Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 117

Thu, 20 Jun 2013

• 1. the walls of jerusalem (saul newman)
• 2. Medicine on Shabbos (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 3. kesiva and tzovea (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: [Areivim] A fathers pain at the brit milah (Liron Kopinsky)
• 5. Calling Someone Else's Spouse by Their First Name (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Shelach Gems (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 7. Late night radio (Liron Kopinsky)
• 8. Rav holding positions you find odious (Chana Luntz)
• 9. daas tora (saul newman)
• 10. Re: daas tora (Micha Berger)
• 11. Rav holding positions you find odious (Chana Luntz)

http://aftermincha.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/daf-yomi-po
st-1-lock-1-key-and-three-walls/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130620/1501f8f0/attachment-0001.htm>

I remember as a kid being taught that the reason
you don't take medicine on Shabbos (except for 
something serious, which as we see is not that
simple to define) is because Shabbos itself heals.
The example given was that I had a headache on
Shabbos and wanted to take an aspirin and I was 
told that Shabbos would heal the headache. So 
about six hours later (still Shabbos), my rebbe asked
how my headache was, and I said it went away a few
minutes before, to which he said: "See! I told you 
Shabbos would heal it." 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130620/780cf6d1/attachment-0001.htm>

<<> Why isnt every writing (eg on parchment) tzovea?

A very intriguing question!
Rav Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melachos") discusses this question on page
739-740. It's not a short answer, but if I understand it correctly, one can
accomplish kesiva without tzovea if there is no surface which becomes
colored in the process. The examples he gives are cutting letters out of a
sheet of paper, or molding letters from a piece of clay.>>

Several other people came up with other unusual types of writing that is
not tzovea
The implication is that normal writing is indeed also tzovea

Next Question:
Kesiva requires 2 letters near each other.
If one writes (on paper/parchment) only one letter why is one then not
chayav for tzovea anyway?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130620/c6dcf770/attachment-0001.htm>

Someone posted the following article on Areivim:
http://forward.com/articles/176023/a-fathers-pain-at-oversee
ing-sons-circumcision/

This actually made me think of an interesting question:
In general, when we talk about tests of Avraham, we say that the last test,
of Akeidat Yitzchak, was such a great test because it went against his
entire being of an Ish Chesed to do what was being asked of him. To a
lesser degree, isn't circumcising his entire household the same thing?

Kol Tuv,


-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130620/a13ecb3c/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from today's Hakhel email Bulletin.

Special Note Two:  As provided in the past, the 
following are summer Shailos and 
Teshuvos--questions that we asked HaRav Yisroel 
Belsky, Shlita, and his responses, which were 
either taken from his handwritten responses to 
us--or from recordings of Hakhel Shiurim at which 
the question was asked.  If one needs further 
clarification, he should consult with his Rav or 
Posek, who in any event should be the final 
decisor for any person?s particular Shailah:


SUMMER SHAILOS


Calling Someone Else?s Spouse by Their First Name


QUESTION: We have all been in the same bungalow 
colony for the last ten years.  Is there anything 
wrong with referring to somebody else?s spouse on a first name basis?

ANSWER: The way the question is worded, there is 
an implication that something is not correct 
about calling somebody?s spouse by his or her 
first name if you have only known them for eight 
or nine years?but that ten years is different, 
and at that point, a first-name basis would be 
permissible. However, the opposite is true.  The 
longer one knows a person of the opposite gender, 
the less likely you should call him or her by his 
or her first name.  There is more danger in such 
situations when you become very familiar with 
another person?s spouse.  Tznius is something 
that has to be learned.  The best way is to 
promote an elevated level of tznius in the 
relaxed, summer setting, whether in the bungalow 
colony or elsewhere.  During the weekdays, when 
women are alone in the country, they should still 
not go out to the swimming pool from their 
bungalow without the proper outer wear 
attire.  Tznius should be an important issue at 
all times.  A person should use chachma and 
seichel and not put themselves into potentially 
harmful situations.  We live in a world where 
everyone else considers normal those activities 
that we recognize as to?aivah 
(abominations).  Therefore, you have to be 
careful that you behave and talk in a manner that 
reflects tznius and self-control.  These tiny 
breaches if not controlled can be the openings for dangerous situations.

