Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 196

Tue, 03 Dec 2013

• 1. Re: Dochek Raglei Shechina (Micha Berger)
• 2. Ahava - Sinas Chinam (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 3. Re: The Gym, the Carpool, and Tzniyus (Dr Isaac Balbin)
• 4. Re: eating out (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: The Gym, the Carpool, and Tzniyus (Dr Isaac Balbin)
• 6. Re: Thanksgiving on Chanukah (Dr Isaac Balbin)
• 7. Re: Skiing HaGomel (Dr Isaac Balbin)
• 8. Re: eating out (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. Eating Out (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 10. Re: The canard of the Rabbinic redefinition of lineal descent in Judaism (T613K@aol.com)
• 11. Re: The canard of the Rabbinic redefinition of lineal descent in Judaism (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: The canard of the Rabbinic redefinition of lineal descent in Judaism (Lisa Liel)
• 13. Chanukah tidbits (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 14. Re: The canard of the Rabbinic redefinition of lineal descent in Judaism (Zev Sero)

On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 10:21:56PM +0200, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: > Can we also tie this to Yaaqov (note the shoresh) being the tzuras
: > ha'adam on the kisei hakavod?

: Yaakov is in many ways epitomized as being very caring of the little things
: - being super meticulous with the sheep, going back for pachim k'tanim etc.
: I wrote a little about the connection between Yaakov and Eikev here:
: http://mydvar.com/2009/11/the-little-things-in-life/

I meant the bigger idea, not the specific usage in "Eiqev" (as per the
Chazal Rashi quotes). 

According to somewhere in the Zohar (n-th hand) we remove shoes when in
a maqom qadosh, or when in aveilus, because the shoe is to the body as
the body is to the soul. Both cover the bottom, the point of contact to
the world.

If footstool is a similar metaphor, then YaAQOV is particularly
representative of hadom raglav. And in any case, it would be about
Yaaqov overlooking when HQBH skips him over, not he being thew one who
skips details.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
mi...@aishdas.org        how can he appreciate the worth of another?
http://www.aishdas.org             - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef

May I suggest that Sinas Chinam is actually indifference.

Those sitting comfortably in their car who maneuver it for their own
convenience and thereby cause inconvenience to pedestrians exposed to the
elements, are guilty of Sinas Chinam.

Dropping litter, pushing at a Kiddush or other public event, coming to a
public event with a cold and spreading ones germs, adding an extra word or
choosing a word which is a little more provocative and abrasive, when
another would have been adequate; in short -  all those little things that
we trample upon Eikev TishMeOon, which we brush off as insignificant when
in truth we know full well that if we were on the receiving end the
perspective would not be quite so sanguine: that's all Sinas Chinam.

Mah DeALach SaNi - its the Torah on one leg.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131203/d56e72d0/attachment-0001.htm>

RMR wrote:
> Can we not consider that the way one behaves when in private does influence
> the public persona?

Not necessarily. There are plenty of shy (as opposed to Tzniyusdik)
people who behave in public the same as they do as in private and it
has absolutely nothing to do with Torah!

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 01:56:41PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
: At 01:09 PM 11/29/2013, Micha Berger wrote:
:>: There are some within the O community who consider some of "us" to be
:>: them. Doesn't one see this all the time with certain groups interacting
:>: only with those from their particular group.?

:>I need clarification:
: 
:>So, in Torah terms are you arguing that yes, one may eat at the homes of
:>people who are meiqil on things you generally are not? That's it's only
:>nefarious motives that motivate people to act otherwise?
: 
: Personally I do not eat in anyone's home save for my own. Surely you
: know this from earlier posts.

I don't see how this reflects on your previous statement.

Again, I'm trying to clarify:

Are you saying, with yourself as an example, that you personally follow
the idea that people who do not eat in homes that follow other (but valid)
pesaqim and minhagim are NOT trying to turn "some of 'us' to be them",
but are supposed to follow their own chumeros?

I would have thought that's your position, but then you emailed us that
earlier post (quoted above).

Neither of which actually provides what the original post asked for,
substantiation for saying one way or the other.

