Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 189

Fri, 15 Nov 2013

• 1. Re: kiddush question (Doron Beckerman)
• 2. [Short Vort] "The Art of Compromise" (Michael Orr)
• 3. RSRH - The Avos did not keep the Mitzvos (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: Safeik and Taaroves (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: [Short Vort] "The Art of Compromise" (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: [Short Vort] "The Art of Compromise" (Liron Kopinsky)
• 7. Re: [Short Vort] "The Art of Compromise" (Micha Berger)
• 8. Did the Avos Keep the Torah? (Prof. Levine)
• 9. toveiling electronics (Rich, Joel)
• 10. dangerous sports (M Cohen)
• 11. Re: dangerous sports (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Kofin Oso (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: dangerous sports (Allan Engel)
• 14. More on Did the Avos Keep the Torah? (Prof. Levine)
• 15. Agunah (Eli Turkel)
• 16. Re: rashbam and peshat (Micha Berger)

I am copying out the summary section of the Ohr Olam Mishnah
Berurah, 271:15, with permission from the Chief Editor:

If it is Chamar Medinah, one makes a shehakol and drinks it.

If it is water or vinegar and the like (i.e, not chamar medinah), and one
did not intend to drink any wine besides what one thought to be in the cup,
one brings a new cup and repeats the entire kiddush.

If one did originally intend to drink more wine that was not present on the
table, many Acharonim maintain that one must repeat kiddush, but not borei
pri hagafen, though some have reservations about this ruling and maintain
that one must repeat borei pri hagafen as well.

If the wine was present on the table and one had intention to drink from
that wine, one need not repeat kiddush at all. One merely drinks a kimelo
lugmav from that wine.

Some say that even if there was only bread on the table, one need not
repeat kiddush, but should break the bread immediately after kiddush, and
recite only the berachah of hamotzi. This does not apply, however, if one
had not washed for the meal before kiddush.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131113/35c38cb3/attachment-0001.htm>

Rabbi?RY Eisenman wrote:
?
Are our children being filled with stories of this Gadol or that Gadol
who never deviated or sacrificed even one iota of their long held beliefs?

Are our children having their impressionable heads filled with anecdotal
evidence of how 'all' of our Gedolim never surrendered even the minutest
amount of their principles and never ever compromised with anyone when
it came to what they 'knew' to be correct?
?
MJO:? As acknowledged in this beautiful?vort, the story of RSZA was also a
story in which he did not compromise his principles, including regard for
the feelings of others, and in order to avoid compromising his principles
he was willing to pay the price of compromising his comfort and his time.??
Compromise?of one's self interest?often good, but would we say that we must
compromise our principles?? The story of RSZA suggests otherwise, and
emphaisizes that we must often?be willing to compromise our "entitlements"
in order to do this.
?
Following up on RRYE's question about the kind of gadol stories we teach
our children, does anyone have a?recommendation for books of such stories
that emphasize that our frumkeit must be achieved only in a way consistent
with derech eretz and erlichkeit?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131113/9a35fe14/attachment-0001.htm>

I have from time to time heard some claim that the Avos kept the 
entire Torah.  I have often wondered about this assertion. YL

The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 33

20 He erected an altar there as a memorial and proclaimed to himself: 
God is the God of Yisrael.

In the time of the Avos, man's actions revealed more about man than about
God; for the Taryag mitzvos had not yet been given, had not yet refined
the life of the individual and of the community. Only when lives would
be consecrated and wholly devoted to serving God, only then would
human lives, their very development, reveal the Will and rule of God.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131113/659465b7/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:23:21PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> I often cite the case of two chatichos shuman and one of cheilev that
:> got mixed together so that their identities are lost. One person is
:> permitted to eat all three one after the other. According to the Rosh,
:> even simultaneously -- such as if all three are mixed into a stew.

:> I have used this idea repeatedly (first time was back in vol 4, most
:> revently in vol 29) as one of the underpinnings of my theory that safeiq
:> has to do with how people identify the item in question, rather than
:> with statistics.

: Sorry, didnt understand the connection to statistics. The Rosh is merely
: stating that once the issur is batel it now becomes permitted food...

There is no connection, my point in using this case is that it proves
there CANNOT be a connection.