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130620/d2afe125/attachment-0001.htm>

Regarding my original post, I think my point has been lost.
I wrote that one interpretation given regarding the sin of the 
ten meraglim was that they had no faith in themselves. This
psychological interpretation has merit since one's self image
can dictate how one lives his life. If you believe in G-d but 
don't believe in yourself, then you are living only in heaven.
If you believe in yourself but don't believe in G-d, then you
are living only on earth. Both are sinful. The ideal and exemplary
way is to believe in G-d and believe in yourself. Both Joshua
and Caleb typified the latter.

R' Meir Rabi wrote: I must claim my innocence, I am just the 
piano player, playing whats on the music sheet. I love that analogy
and as a musician, I would like to amplify on that. Playing what's
on the music sheet is just the beginning. There are so many factors
that enter into it: 1) How well you play the piano? 2) What kind of 
piano are you playing? 3) How do you interpret what's on the music 
sheet? 4) What is the rendition of the piece? a) Is it played according
to Hillel or according to Shammai? b) do you use Rashi's
interpretation or Rambam's? 5) If you have 10 world famous 
pianists playing the piece, can you tell the differences according
to who the pianist is?

So as one can see, it is much more complex than meets the eye
(or ear).


"Behold I do not give lectures or a little charity. When I give, I give myself."  Walt Whitman

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130620/8b95817a/attachment-0001.htm>

The following (fictional) story was told on the radio late last night:

Shimon and and his wife Vicki live in a nice apartment on the first floor
of a 7 floor building. For the past 20 years, Shimon has taken the bus to
his job in a big office building. On most days, he sees Shoshana, a frum,
tzniusdik woman, who lives on the 7th floor of Shimon's building at the
bus, as they work in the same building, but in different wings.

One day, Shimon and his wife win a sweepstakes for NIS 100,000. They decide
to spend the money on a brand new car, so he doesn't have to spend all that
time bussing to work every day.

The first day with the new car, (and let me tell you, what a nice new car
it is... nice new smell etc. etc.) it's raining and thundering. He gets
into the car, so happy that he doesn't have to wait for the bus in the
rain. Turns on the engine, pulls out of the parking lot, and there he sees
Shoshana, huddled up waiting for the bus.

Question: Should he give her a ride to work, or is it a "Chesed Shlili" for
reasons of tzniut?

Story Continues: Shimon decides to give her the ride. After all, it's cold
and wet, and would be horrible to leave her out in the cold. *Obviously* he
has her sit in the back, and tries not to talk too much.

That night, Shimon drives home, parks his car in his parking spot, and sits
down with his wife for dinner. They hear a knock at the door. Who is it but
Shoshana from floor 7. "Shimon, thank you so much for the ride today. I
really appreciated it! I was wondering if I could get a ride with you every
day? Obviously I would pay whatever you want for gas etc, but we live in
the same building and work in the same building, and it would be so much
more convenient for me to get a ride!"

Question: Should Shimon offer her a regular ride?

(Answer after the commercial break.)

Answer: In absolutely no way should Shimon offer her a regular ride! This
is a "Chesed Shlili" and has to be avoided.

---



Kol Tuv,

-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'liron.kopin...@gmail.com');>



-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130620/ff3af379/attachment-0001.htm>

RSN wrote - directed at Areivim, but rejected there on the grounds that this
should be on Avodah:

 

>would like to formally ask the question she is posing.

 

>if a  rav  has  a position  you find odious [ convicted abuser X is not
guilty, it's muttar to cheat the govt  etc  ] --or maybe you even consider
it to show poor reality testing--   can you rely on >that  rav's psak for
anything else?

 

However, because RSN copied me in, I wrote a response which I also sent to
Areivim, but which disappeared because, of course, his original question was
rejected.

 

I responded as follows:

 

I think there are two aspects to this.

