Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 176

Wed, 19 Dec 2012

• 1. Re: Kabbala at Odds with Torah (Micha Berger)
• 2. LH about poskim (saul newman)
• 3. Re: Abbreviations (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: German Rite Nusach Ashkenaz siddur-- compiled by Rabbi Rallis Wiesenthal (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Lashon Hara about poskim (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: German Rite Nusach Ashkenaz siddur-- compiled by Rabbi Rallis Wiesenthal (Ben Waxman)
• 7. Fasting Every Day Except Shavuos, Purim and Erev (cantorwolberg@cox.net)
• 8. Re: German Rite Nusach Ashkenaz siddur-- compiled by Rabbi Rallis Wiesenthal (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Fasting Every Day Except Shavuos, Purim and Erev (Ben Waxman)
• 10. Re: ISHA RA'A (Akiva Miller)
• 11. Re: Fasting Every Day Except Shavuos, Purim and Erev (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: ISHA RA'A (Ben Waxman)
• 13. Yochanan Kohein Gadol (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: ISHA RA'A (Lisa Liel)

No one else has voiced a problem. And in that particular post, every
acronym is spelled out in first use except "Maharal", "Ramchal" and "RSRH".

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:

>  At 09:37 AM 12/19/2012, R Micha wrote:
>
> I have to admit that I find a good deal of your responses below
> incomprehensible due to your excessive use of abbreviations.  I have
> complained about this in the past.
>
> Please repost without abbreviations and please do me (and I bet others)  a
> favor and do not use abbreviations in the future save for a few that are
> known to all.
>
> YL
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:50:22 -0500
> From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
> To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Kabbala at Odds with Torah
> Message-ID: <20121217225022.GB16...@aishdas.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:42:57AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> : From: <mgis...@nydesign.com>
> ...
> :> Today's Judaism ignores God's words, and instead, favors
> :> incomprehensible and heretical notions found in man-made works like
> :> Kabbala, Tanya, Breslov and other works that assume an identity
> :> similar to Christian doctrines. When the priority of God's words is
> :> rejected, this is no longer Judaism.
> ...
> :> A reliable resource to assist in this need:  < http://www.mesora.org/>
>
> :> Rabbi Marshall Gisser
>
> : I cannot agree more with what Rabbi Gisser wrote about this topic.
>
> How can we say that Qabbalah is "incomprehensible and heretical"
> when we all rely on the work of Maran Bet Yosef? Are we to exclude both
> Chassidus as well as the Gra and RCVolozhiner from the mesorah? The Ari,
> the Maharal and the Ramchal?
>
> : IMO, this phenomenon is a result of what I term "The New Religion."
> : The New Religion contains large doses of things that our forefathers
> : never knew anything about and were never concerned with...
>
> So you don't say Barukh sheAmar and Yishtabach, because they apparently
> post-date shas? Do you not wash your hands in specific patterns for
> neigl vasr and before hamotzi? What about Qabbalas Shabbos?
>
> There is a shift to segula'ism, to greater use of yahadus as a means
> to other things, thereby distorting it beyond recognition. So there
> is something out there I would agree is "new religion". I don't think,
> though, this is it.
>
>
> And I presume from previous posts that if you saw Mesora.org, you would