: Also, there is a world of difference between "may" and "should."
: There are many things that one may do, but that one should not do.
: Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L, once replied when I asked him the source for
: something he told me, "The Five Chalek of the SA, common sense."

If one *may* follow the minhagim of the home you're in even when they
are lequlah, then I think one *should*. Unity is a value, no? In the
heat of the battle between the Austritt and Gemeinde communities in
Frankfurt over the eruv, my grandfather noted that eruvin is one of
the few places where we look for kullah and said this is because this
fosters unity.

See:
    Divrei Shalom veEmes
    HaRav Yisrael Avram Abba Krieger, 1922
    <http://hebrewbooks.org/8735>

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Brains to the lazy
mi...@aishdas.org        are like a torch to the blind --
http://www.aishdas.org   a useless burden.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Bechinas haOlam

RMR wrote:

> : R' Meir Rabi:
> :> Is it not correct to explain that Tznius is the Hashkafa of not shouting to
> :> the world - Look At ME?

I do not think that one can draw that conclusion in general. It cannot, for
example be argued that someone who wears a tefach above their elbow is
shouting "look at me!" for example
(and yes, I am aware of the discussions about this example, as in eg Shut
B'Bnei Banim) however I use this example as I assume RMR contends in should
extend at least to the end of the elbow.
He can correct me if I am wrong in that assumption.
Reasons for Halachos are something that can almost always be shown to be incomplete.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131203/5d19e95f/attachment-0001.htm>

Rav Menasha Klein's views on Chukos HoAkum do not attract agreement from
prominent acharonim. For example, R' Klein even holds that Bat Mizvah
celebrations of any form are Chukas HoAkum even to the extent of some very
harsh words that I'd not want to repeat. In contradistinction, the Sridei
Eish and Rav Ovadya and others halachically dismissed R' Klein's halachic
reasoning with ease. I think R' Klein lived in a different world to many of
us. That world is centred in small enclaves and simply isn't shayach to
most or the reality of my (and many other's worlds)

RMR writes
> Driving a car in India where the rate of accidents and the drivers take
> ridiculous risks ... does not qualify to obligate one to Bentsch
> HaGomel, I think.

> But Isaac, I think, is suggesting that there is no need to Bentsch HaGomel
> for the plane flight, as per Reb S and actuarial risk calculations; but
> there is a duty to Bentsch HaGomel after having driven on the road in India.
> 
> I dont think that is correct. As far as being scared is concerned, the
> Halacha will measure that by the average person's behaviour. Isaac says
> that Indians are not scared [they just die on the roads, he says] ...

The "being afraid" was not a halachic consideration in any way in
my response. It was a comment about my state of mind. Furthermore,
I have seen no evidence that it's a halachic consideration in any case
in respect of HaGomel.

Existential Danger would seem to be what is driving the Tannoim, according
to some Acharonim.

 
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
>>There are  many things that one may do, but that one should not do.
Rav Shimon Schwab,  ZT"L, once replied when I asked him the source for
something he told me, "The  Five Chalek of the SA, common  sense."<<

YL






>>>>
 
The trouble is there are so many different girsa'os in that volume.
 
 


--Toby Katz
..
=============




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131203/d66adf0b/attachment-0001.htm>

> I always thought that one of the purposes of kashrut was to stop
> intermingling between us and "them," not between us and us.

I heard that reason put forward regarding "stam yenam" but not for food.

> we shouldn't state with pride how many Orthodox houses we don't eat in.

I personally knew a very m'dakdek, machmir Rabbi whose son (also a
musmach) never ate anywhere outside of his own home. People would
criticize saying: R' Ploni doesn't even eat in his parents' home.

I see nothing to criticize. That is an individual's personal choice and
it is a lo p'lug principle which should be respected.