 

The first aspect is the idea that if a rav appears to you like an malach of
Hashem, seek Torah from his mouth, but if not, you may not seek Torah from
his mouth  (Moed Katan 17a).  But these days I am not sure that we find many
malachim around, and if that is what you are going to search for, you may
find nobody to rely on at all.   So one can take a different view, namely
that people vary in their area of expertise - and it might be that one
regards them as a kind of malach in a very limited area - and therefore then
rely on them within that area.   Eg if one regarded the Rav in question as
the greatest expert on borer on shabbas (or on hilchos shabbas generally)
one might genuinely admire their incredible lomdus in that area, and hence
be happy to rely on their hilchos shabbas psikei halacha, even if one does
not like their position on other matters.  But it may be that the level of
distaste generated by a particular odious position is sufficient for you to
be unable to see them as any form of malach.  That gemora in Moed Katan is
in itself instructive though.   if you look at the story in which this
particular quote arises, you will see that in fact it does seem to suggest
that if the Rav is actually acting in a way that is wrong maybe you are
forbidden to seek Torah from his mouth.  How wrong it has to be may will
hinge on whether you hold (like Rashi and Tosphos) that the Rabbinical
scholar in question was in fact sinning in arayos, or whether you hold (like
Rabbanu Chananel) that actually all the Rabbinical Scholar in question did
was involve himself in Greek songs and music and dress himself in black, but
did not actually engage in any form of arayos.    Similarly if you hold that
it is assur to cheat the government, and a Rav says it is mutar, then
according to you that Rav is advocating stealing, so you are into genuinely
averah territory.  However, if the Rav is saying X is not guilty - it is not
that he is necessarily saying that the actions of abuse are not assur, just
that he doesn't believe  X has done them.  There, it seems to me,  you need
to know a bit more.    If that is all, then maybe it just is poor reality
testing.  But if the Rav in question has used his position to prevent
justice being done - has been over on the various halachos involved in
judging people (which are very stringent, and that includes how he has
judged the other side), then it is more than just poor judgment, there may
well be some real averos involved, and then it may be that, based on this
gemora in Moed Katan, one is forbidden to seek Torah from his mouth.

 

And that gets us to the second aspect  which is really about the general
halachos of being chashud someone as found in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah
siman 2 and  siman 119).    The general rules of being chashud someone work
like this:  unless you are talking about  someone who is  mechalel shabbas
or an oved avodah zara, then if somebody is chashud of doing averos in a
particular area, while you need to treat them as chashud in that area, you
should not treat them as chashud any other area.   So that, take the Rav who
is no suspected in London of being over on arayos (with women), that does
not mean that one would necessarily suspect his kashrus in terms of food,
and have any qualms in eating in his house (if male, or with other men
present).   

 

The issue that I have been discussing up until now, is not so much whether a
Rav has a position that I find odious, but the second case.  If I am chashud
such a Rav as protecting people who do averos and turning on those who seek
to expose those averos (refusing to even to look at the evidence, and
causing those who raise the issues to be run out of town), then  I need to
be chashud such a Rav as likely to do the same again, even if the averah in
question is a different form of averah (kashrus fraud, rather than arayos).
But that does not mean that I might be chashud such a Rav  as giving
incorrect piskei halacha in technical halachic areas.   So, for example,
leaving aside the additional question raised above that relates specifically
to the nature of being a Rav, in terms of treating him as any other Jew one
would seem to be able to rely on such a Rav's psak regarding worms in fish -
since it is hard to see how any of the temptations that might lead to
protecting people who do averos would come to play in determining that psak
- in which case, one has to assume the Rav is as kosher as the next person
in his learning, and thus can treat it like any other psak.     That is why,
to my mind, the fundamental question that I felt needed to be raised is
whether somebody who is chashud of protecting those who do averos is in a
position to do that in another context, or whether in fact they do not have
the power or influence to do that.

 

But yes, there are further issues as raised by the gemora in Moed Katan
relating specifically to a Rav.