> not agree with his recommendation. As I wrote last July on Areivim, R'
> Moshe ben Chaim (the primary voice on mesora.org) et al are talmidim of
> RIChait, and promote a view in which only textual mesorah has validity,
> and accepted practice is not given any weight in pesaq.
>
> I don't think you would support the idea that we should follow the
> Bavli or the Rambam over the Maharil and Minhag Ashkenaz. It's a very
> different view of mesorah than RSRH's.
>
> Also note R' Dayan Grunfeld's intro to Horeb, in which he has a short
> section about how RSRH's symbols are in fact taken from his knowledge
> of Qabbalah.
>
>
>
> I once wrote an email to Cantor Wolberg listing my misgivings with RYC's
> hashkafah. This might be the right place to share that list:
>
> 1- To RYC, *halakhah* comes from books. The fact that no one does things
> the way he reads the book wouldn't stop him. No notion of following a
> textually weaker opinion because of the authority of common practice.
>
> 2- RYC loves the Rambam, who is the only *rishon* who can be read as
> agreeing with #1. (Or not; I can see his intro to the Yad either way.) The
> fact that RYC embraced Brisker *derekh *(as has most of the yeshiva world
> from YU to the Mir) gives a central position to Rambam means that his
> textual approach to *halakhah* does as well. Although it would be an
> overstatement to say that RYC is a Darda'i who *always* holds like the
> Yad.
>
> 3- He also has a Maimonidian philosophy, in which the ideal Jew is one who
> has the most accurate and complete philosophical knowledge of G-d -- or at
> least, of How the universe runs under His guidance and of what He isn't.
> (Knowledge of what G-d is isn't really possible. Rather than the more
> common answers among today's Jews (including O Jews) involving ethical
> perfection and/or having a relationship *with* G-d.
>
> I had a discussion with RMBC when he wrote an article in Jewish Times
> (an e-zine on Mesora.org) attacking my blog post in which I dismiss the
> "Kuzari Proof". He can't handle the notion of belief based on something
> other than philosophical proof. It took a while for him to realize that
> I wasn't dismissing the notion that belief requires a basis, not a leap
> of faith. He was so sure that there is only one way to justify belief,
> it took a couple of weeks of discussion before I could get him to see
> that the Kuzari actually is telling you to rely on something else. As
> does Kant, and most philosophers -- secular, Jewish, and Orthodox Jewish
> thinkers in particular -- since his "Copernican Revolution".
>
> 4- And thus rejects Qabbalah, and condemns any group that utilizes
> Qabbalah or any practice based in it. Red strings are idolatrous,
> *kaparos* with a chicken is offering a sacrifice outside the *Beis
> haMiqdash* (which the SA happens to agree to) and Chassidim are off the
> path. Because *minhag* has no halachic weight in RYC's world, the fact
> that most Jews have done *kaparos* for centuries, or that Chassidim
> have made *shlisl challos* the Shabbos after Pesach since the 1700s
> doesn't factor in to that assessment. (I would call that "peer review"
> and demand a lot of proof before assuming I was right and they're wrong.)
>
> 5- Because RYC's Judaism is about Aristotelian Truth (rather than paths
> to the goal Hashem set before us) there is only one right pesaq.
>
> (I should be clear, though, that I sent my eldest son to a HS run by
> a talmid of RYC on the grounds that I'm happier with a school that is
> firmly founded on a hashkafah I personally am uncomfortable with than
> one that doesn't impart an idealism altogether.)
>
>
>


