct (for causing a disturbance,
but NOT for the destruction of his personal property).

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:44:36PM +0300, Simon Montagu wrote:
: And a general question: I have been reading daf yomi and listening to
: various online shiurim without going into great depth, but in most
: dapim there are one or two issues like this one which catch my
: attention and which I want to investigate further. What are good
: places to look for more in-depth material? I usually look at the
: Maharsha, Maharatz Hayes and Rashash, and then get stuck.

This is where the Hebrew Shteinzaltz is much better than ArtScroll. RAS
lists mar'eh meqomos for those kinds of things.

But the truth is, different kinds of questions get different mefarshim's
attention. The only shortcuts I can think of before when gets a feel
for who gets bothered by what (or those of us only partway there) are:

1- Encyc Talmudit on topics in the first part of the alef-beis.
2- Bar Ilan CD, search for key buzzwords in the text.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

  From http://tinyurl.com/8eyfke9

New York - There is a well known Gemara in Brachos that states "A 
person should always complete his [study of the parsha] with the 
congregation - [by studying] shnayim mikra v'echad targum. Anyone who 
does this will have long days and years." Learning the text of the 
weekly parsha twice with the targum (keep reading for explanation) is 
a segula for long life.

What many do not know is that this statement of Chazal is actually 
codified in halacha!

See the above URL for more.  YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120809/7634e692/attachment-0001.htm>

On 8/08/2012 12:50 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> 1- I do believe that junk foods are olos al shulchan melakhim. For
> example, Ronald Reagan's famous love of Jelly Belly (brand jellybeans)
> <http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/jellybellies.html>,
> set out to be available for visting heads of state. Kings do and always
> have enjoyed nosh.

Aren't you ignoring the "shulchan" part?  I'm sure the Queen enjoys
junk food, and it can be found at Buck House, but it would never be
served At Table.

-- 
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 8/08/2012 3:21 PM, Akiva Miller wrote:
> The critical words are "even if". He seems to be saying that kings
> have an even higher standard than Shabbos has: Bishul Akum applies to
> what goes on the king's table, and EVEN to foods which are merely good
> enough for Shabbos.
>
> Thus, if a food is not good enough for the king's table, it is certainly not good enough for the Shabbos table.

Um, that logic seems reversed.

-- 
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 8/08/2012 2:30 PM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> The Torah obviously prohibits Tzaar Baalei Chayim, and someone who
> violates it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. My
> question is "What is "the full extent" of the law?" Would the person
> receive malkot, but still maintain ownership of the animal? Or would
> the animal be confiscated as well

What other avera has as its penalty the confiscation of property?  The
concept of fines doesn't seem to exist in halacha, though the concept
of punitive damages, which are essentially fines paid to the plaintiff,
certainlydoes exist.


>, as this owner has proven he is unfit to have it?

What does this even mean?  I don't understand the concept of fitness
or unfitness to own property.  Owning something isn't a privilege granted
by somebody, which may be bestowed on fit people and denied to unfit ones.
It's an inherent right, a fact of natural law, that a person owns that
which he made, that which he obtained from hefker, and that which he was
freely given by -- or which he inherited from -- its previous rightful owner.


> Or would he even forfeit the right to own any subsequent animals?

What possible basis could such a penalty have?  Owning property isn't a
privilege, so it can't be revoked by anybody.

> In common law, it seems that the people enforcing the law seem to take
> it for granted that if someone abuses their property, that property can
> be removed from them.

I don't believe the common law knows of such a concept, though it does
provide for the forfeiture of property used to commit a crime, and perhaps
this could be considered an example of that.  Statute law is another matter
of course.

Similarly in halacha, a beis din might consider that in order to prevent
him from doing aveiros, and indeed for his own good to protect him from
the yetzer hara, the means by which he is doing the aveira should be
taken away.   This gets back to our previous discussions about "non-kosher"
phones, shavers, etc.  BD could confiscate property "le'afrushei me'isura".


> To take this even further, does "imo" imply that if Reuven sees the
> struggling animal of his enemy, and that enemy is *not* helping that
> animal, that Reuven is not allowed to help the animal, since that would
> be violating the property of the owner? In this case, Reuven's only
> recourse to help the animal, (and presumably this would be morally
> incumbent on him to do so), would be to go to Beit Din and get them
> involved.