 

Shavuah Tov


Chana

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130620/1d099a6f/attachment-0001.htm>

r jonathan rosenblum  wrote----

In an important letter, the Chazon Ish famously observed that the division
of the Torah into two separate parts ? one having to do with *issur ve?heter
* and the other to do with guidance in other areas of life ? with the
determination of the *chachmei hador* binding only in the first section, is
the ancient system of German Reform that led to the near total assimilation
of German Jewry


---is the conception of the CI mandatory?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130620/0be2e00f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 03:36:01PM -0700, saul newman wrote:
: r jonathan rosenblum  wrote----
:> In an important letter, the Chazon Ish famously observed that the division
:> of the Torah into two separate parts -- one having to do with issur ve'heter
:> and the other to do with guidance in other areas of life -- with the
:> determination of the chachmei hador binding only in the first section, is
:> the ancient system of German Reform that led to the near total assimilation
:> of German Jewry

I don't know what letter he's referring to, but the CI says something
similar in Emunah uBitachon ch. 3. Similar, but VERY different. In EuB
talks about the relationship between halakhah and mussar and the need
to have a rebbe for both.

A moreh hora'ah, and a moreh derekh.

Which isn't "chakhmei hador", but one's own rebbe.

And isn't about life in general. The CI, who coined of Torah vaAvodah,
did NOT tell people to go to rabbis for career advice. Except if the
question were "Which job would better aid my avodas Hashem?" Not "Which
job would give me a better chance of success?"

(Lefi aniyus daati, it's more accurate to say that German R did the
reverse -- they did away with halakhah, and left only ethics to their
"Judaism" for their clergy to promote. Although those ethics weren't
all that Torah-based either.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I just sent a post to Avodah on this question (which was actually a post
that was sent to Areivim, but was, indirectly, rejected as being of Avodah
content). However it occurred to me that for Avodah Iit would probably be
appropriate to bring the gemora in Moed Katan to which I refer, as for those
not familiar with it, my brief references may not be sufficiently clear.

 

The gemora in Moed Katan 17a brings the following story:

 

 
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0301900002800000001400000000,030190000290000
0000100000000,0302500103100000004300000000,0302500103100000004400000000%22)>
???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???????. ??? ?? ?????: ???? ??????? ?????? - ?????
??? ????, ?? ?????? - ?? ?????? ??? ?????. ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???: ???? ????
?? ???: ??? ???: ??? ??? ??? ?????, ??? ?????
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0500400016800000000100520001%22)> ?
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0500000056500000000100070000%22)> ?? ????
??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?' ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?' -
????? ???? ????. ??? ??? - ?? ????? ???? ????. ????? ?? ?????

 

There was a young rabbinic scholar [lit. rabbinic student] who was ill
reputed [whose reputation they hated].  Rav Yehuda said: What shall we do?
To excommunicate him, the rabbis need him, not to excommunicate him ? behold
that would cause the name of heaven to be desecrated.  Rava Bar Bar Chana
said: Did you hear anything about this?  He said to him this is what Rav
Yochanan said: What is written [Melachi 2:7] ?for the lips of the kohen
should guard knowledge and they shall request knowledge from his mouth, for
he is an angel of the G-d of hosts?.  If the Rav is like to an angel request
torah from his mouth, and if not, do not request Torah from his mouth.  Rav
Yehuda excommunicated him.

 

What was meant by ill reputed?

 

Rashi here on Moed Katan 19a says that there went out bad rumours regarding
him, without specifying what they were.  However at a later point in the
story a bee stings this rabbinic scholar and he dies, and Rashi understood
that the bee stung him on his sexual organ, while Tosphos explains that the
reason for such a death was mida kneged mida ? that because he was suspected
of immoral sexual relations.  And indeed Rashi in Megila 25b where the same
phrase is used explains this as meaning that there went out on him bad
tidings and hateful, that he was an adulterer. 

 

Less extremely the Ritva here in Moed Katan 17a says:

???? ??? ???????. ??' ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?????
?? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?????.

 

 

that the explanation is that he was breaching a little due to lust, and it
good things were not heard since he was engaging in yichud with single girls
and it is an ugly thing for a rabbinical scholar.