-- 
*Shetir'u Batov*!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121219/9f81e253/attachment-0001.htm>

>>My argument is when he publicly accuses the posek of choosing an
unreliable expert.

----- if the qualification to be a Gadol includes  a fairly large measure
of being cut off from the reality to the world of  day-to-day life, other
 than ruach hakodesh  how is the Gadol to know  that  an 'expert' in a
field that the Gadol doesnt know about is in fact an expert?

eg  the posek  never  had a secular  education .  a question comes up about
 vaccinations. if they bring  him an  anti-vaccination advocate as  an
'expert'  , other than ruach hakodesh what can tell him that veracity
emerges from  the expert's mouth?

can the qualification of gadlus include ability to qulify expert witnesses?
 it would seem not
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121219/3a0607a9/attachment-0001.htm>

The norm has been for the past 13-1/2 years that Avodah shows concern for
the writer and allows abbreviations. I even added an automatic abbreviation
expander to the archive. (Hover the mouse on an abbreviation, and get
suggested expansions.) If you take Jewish internet chatting as a single
culture, the norm is far older, dating back to before my arrival on
talk.religion.jewish in 1982.

It's the culture in the community you wish to participate in. Despite your
own difficulties with it, you aren't likely to change something that
entrenched. I suggest you learn the list's common
acronyms<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi>as a jargon and
get on with life.


On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:

> I would like to appeal to the moderators of both lists and ask them not to
> permit people to post with abbreviations.  I find some posts
> incomprehensible due to the extensive use of abbreviations.
>
> I spent a year at West Point and found that the army was obsessed with
> abbreviations. I received emails that were incomprehensible to me.
>
> In order to get compensated for a trip that I took to deliver a paper at a
> conference when I was at West Point I had to fill out a travel form.  One
> box had POV on top of it.  I asked,  "What does POV stand for?"  and was
> told Personally Owned Vehicle.  When I pointed out that car was also 3
> letters,  the reply was,  "You might own a truck."
>
> If the goal is for people to participate in discussions,  then I think
> that the use of abbreviations should be banned or at least discouraged.  I
> am sure that I am not the only one who cannot understand posts with
> excessive abbreviations.  Why not show some concern for the reader and
> eliminate the use of abbreviations?
>
> Please!
>
> YL
>
>


-- 
*Shetir'u Batov*!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121219/d792acb3/attachment-0001.htm>

<20121219112710.4DB8D300...@nexus.stevens.edu>

R/Prof YL forwarded on Wed 19-Dec-2012 6:27am EST an email that
originated with R' Rallis Wiesenthal (CC-ed) about the latter's siddur:

: One example: the twelfth brocho of the weekday Amidoh, in most 
: siddurim is  begins with "V'Lamalshinim". We know that Shmuel HaKoton 
: who composed the brocho, wrote "LaMehshumodim" instead. The text was 
: changed in order to spare Jews from governmental punishment. Does 
: anyone believe that nowadays the text must still be "V'Lamalshinim" 
: to spare Jews from being arrested or worse? Of course not!

I personally am a velameshumadim-sayer, but... it wouldn't be the
only time when a taqanah was made for a transitory reason, the reason
evaporated, but the change remains.

...
: I have attempted to replicate, to the best of my ability, the nusach 
: going back to the period of the Rishonim.

I would have been happier if the copious front material included his
guidelines for when he decided to stay with the minhag of the rishonim,
and when (like "VelaMeshumadim") he thought it was appropriate to correct
their nusach.

: As far as those who say, "Why should I care I'm not a German Jew?". 
: As HoRav Hamburger says, "If you are from Europe and you label 
: yourself and Ashkenazi, far enough back, you are a German Jew!".

Actually, many are Sepharadim that accepted East European minhag hamaqom
far back. Especially since you're going back to before 1492.

Besides, before the Crusades (and the bulk of migration from Ashkenaz to
Eastern Europe), the Old French Nusach was much closer to Nusach Appam
(Asti, Fossano and Monclavo, in N. Italy) than to later German Nusach
Ashkenaz. The residents of Appam were refugees from France from 1394,
and received fewer immigrants from other communities with their nusachos.
The similarity is evidenced in Machzor Vitri and quotes from (the seifer
on hilkhos tefillah written by Rashi's talmid[im?] called) "Siddur Rashi".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

PS: I just added a link to the siddur on the Nusach Ashkenaz wikipedia
page.

-- 
Micha Berger             The true measure of a man
mi...@aishdas.org        is how he treats someone
http://www.aishdas.org   who can do him absolutely no good.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Samuel Johnson

(As an aside, to those who are sincerely worried that their posek has not
investigated the matter well enough: We have said before on these pages
that halacha is not about being right or wrong - it's about following
proper halachic procedure.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
But isn't that exactly the issue - does proper halachic procedure require the poseik to investigate well enough?
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.

So why not look a bit further back and label your self a Jew from Israel 
pre-churban? Why stop in Germany?

Ben

On 12/19/2012 1:27 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>
> As far as those who say, "Why should I care I'm not a German Jew?". As 
> HoRav Hamburger says, "If you are from Europe and you label yourself 
> and Ashkenazi, far enough back, you are a German Jew!".
>
> I look forward to your reply!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121219/bd598b83/attachment-0001.htm>

I don't believe there are any such poskim, or even can be, since Chazal
very clearly approved of it. 