 
From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:mi...@aishdas.org) 


>>Actually, while we're on the topic of da mah lehashiv, isn't  there
also a kofer's theory that in the era in question, marriage  constituted
conversion? IOW, the reason why patrilineal descent allegedy  worked is
because the father's religion determined the whole household's. For  which
one could point to Tziporah, Asnas, Shimshon's and Shelomo's wives,  
etc...<<





>>>>
 
The argument "these marriages show that marriage constitutes  conversion" 
is a circular argument, or an argument that presumes its  conclusions.  
"These marriages prove that marriage constitutes conversion"  only if you already 
assume that marriage constitutes conversion.  
 
But one could equally say that these marriages prove that Moshe, Yosef.  
Shimshon and Shlomo converted their wives before marrying them.  Otherwise  
how could these men have married the women they married?!
 
Bottom line, from the pesukim themselves there is no proof one way or  
another.  You need TSB'P.
 


--Toby Katz
..
=============


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131203/708c3121/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 10:32:16AM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: "These marriages prove that marriage constitutes conversion"  only if you already 
: assume that marriage constitutes conversion.  
:  
: But one could equally say that these marriages prove that Moshe, Yosef.  
: Shimshon and Shlomo converted their wives before marrying them.  Otherwise  
: how could these men have married the women they married?!

There is no mention in any of these cases of a conversion occuring first.
Without TSBP, there is no reason to insert this step, and with repeated
omission, slight reason to believe it didn't happen. It's not a circular
argument, it's an attempt at proof from absence. Particularly since the
omitted bit is important.

In fact, even /with/ TSBP we need to address the question of why their
conversions are never mentioned, and only obliquely referred to in a
disputable way WRT Rus?

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 12/3/2013 10:24 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> There is no mention in any of these cases of a conversion occuring first.
> Without TSBP, there is no reason to insert this step, and with repeated
> omission, slight reason to believe it didn't happen. It's not a circular
> argument, it's an attempt at proof from absence. Particularly since the
> omitted bit is important.

I disagree. We don't need TSBP to tell us that people relieved themselves
or ate carrots.

Lisa

(Nice d'rash) A week is seven days -- a cycle of time. Pesach and Succos
are seven days (Biblically speaking). Chanukah is eight days because
its effect goes beyond an entire cycle; there is some left over for
the future.

The actual word "Chanukah" (chet,nun,kof,hay) appears only once in the
whole Bible (obviously not in conjunction with the holiday, since the
holiday is post Biblical).
"And at the dedication (uvachanukat) of the wall of Jerusalem they sought
the Levites out of all their places, to bring them to Jerusalem, to keep
the dedication (Chanukah) with gladness, both with thanksgivings, and
with singing, with cymbals, psalteries, and with harps." Nehemiah 12:27

For Gematria Lovers: Traditionally, the letters nun, gimel, hay, shin
are an acronym for nes gadol hayah sham. Kabbalah teaches that the
gematria of these four letters is equal to the gematria of Mashiach
[358]. The final NES will be the arrival of Mashiach.

On 3/12/2013 11:33 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> On 12/3/2013 10:24 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> There is no mention in any of these cases of a conversion occuring first.
>> Without TSBP, there is no reason to insert this step, and with repeated
>> omission, slight reason to believe it didn't happen. It's not a circular
>> argument, it's an attempt at proof from absence. Particularly since the
>> omitted bit is important.

> I disagree. We don't need TSBP to tell us that people relieved themselves
> or ate carrots.

But TSBP *does* tell us about people relieving themselves -- or (in the cases
of Avimelech and his household, and of the Jews in the midbar) not doing so!
And they didn't eat carrots, or at least anything we would recognise as a carrot
(orange and sweet), since they were bred in the Netherlands in the 17th century.

Seriously, you're right that some things are meant to be so obvious that
they don't need mentioning, but then there's the famous "proof" that Avram
wore a kappel because it says "vayelech Avram".   And yet we're safe in
assuming that when "vayelech Avram" he was indeed wearing clothes, even
though that's not stated either.

Or look at how difficult it is to actually prove the requirement for a
mechitzah in shuls.  Everyone knew it, it was so obvious that it never
needed writing down, until suddenly it wasn't, and people started claiming
that it was a modern invention of the "counter-reformation".

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan


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


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 196
***************************************

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.)