 

In contrast it is brought by  in the name of Rabbi Chananel (here in Tosphos
and in Tosphos HaRosh)  that the explanation was that this rabbinic scholar
sought to drink with all kinds of [greek] songs (which elsewhere in the
gemora is discussed as being prohibited along with reading heretical books)
and to make merry in a  manner that accustoms one to sin, but that it could
not be that he was doing anything nearly as sinful as something that was a
violation of Torah law.  Rabbi Chananel himself on Chagiga 16a states that
how could Rabbi Yehuda possibly have a question whether or not to
excommunicate this rabbinic scholar if he was in fact violating anything
more serious than this.  And Rabbi Chananel here in Moed Katan explains:

 

This rabbinical scholar who was of ill repute that the name of Heaven was
desecrated by means of him: this is like the text at the end of Yom Kippur
[Yoma 86a which asks] ?who is it that has in his hand a Chillul HaShem?  R?
Yitzak the son of Rav Ami says any one where his colleagues are embaressed
due to his reputation.  How is this? That they say ?May his Master [G-d]
forgive so and so? .  But behold Rav says [Regarding a Chillul HaShem] like
me if I weigh meat etc.  And that Rabbi Yochanan says like me if I go 4 amos
without Torah and without tephillin.  On themselves only they said, and not
on others that they were very stringent on themselves.  But is it not seen
that each one so said ?like me? but according to everybody that they said
like Elisha Acher that he busied himself with heretical books and drank with
all kinds of music which in our version is that Greek music did not cease
from his house.  And they said regarding Acher that when he stood up from
the house of study many heretical books fell from his lap and our version is
that he also drank with all kinds of music etc and every rabbinical scholar
who does similarly is said to be of ill repute.

 

There is more to the story of this particular Rabbinic scholar in the
gemora, including that, after he was excommunicated, he went to visit Rabbi
Yehuda when Rabbi Yehuda was ill, and Rabbi Yehuda was pleased that he had
had the strength to stand up to such a flatterer, and that after Rabbi
Yehuda?s death the Rabbinic scholar sought to have the excommunication
removed, but through a series of incidents was unable to do so.  And that,
as mentioned above, he was then stung by a bee and died, and when they
sought to bury him in the cave of the pious, he was miraculously prevented,
but when they sought to bury him in the cave of the judges he was accepted ?
and that the reason for that later acceptance was because he had followed
the advice of Rabbi Eloyi who said:

 

If a man sees that his evil inclination is overpowering him ? go to a place
where they do not recognise him, and dress in black, and wrap himself in
black, and do that which his heart desires, and do not desecrate the name of
heaven publically.

 

And on this Rabbi Chananel and those who follow him insist that Rabbi Eloyi
was only permitting to do things like eat and drink with all kinds of
(Greek) music but not actually to commit any sin, certainly not a Torah
prohibition, and that even this is advice only to help him get the strength
to overcome his evil inclination.

 

In relation the statement that ?the Rabbis needed him?, Rashi brings that in
that place he was their Rav.

 

In any event, following on from this story, the Rambam rules in Hilchot
Talmud Torah perek 4 halacha 1:

 

... And so a Rav who does not go in a good way even though he is a great
scholar and all the people need him do not learn from him until he returns
to the good, as it says from the lips of the kohen will guard knowledge and
Torah they will request from his mouth because he is an angel of the G-d of
Hosts, the Sages said, if a Rav is like to an angel of the G-d of Hosts,
they request Torah from, if not they do not request Torah from his mouth.

 

Note by the way that Rabbi Meir held a different opinion, as set out in
Chagiga 15b:

 

???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????: ???
?????  <javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0500400017300000000101300001%22)> ?
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0500000056500000000100070000%22)> ?? ????
??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?' ????? ???,
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0301900002600000000100000000,030250009430000
0000900000000%22)> ?? ???? ??? ????? ?' ????? - ????? ???? ?????. ??? ??? -
?? ????? ???? ?????! - ??? ??? ????: ??? ???? ??? ???? ????
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0500400017300000000101310001%22)> ?
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0500000073800000000100170000%22)> ?? ????
???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?????. ????? ?? ????, ??? ?????. ?? ????? ???
????:  <javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0500400017300000000101320001%22)> ?
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0500000061100000000100110000%22)> ???? ??
???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???'. ??? ???? ?????! - ?? ????, ?? -
?????, ?? - ????. ?? ??? ?? ???? ???, ???? ??????: ??? ???? ??? ???? ????
????? ????. ??? ???: ??? ?????
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0500400017300000000101330001%22)> ?
<javascript:fireNetisLink(%22ID:0500000079500000000100110000%22)> ?? ???
???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???' ??? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ??: ??
???? ??, ?? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? - ??? ?? ?????? ????, ?? ????? ???, ??
?? ?? ???? - ??? ????? ?????. ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??????, ??? ???: ??? ??
???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???: ???? ????? ???????? ?????? ????, ??????? ????
???? ?? ????. ??? ???: ????? - ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????. ??? ???:
????? ??? ???? ???? ???, ???? ???, ?????? ???! ??? ???: ???? ????: ???? ???
????