Well you believe wrong because I personally heard Rabbi Yosef Shusterman of Beverly Hills
quote the Lubavitcher Rebbe exactly saying that there were poskim who definitely considered
excessive fasting as sinful. So your not believing it is doesn't make it so.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 07:04:30PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
> So why not look a bit further back and label your self a Jew from Israel  
> pre-churban? Why stop in Germany?

I think the "game" would have to stop at R' Amram Gaon, whose siddur is
the basis of all extant nusachos. IOW, it's minhag Yisrael -- not "just"
of one community or all of Ashk -- to daven a derivative of the various
girsaos of Seder R' Amram.

(A thesis I've suggested in threads about Machon Shilo's "Nusach EY".)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Excessive anything can be sinful. Someone who gives tzedaqa such that he 
and his family's finances are endangered is being sinful. Excess care in 
lashon harah such that you don't speak up when you really should is sinful.

Ben
On 12/19/2012 7:17 PM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
> Well you believe wrong because I personally heard Rabbi Yosef Shusterman of Beverly Hills
> quote the Lubavitcher Rebbe exactly saying that there were poskim who definitely considered
> excessive fasting as sinful. So your not believing it is doesn't make it so.
>

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> That most men in polygynous societies have only one wife is
> common; but the reason is usually lack of inclination or lack
> of means, not a principled objection. I see no reason to
> believe that *any* of Chazal dismissed on principle the
> possibility of their taking a second wife, no matter how happy
> they were with their current wives.  It seems to me that it
> would always have been a possibility in their minds, if the
> right woman should ever come along, together with a source of
> funding for her support.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I'd like to know what leads you to that conclusion.

In particular, I don't know how you'd distinguish between one man who had
just one wife because of "lack of inclination", and another who had only
one wife because of "principled objection". Neither of these is
black-and-white, but they both run along a spectrum in which circumstances
could push a man to take a second wife, even if he *both* objected to the
idea and was also disinclined to it.

Avraham Avinu may or may not have taken a second wife in other
circumstances. All we know for sure is that in actual history, he did take
a second wife, but only after his first wife advised it. My wild guess is
that he would not have taken a second wife otherwise, but I admit that it
is only a guess.

Similarly, we don't really know know what Yaakov Avinu's personal
preferences were. But as things worked out, Lavan made sure to arrange
things so that Yaakov would end up with two wives. Again, my guess is that
his druthers were to marry only Rachel, but who knows for sure?

We do know that Moshe Rabenu never took even a second wife. But, as RZS
suggests, if the right one had come along, maybe he would have. (Note that
his divorce from the first wife was for reasons irrelevant to this
discussion.)

All three of them were wealthy enough to take on more wives than they had.
Given that they -- and the great majority of other tzadikim -- did not do
so, my guess (and I stress that it is only a guess) is that they DID have a
principled objection to taking plural wives, though that objection could be
overridden by circumstances.

I'm very weak on history. Who do we know of that DID have plural wives,
beyond Avraham, Yaakov, and David Hamelech? And do we know WHY they (Dovid,
for example) took the additional ones?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50d209596f53e9593b9est01vuc

On 19/12/2012 12:17 PM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
> I don't believe there are any such poskim, or even can be, since Chazal
> very clearly approved of it.
>
> Well you believe wrong because I personally heard Rabbi Yosef Shusterman of Beverly Hills
> quote the Lubavitcher Rebbe exactly saying that there were poskim who definitely considered
> excessive fasting as sinful. So your not believing it is doesn't make it so.

1. A third-hand report of the existence of unnamed poskim is not
exactly persuasive.

2. What is "excessive"?


-- 
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

Elqana, Penina and Hanna. And that didn't work out well at all.