Why Beis Din?  Surely le'afrushei me'isura is a responsibility of every
person.


On 8/08/2012 2:06 PM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
> Wow! So you mean all these years we've been learning that shechita is
> to cause little or no pain to the animal, isn't really so?!

I don't know who "we" is, since I was never taught this, but that's
right, it isn't so.  That the method Hashem told us to use for slaughter
happens to be painless confirms that "verachamav al kol maasav", but
there is no connection between shechitah and tzaar baalei chayim.
Indeed I don't think it was even known that shechitah was painless until
the modern era, when it became possible to attach scanners to animals'
skulls and detect their brain activity.

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

R' MB:
But the truth is, different kinds of questions get different mefarshim's
attention. The only shortcuts I can think of before when gets a feel for who
gets bothered by what (or those of us only partway there) are:

1- Encyc Talmudit on topics in the first part of the alef-beis.
2- Bar Ilan CD, search for key buzzwords in the text.
----------------------------


and Bava Basra - one is called Raza D'Shabsi - and yes, I know that's not
helpful to anyone learning Berachos now). And just about any large sefarim
store will stock seforim of likutim of questions and answers of Acharonim,
which often include large numbers of Marei Mekomos. It's hard to give names
- I can't think of any series offhand that covers all Shas - maybe Birchas
Avrohom. But there are quite a few from different authors on individual
mesechtos, which is why it's a good idea to shop in a large seforim store
with knowledgeable staff, if you can. Oh, there's the Otzar Meforshai
Hatalmud from Mechon Yerushalaim - that's very good. And there are the new
Daf Yomi sets of Gemara, like HaMesivta (I think there's at least one other
one, too), which add copious amounts of information without overwhelming the
reader, by putting it into sections after the Gemara's text. 

KT,
MYG

And on the flip side, why do some averot, even breaking some minhagim, 
entail "being bitten by a snake"?

Ben

On 8/9/2012 10:44 PM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> So if it is a rabbinic takana(granted an early one);
> 1. why was it stated as simply something that is a life extender?
> 2. was the life extension an intrinsic result (i.e. learning more 
> extends your life) or do the rabbis have the "power" to determine 
> reward for listening (and why is this takana different from others)?
> KT
> Joel Rich
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120810/e84c150c/attachment-0001.htm>

[Quotes were taken from an Areivim conversation. -micha]

RDB commenting on:
>> I dont understand your statement "the hetter to walk in the street".
>> Since when do we have or 
>> need a hetter to walk in the street. Is there some mitzva to stay
>> locked up at home that requires us to obtain a hetter to walk in the street

Answers:
> I mean when there is peritzus in the street, which I assume the glasses 
> are a reaction to. Otherwise, of course there is no issue.

I confess I agree with RDB here.  

In terms of the heter to walk the streets, this is all based on a gemora
in Baba Basra 57b:

Yeshayahu 33:15 "and he turns his eyes from seeing evil" Rav Chiya bar
Abba said: This is one who does not stare at the women at the time
that they stand at the wash. What is the case? If there is another
way, he is an evil doer. If there is not another way, he is coerced.
Actually this is a case where there is not another way, and even so he
should force himself. And the Rashbam comments there:

That he does not stare: - when he goes along the edge of the river; What
is the case: - that he is praised if he averts his eyes which implies
that if he does not avert his eyes he is not a tzadik and not a rasha.
If there is another way: - and he can go that way; He is an evil doer: -
even though he averts his eyes since he should not draw close but rather
distance himself from an averah as is established in Chullin 44b distance
from unseemliness; He is coerced:- if he stares by way of his going since
Hashem exempts those who are coerced, and why does the Torah require him
to avert his eyes that the Torah praises him in gazing that he needs to
avert his eyes To force himself: - to turn aside his eyes to the other
side and this is what the Torah is praising that if he forces himself
he is a chassid.

Ie, if a man needs, in his going, to go past sights that are inherently
problematic for him then indeed he needs to have the defence of
necessity in his going (ie a heter), and not go that way if there are
other realistic alternatives (which would include staying locked up at
home).- the Rashbam makes clear earlier that the problem with going past
women doing the washing in the river is that they need to reveal "shok"
- which of course gets us into the discussion about what the shok is,
but the shok is clearly on the list of those parts of a woman's body
that defined in Brochos as ervah.