 

And Rabbi Meir how did he learn Torah from the mouth of Acher?  Did not Raba
Bar Bar Chana say in the name of Rav Yochanan.  That which it is said ?For
the lips of the Kohen shall guard knowledge and you shall request Torah from
his mouth because he is an angel of the G-d of Hosts? ? if the Rav is like
an angel of the G-d of Hosts, request Torah from his mouth.  And if not, do
not request Torah from his mouth.  Resh Lakish said: Rabbi Meir found a text
and darshened it: Turn your ear and hear the words of the chachamim and your
heart put to my understanding.  To their understanding it does not say but
rather to my understanding.  Rav Chanina said from here: And hear daughter,
and see and turn your ear and forget your people and the house of your
father etc.  There is a problem that the texts contradict. There is not a
problem, here by a gadol, here by a katan.  When Rav Dimi came he said, they
say in the West: Rabbi Meir ate the flesh and threw the pit away.  Rava
learned: What is it said I went down to the nut garden to see the plants on
the streams etc.  Why are talmidei chachamim like a nut.  To teach you: Just
as this nut, even though it is dirty with mud and waste, what is inside it
does not become repulsive, so talmidei chachaim, even though they go bad,
their Torah does not become repulsive.  Raba bar Shila once found Eliyahu.
He said to him: What is HKBH doing.  He said to him he is repeated sayings
from the mouth of all the Rabbis, but from the mouth of Rabbi Meir he is not
saying.  He said to him:  Why ? because he learnt sayings from the mouth of
Acher.  He said to him, why ? Rabbi Meir found a pomegranate, he ate the
insides and threw the skin away.  He said it him:  Now he is saying: Rabi
Meir my son says ; ..

 

But it would seem that while the Gemora in Chagiga provides justification
for Rabbi Meir?s opinion (including that HaShem would seem ultimately to
have given his haskama), given the ruling in Moed Katan (in an actual
ma?aseh) it would seem that we posken like Rav Yochanan, which is presumably
why the Rambam codified it as halacha.   On the other hand, in this day and
age, when we often don?t learn from anybody?s mouth, but from their sefarim,
query whether one is more able to take (or it is more appropriate to take)
Rabbi Meir?s pomegranate approach.

 

Note by the way, that the Rambam (Hilchos Eidus perek 10 halacha 2) and the
Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat siman 34 si?if 2 and 3)  rule that if
somebody is over on an averah that is chayav malkus or worse, even if it is
rabbinic lashes, then they are posul for eidus on the basis of being a
rasha.   And of course all who are posel for eidus because of an averah are
posul to be a dayan (Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat Siman 7 si?if 9).    On
the other hand, in si?if 4 the Shulchan Aruch rules that those who bury on
Yom Tov rishon are still kosher l?edus, even though they can be
excommunicated, because they think they are doing a mitzvah, and the
excommunication might be only as a kaparah.    So while a Rav who does
something that would be chayav malkus or worse (or fits into one of the
other categories, such as stealing (see si?if 7), where there is no malkus,
but they are still pasul l?edus), if they merely hold a position that is
odious, even if you think it amounts to sanctioning something like stealing,
you could have a debate about whether or not they should fall within this
category.

 

Anyhow, just some of the background to my previous post.

 

Regards

 

Chana 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130621/8fe1db2f/attachment.htm>

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


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 31, Issue 117
***************************************

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