The original mi'ut is in a safeiq (de'isa leqaman), not a ta'aroves. It
is therefore reasonable to assume that any use of "batel" in this context
doesn't mean real bitul, but that we can ignore a probability of less
than .5 (by some margin) of doing an issur.

But if the essence was probability, then if you took two of the three
possibilities and combined them in a taaroves, since the probability is
now majority, it would have to be assur. (And chozer veni'ur would be
universally applied.)

So I like this case because it eliminates the probability hava amina.

Which then has ramifications for understanding sefeiq sefeiqa, and makes
mi'ut bemaqom safeiq more understandable.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:23:05PM -0800, Michael Orr wrote:
:               Compromise of one's self interest often good, but would we
: say that we must compromise our principles? The story of RSZA suggests
: otherwise, and emphaisizes that we must often be willing to compromise
: our "entitlements" in order to do this.

Kol hamaavir al midosav
maarivin lo al kol chatosav.

Although I wonder how I'm supposed to weigh my "rights" against their
offense. It's nice to spend time and money to avoid offending a woman,
even in a context where I feel she's in the wrong but couldnt' know any
better. (Doesn't that describe RSZA's stance vis-a-vis this woman sitting
on his bench on the bus in non-tzanuah attire?) But how much loss is
mandatory, how much is laudible, and when does it become bal tashchis?

To put it another way:
1- Kol hamaariv al midosav, vs
2- Ours is not a religion that lauds willing victimhood.
How do I make peace with both?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

On Thursday, November 14, 2013, Micha Berger wrote:
>
>
> To put it another way:
> 1- Kol hamaariv al midosav, vs
> 2- Ours is not a religion that lauds willing victimhood.
> How do I make peace with both?
>

The saying is kol hamaavir al middotav, not mamomav.

In general I always understood it in terms of holding your tongue when
being slighted, and not in terms of getting trampled on by not standing up
for your rights in a business transaction.

Kol tuv,
Liron


-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131114/0f9c5f68/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 08:51:27AM +0200, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: On Thursday, November 14, 2013, Micha Berger wrote:
: > To put it another way:
: > 1- Kol hamaariv al midosav, vs
: > 2- Ours is not a religion that lauds willing victimhood.
: > How do I make peace with both?

: The saying is kol hamaavir al middotav, not mamomav.

It's more than mamon. Chayekha qodemin. As a general rule don't have an
ethic of the other comes first. Rather, it's more like trying to make the
other ever closer to equal.

But in the story with RSZA, he was putting himself out quite a bit lest
a woman take offense that he got up just not to sit next to her.

: In general I always understood it in terms of holding your tongue when
: being slighted, and not in terms of getting trampled on by not standing up
: for your rights in a business transaction.

Our initial case was RSZA spending money on a second busfare. Is this
not a good story to use as a role model? Is there more going on because
we're talking about RSZA who even people who never heard of him would
think represents Torah (the attending talmid[-im], for one thing)?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

See http://tinyurl.com/n2masno

and

http://tinyurl.com/ks72qxh

In addition there are a number of other sites that discuss this 
topic,  and a google search for Did the Avos Keep the Torah? brings them up.

YL

From the CRC

Q: Does one need to toveil a Keurig coffee maker?

A: A Keurig coffee maker does not need to be toveled. Although there are
some metal components on the inside, it is still considered to be a plastic
machine.  Additionally, Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz, Shlit"a is of the opinion
that electronic machines that will be ruined by immersion in the mikva do
not need to be immersed. An example of this would be a Keurig with an
electronic screen.
-------------------------------
Does anyone know the halachic reasoning for  R' Schwartz's psak?
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131114/df704b20/attachment-0001.htm>

RET wrote ...I was once told in the name of RHS (I did not check it out)
that skiing is forbidden even for men since it is a dangerous sport.

I once wrote to RMF asking if I was allowed to (continue to) scuba dive and
hanglide, or were they forbidden as a dangerous sports.

He wrote back (I have the letter) saying that if my knowledge and skills
were such that I could safely participate in these sports, then I may
participate.

The same would be true for skiing (excluding extreme skiing etc)

Mordechai Cohen

Postscript - L'maaseh, the demands of a frum lifestyle, torah learning +
kollel, middle age, 13 kids, etc have meant that I haven't gone scuba
diving/hangliding for a looong time (no regrets)  :)  

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:45:36AM -0500, M Cohen wrote:
: I once wrote to RMF asking if I was allowed to (continue to) scuba dive and
: hanglide, or were they forbidden as a dangerous sports.