Thus indeed I think that blurry glasses are a *much* better solution than
burkas (if one wants to be extreme) or the meah shearim requirements
for what they consider tznius dress (especially where it differs from
others, who hold by different standards). What using the glasses does
is firmly put the responsibility back on the person whose fundamental
responsibility it is, namely the man. So that, if the man holds that he
cannot look at woman who is wearing less than so and so denier tights
(or whatever else is his standard), instead of requiring her to wear
those (which is the current solution heavily promulgated), this way he
restricts his own vision, leaving her free to follow her own halachic
(or non halachic) position, which becomes her responsibility, not his.

As I have also pointed out before, although the gemora and the halacha
does *allow* a Jewish woman to demand the right to do her washing in
a joint courtyard, so she does not have to expose herself in public
by revealing her shok if she does not want to, it does not *require*
a Jewish woman not to do the washing by the river, and indeed all the
commentators note that the minhag of bnos Yisroel is to do the wash by
the river, despite it necessitating the revealing of the shok in full
public view. Rather the gemora quoted above and the halacha make it
clear that it is for the man to make appropriate arrangements to avoid
the situation to the extent possible.

If anything therefore, I think they should take down the signs in meah
shearim demanding women dress to their standards, and use these glasses
instead as a solution much more consonant with the gemora and the halacha.

Regards

Chana

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Chana Luntz <Ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
> Ie, if a man needs, in his going, to go past sights that are inherently
> problematic for him then indeed he needs to have the defence of
> necessity in his going (ie a heter), and not go that way if there are
> other realistic alternatives (which would include staying locked up at
> home).

IIRC from when I learned that sugya in yeshiva, the poskim define "no
other route" as including an inconvenient detour, with a fairly low
bar: crossing the street to the side not overlooking the riverbank
would be required; walking over to a parallel street a block out of
the way would not.

And this extends to matters more severe as well: Must one take a
longer route to avoid the pleasant smell of incense burning in a
idolatrous temple? (No; just don't deliberately sniff the air for
pleasure.)

I do not know why this idea was not raised in the context of women
singing at military events a few months ago.

?J. Chesky

> In terms of the heter to walk the streets, this is all based on a gemora 
> in Baba Basra 57b: 
> .....Ie, if a man needs, in his going, to go past sights that are inherently 
> problematic for him then indeed he needs to have the defence of 
> necessity in his going (ie a heter), and not go that way if there are 
> other realistic alternatives (which would include staying locked up at 
> home). 

IMHO the "if there are other realistic alternatives (which would include
staying locked up at home)." is an important issue. Given the summer
months there is a ton of what we would consider pritzut (and society calls
normal casual dress), what percentage of one's income/mental health would
one have to give up not to see it (given there is no alternative path that
doesn't take you by it) or is one required to move their home to avoid it?

As a side point, although I am not a casualty actuary -- it will be
interesting to calculate, if this catches on, the opportunity cost of
wasted time due to having to move around more slowly as well as the
increase in liability claims caused by accidents etc..

As a second side point, there is a reason for the bracha of pokeach
ivrim. I've asked elsewhere about the scope and strength of al tiftach
peh l'satan but hameivin yavin.

KT 
Joel Rich 

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:44:13PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: The gemara brachot (starting bottom 8a) says "R. Huna b. Judah says in
: the name of R. Ammi: A man should always complete his Parashoth together
: with the congregation, [reading] twice the Hebrew text and once the
: [Aramaic] Targum... for if one completes his Parashoth together with
: the congregation, his days and years are prolonged."

: The Aruch Hashulchan seems to understand this as a takana from Moshe, not
: clear to me how he knew [siman 285 se'if 2]...

Maybe he is being medayeiq in R' Huna bar Yehudah's wording to conclude
that this is part of the taqanah of regular leining.

Tangent: When it says Amar X besheim Y, does that mean the words are
the X's? Notice here I am assuming that RHBY picked the exact words. In
contrast to Amar X amar Y, which I would take to mean it's an exact
quote of Y's words. (One of my givens that I have held on to so long,
I don't recall where I got them from and it they're valid.)