Ben

On 12/19/2012 8:36 PM, Akiva Miller wrote:
> I'm very weak on history. Who do we know of that DID have plural 
> wives, beyond Avraham, Yaakov, and David Hamelech? Akiva Miller 
> __________________________________________________________

There is an open question, which I believe we've discussed in the past,
about how to parse Al haNissim -- "Matisyahu ben Yochanan kohein gadol".
It is Masiyahu who was the son of Yochanan kohein gadol or Matiyahu ben
Yochanan, and Matisyahu is the one being described as the kohein gadol.

According to the shitah (which we do not hold lehalakhah) that an eid
must sign "ne'um Re'uvein eid ben Yaaqov", there would be no question --
Yochanan is the kohein gadol, as it comes after the "ben".

A problem comes up when referring to meisim with living fathers. There,
Alizah Kayla a"h bas Mikhah Shemuel is the more common choice, as it
avoids a possible pesichas peh lasatan. Leiby Kletzky a"h's matzeivah
reads "Yehudah (Leibi) ben yblcht"a R' Nachman hy"v" according to
the pictures at <www.collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=20288>. But it is
also common to see Moshe a"h ben Amram a"h, where there is no negative
implication in the misunderstood version. It was Kayli's yahrzeit this
week, so my mind wandered. Anyway, back to the point...

Related to this question is whether there was a
kohein gadol named Yochanan who lived before the
events of Chanukah. The Gaon (Imrei Noam, Berakhos 29a
<http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14215&;st=&pgnum=45>) says
THE Yochanan Kohein Gadol (YKG) who served for 80 years was Matisyahu's
grandson, not his father. And of couse the question of whether Matisyahu
was the son of THE Yochanan Kohein Gadol doesn't start according to
Abayei, who says that YKG was Yanai haMelekh. Rava disagrees, saying
that Yanai was a rasha to begin with, and did not first become a Tzeduqi
after 80 years of being kohein gadol.

Well, there is a girsa'os issue on the top of Y-mi Sotah 44b (9:11)
that appears to be relevant. The gemara lists taqanos made by Yochanan
kohein gadol, and discusses whether or not the chakhamim approved of them.

The mishnah says that Yochanan kohein gadol did away with vidui maaser
(among other things). R' Yirmiyah besheim R' Chiyya besheim RSBL are
quoted as saying that the mishnah is:
    Our girsa: mishenechshidu lihyos nosenim maaser lekehunah.

The Gra and the Gilyon Ephraim object to this girsa, since
"mishenechshidu" implies that giving maaser to kohanim is a bad thing. But
Ezra and his beis din made a taqanah to give maaser rishon to kohanim
because few leviim returned to EY. TAhat's usually described as being
punitive to the leviim for refusing to return. However, since it's
only the leviim who did return who would otherwise be getting maaser,
I'm inclined to believe it was pragmatic. So instead, they favor a
different text.
    Gra's girsa: mishetiqnu lihyos nosenim maaser lekehunah.

The time of the taqanah, though, was Ezra's beis din. By the latest
possible interpretation, it could mean Anshei Keneses haGdolah in general,
placing the Yochanan kohein gadol of the mishnah as the successor of
Shim'on haTzadiq. So, we would need to stretch the end of AKhG from
332 BCE (Alexander's entry to the area and thus a landmark in Shim'on
haTzadiq's life) until someone who could have lived late enough for his
son (Matisyahu) to be an adult and kohein gadol before Antiochus appointed
Jason as kohein gadol in 175 BCE. But still young enough to be marrying
off a daughter and have sons who were active fighters. In 157 years.

Three Yochanans?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 12/19/2012 1:09 PM, Ben Waxman wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 8:36 PM, Akiva Miller wrote:
>> I'm very weak on history. Who do we know of that DID have plural 
>> wives, beyond Avraham, Yaakov, and David Hamelech?

> Elqana, Penina and Hanna. And that didn't work out well at all.

Lemech, Ada and Tzila.  And yibum probably created such a situation, 
more often than not.  And of course, there's Yeshayahu 4:1.



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 176
***************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)