: He wrote back (I have the letter) saying that if my knowledge and skills
: were such that I could safely participate in these sports, then I may
: participate.

: The same would be true for skiing (excluding extreme skiing etc)

Assuming the risk is comparable.

I do not know anyone who seriously skis, even with skills, who hasn't
at least broken somehting. So it might boil down to how much risk one
/can/ avoid with one's mastery. Not that this is the kind of thing
amenable to well-defined shiurim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

(The ability to reply to something after two weeks of thinking about it
and still having some chance of resuming the conversation is one of the
reasons why I think email lists still cover a niche blog comment chains
and FB cannot.)

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:41:14AM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: Si'if 3: One who says I will not feed or support her, they force him to feed
: or support her...

: Rema: And so with a man who is regularly angry and sends her out of his
: house constantly they force him  And if he hits her regularly there are
: those who say they force him - and if she provided provocation (eg she
: curses his parents) then she loses her ketuba.

Tangential:
I am not sure about this translation of the Rama. I think an ish sheragil
is more a man who is in the habit (hergel, not regilus) and there is a
"ule-" on "ulehotzi ishto mibeiso tamid, implying that we mean a man
who is in the in the habit of getting angry and then constntly sending
her out of the house.

: From the Rashba -- Shut Rashba Chelek 2 Siman 276
: 
: In any event, if they were accustomed in that place, to do according to the
: Rambam, it is fine for them. Because also the Geonim it is known that they
: said:  that they force to divorce all who was a moredet.  And in places that
: are accustomed to go according to their mouths, there is not to us the
: strength to disagree with them and to nullify their words.
: 
: In short both ...

the Rosh and the Rashba

:           ... appear to hold bideved such a get is kosher.  

As I believe the Rama implies this as well, in se'if 21:
    Since there is a machloqes of the rabbis it is ra'ui lehachmir
    shelo lakhuf beshotin....

"`Ra'ui lehachmir". It's an appropriate chumerah, not iqar hadin.

...
: But in the cases we are discussing perhaps you can argue we already have
: enough proof. The Shulchan Aruch rules (Choshen Mishpat siman 420 si'if 1)
: that anybody who lifts his hand to hit his fellow is considered a rasha.
: How about paying $100,000 to beat somebody up? Is that not ra'ah b'daoteha?
: So if you hold that the payments were lo k'din and were a means to try and
: ensure he gets beaten up, then, even though ain shaliach b'davar averah, you
: would seem to have defined her as an isha ra'ah, -- whom it would therefore
: be a mitzvah to divorce, even if you have to force the husband to do it.

Paying $100,000 might be morally justified to get rid of an abusive
husband, but still restrict his bechirah enough to qualify as a gett
me'usah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

The question must be asked, how can one attain this mastery in the first
place?


On 14 November 2013 23:24, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:45:36AM -0500, M Cohen wrote:
> : He wrote back (I have the letter) saying that if my knowledge and skills
> : were such that I could safely participate in these sports, then I may
> : participate.
>



>  So it might boil down to how much risk one
> /can/ avoid with one's mastery.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131114/7bcde470/attachment-0001.htm>

Please see: 
<http://www.tanach.org/bre
ishit/toldot3.doc>http://www.tanach.org/bre
ishit/toldot3.doc 


You may find the web site http://www.tanach.org/index.htm  of interest.  YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131114/804127ba/attachment-0001.htm>

Went to shiur today by RHS in Raanana on the topic of agunot. Some remarks

1) Asked why we say a bracha on Kiddushin that lists the things that are
prohibited which we dont do in other brachot.
answered from Brisker Rav that the bracha stresses the difference between a
Jewish marriage and a gentile "marriage"

2) There is an ancient cherem against heating ones wife - the question is
that hitting anyone is prohibted from the Torah. Answer cherem means a
curse that the person will die because of this act

3) Rabbis (stressed not talmideo chachaminm) in the US that arrange for
beating up the husband until he gives a get leads to a pasul get. It is
against the laws of the US (in fact they were arrested).
Separation of religion in the US gives Jews many priveleges and one cant
selectively choose when one is interested in keeping the government rules

4) If the wife claims "maus alai" the sefardim force a get but the
ashkenazim do not.
ROY paskens that he is required to divorce the wife but we do not force it
(kefiah)

5) His personal favorite is to demonstrate against the husband in front of
his or family's home and to not allow the husband to get any shul
priveleges and to boycott the family business. He mentioned that in his
neighborhood there was a man who refused to give a get. RHS wrote a letter
to the gabbai of the shul stating that the man should not get any aliyah or
be chazzan. The gabbai showed the letter to the husband who then shortly
afterwards gave the get.