: So if it is a rabbinic takana(granted an early one);
: 1. why was it stated as simply something that is a life extender?

Perhaps the key word is "le'olam". As in the list of early tannaim who are
asked on Megillah 27a what they did to earn long life. R' Each begins,
"Miyamai, lo..." They had very different answers as to what they never
did, but all the answers for long life invoke the notion of constancy
and consistency. I put this more poetically in "My Life as a [Focault]
Pendulum": <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/03/my-life-as-pendulum.shtml>.

: 2. was the life extension an intrinsic result (i.e. learning more
: extends your life) or do the rabbis have the "power" to determine reward
: for listening (and why is this takana different from others)?

Related is the machloqes over heter mekhirah. One of the variables is
whether shemittah derabbanan carries the same berakhah for a double crop
in years 6 and 8 as shemittah deOraisa does. If not, then there is more
room for qulah.

The Meshekh Chokhmah (Devarim 17:11) says that derabbanan are behaviorally
good ideas, unlike a deOraisa, which describes a spiritual reality. Eg:
Chicken with milk doesn't cause timtum haleiv.

R' Elchanan Wasserman (qunterus Divrei Soferim) argues that even
deRabbanans are revealed wisdom and Ratzon H', and therefore carry
metaphysical reality.

The SA haRav says that yom tov sheini shel goliyos represent a rabbinic
connection to the same lemaalah min hazeman spiritual essence of the
Yom Tov as HQBH connects us to on Yom Tov rishon.

So REW's and SAhR's shitos would explain how a derabbanan can carry
a reward, because they alter the metaphysics that cause the physical
reality.

Alternatively, many dinim derabbanan are implementations of deOraisa
ideas. Pirsumei nisa is deOraisa, even if Qerias Megillah and Neir
Chanukah are not. Now, if Pirsumei Nisa causes some metaphysical effect,
then LAD, Miqra Megillah would even if one holds like the MC.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/07/safeiq-derabbanan.shtml>, where I
discuss this issue at more length (including more acharonim). The title
question: If one holds that dinim derabbanan have metaphysical reality,
how does one explain safeiq derabbanan lequlah? It's just as precarious
as playing the odds with deOraisos!

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 04:06:24PM -0400, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: R' Micha wrote:
:> Besides, if shechitah were really in order to cause little or no pain, to 
:> the exclusion of other meanings in the mitzvah, there would be permission 
:> to kill in other painless ways. 

: So then why isn't there permission to kill in other painless ways? Or
: I should ask, is there any other reasons given other than it is a mitzva.

Not that I know of. But then, every mitzvah has some element of choq.
In fact, the Ramban says that notion of the value of simply obeying the
law (detached from reasons) is itself part of the reason for shechitah.
He mentions the minimization of pain, but also adds that part of the
point of shechitah is to remember the concept of law when killing,
an act so primal it triggers a different part of our selves.

Taamei hamitzvos are usually things we derive post-facto from the law. The
number of cases where they're given, such as in tzitzis (ure'isem osam,
velo sasuru) or Shabbos (ki sheishes yamim asah H'...) are the vast
minority.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On 10/08/2012 1:48 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Not that I know of. But then, every mitzvah has some element of choq.
> In fact, the Ramban says that notion of the value of simply obeying the
> law (detached from reasons) is itself part of the reason for shechitah.

Malbim on the first pasuk of this week's sedra understands the pasuk
to mean that although mishpatim by their nature carry a reward with them,
as a natural consequence of obeying them, i.e. if you don't steal then
you will naturally influence others, and if enough people don't steal then
you will all live in a society where there is no stealing, which is the
most basic reward for this mitzvah, and so one would think that the only
extra reward because it is a mitzvah is in olam haba; nevertheless if you
*listen* to these mishpatim, i.e. you do them because Hashem commanded
them rather than because they make sense and for their natural reward,
then in addition to their natural reward in this world, (and in addition
to the reward which you will of course get on the next world,) Hashem
will save up for you the "bris and chesed" that was mentioned three
pesukim ago (at the end of Vo'eschanan), i.e. you will get an additional
reward in this world, in the form of yerushas ho'oretz and a good life
there.

-- 
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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 111
***************************************

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..."