6) He was in favor of prenups as long as the "fine" is reasonable. He gave
an example of $1000 a week for mezonot during any delays as being
reasonable. He also stressed that the prenup should include the bet din
that would decide any issues that arise. He thought that for weddings that
used a prenup that there have not been any cases of agunot by the husband
refusing to give the get

7) He briefly discussed the original halacha of agunah of a husband who is
missing and the chiddusim of RMF and ROY mainly with regard to the problem
of "mayim she-ein behem sof"
and the problems after WWII and the twin towers.
In particular the use of takanot of Rabbenu Tam. Even though Piskei Teshuva
says that we dont rely on this kulah ROY disagrees. In fact it was used in
at least one bet din of ROY, Rav Kolitz and Tzitz Eliezer.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131115/1dd4eb28/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 09:01:46PM +0200, Simi Peters wrote:
: Even assuming that the Rashbam was writing from a (consciously or
: unconsciously) defensive posture, (an assumption I don't necessarily
: share, but could), it should be possible to evaluate his reading in its
: own terms...

I think it may be useful to divide motive from validation.

It is inevitable for the zeitgeist or the religious battles someone
faces to shape the territory they search. Someone who lives in an ere
where equality is heavily valued, whether they agree or disagree with
the popular stance, it's now an issue more ready to jump to mind. Even
when thinking about Tanakh.

But I would hope that we all take it for granted (a/k/a have the emunas
chakhamim) that a ba'al mesorah can *validate* his ideas from a Torah
based perspective.

Motive was more temporal, historical, but validating that context didn't
take the idea beyond the limits of eilu va'eilu was not.

I would also say the same thing about Historical Postivist analyses
of halakhah. The questions a poseiq gets today, and the answers which
would be considered tirkhah or tirkhah merubah, would be different than
a century ago. And therefore among the eilu va'eilu, the likelihood
of finding a shitah or of the shitah gaining a following is touched by
historical context. So I can't say that historical analysis of halakhah
is meaningless. But historical school goes beyond looking at historical
context for motive, and treating it as sufficient validation. The shitah
still has to be a valid shitah, formed by unmodified halachic process.

But back to the topic of parshanut... On Sun, Nov 10, 9:16pm EST,
Prof. Levine (a/k/a RYL) quoted RSRH on the thread "Yaakov's Dreams":
> The Torah does not hide from us the faults, errors, and weaknesses
> of our great men, and this is precisely what gives its stories credibility.

While this is true of Tanakh, it's not true of Chazal.

I would divide this discussion as well, this time into three:

1- The historical Avraham, what actually happened. I don't think this
is religiously relevant. But it's important to note that we have gaps of
decased in Avraham's or Moshe's or (nearly?) any biblical figure's life.
There is huge selection of what to tell and what not to tell. The person
as portrayed can't possibly a full picture of the historical life. And
what gets selected is itself most of the message.

2- Tanakh's portrayal, which includes and may even exagerate
flaws. Tanakh's Avraham is a baal chessed, a zariz, and the founder of
a nation.

3- Torah sheBaal Peh's portrayal. In which Avraham is also a theologian
and preacher (as part of being baal chsssed).

It's not that the Tanakh and the TSBP tell contradictory histories. By
picking up on different narratives inherent in the original, you end
up with different descriptions of the same event. Just think how many
different ways there are to retell the story of WWII, all accurately
capturing some perspective on the events. And if one says WWII started
on Sep 1 1939 (the invation of Poland) or the 3rd, when France and Britain
joined the fray, the 22nd when the USSR was pulled in... And if you insist
on Sep 1, why not back in 1931, when Japan invaded Manchuria? Point being,
you can't just read two sources giving different dates and presume they
disagree over the substance of the events.

It would seem that the authors of Tanakh were interested in giving us
people we can emulate, and Chazal emphasized that subset of TSBP that
give us a picture of an archetype to aspire to.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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 189
***************************************

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.)