Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 203

Wed, 11 Dec 2013

• 1. Re: Yosef, a despot or a brilliant strategist and educator? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 2. Re: Yosef, a despot or a brilliant strategist and educator? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: criminal's tzedaka (Micha Berger)
• 4. Arei Miklat and the Geometry of Israel (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Arei Miklat and the Geometry of Israel (Simon Montagu)
• 6. Re: Arei Miklat and the Geometry of Israel (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Arei Miklat and the Geometry of Israel (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Yosef, a despot or a brilliant strategist and educator? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 9. Re: Yosef, a despot or a brilliant strategist and educator? (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: The Gym, the Carpool, and Tzniyus (Chana Luntz)
• 11. Re: Eating Out (David Riceman)
• 12. Re: Sledding on Shabbat (T6...@aol.com)
• 13. Re: definition of 'shabbosdik' (T6...@aol.com)

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 5:38 AM, <T6...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yosef let people keep 80% of what they produced.  Halavai we should have
> such "socialism" in America, with only a 20% tax rate!
>

I also noticed this year that the enslaved Egyptians still had their own
slaves.

*??*  ???????, ????????????, ?????????? ??????????, ?????????; ??????????
???????? ??????? ????? ??????? ????????? ?????????????, ??????????
????????????--????????? ??????????. *24* And it shall come to pass at the
ingatherings, that ye shall give a fifth unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall
be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your
households, and for food for your little ones.' At least some meforshim
claim "them of your households" are the slaves of the Egyptians.

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/20131211/66c3d902/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:38:42PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: Yosef let people keep 80% of what they produced.  Halavai we should  have 
: such "socialism" in America, with only a 20% tax rate!

Vayiqbotz es kol okhel -- 341:48
which is why
Vatir'ov kol Eretz Mitzrayim, veyitz'oq ha'am el Par'oh lalacham -- v. 45
and Par'oh tells them to go to Yosef "asher yomar lakhem ta'asu" (ibid).

Rashi ad loc quotes Bereishis Rabba that at the point of pasuq 45,
all the other food was gone -- Yoseif had a monopoly.

In the first two years they run out of money (47:14) buying food, and then
sold their animals (v. 17) their land (v 20; except for the priests',
v22) and even themselves (vv. 19, 23)to Pharoah for more (v 29). Then
he allowed them to farm Par'oh's land and feed themselves (also Par'oh's
property) and the animals used for farming from 80% of the crop. But the
state owned all the means of production and everyone worked for the state.

That's not taxation.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
mi...@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 06:48:37PM -0800, saul newman wrote:
: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4456536,00.html
: parameters for determining of criminal gelt is kosher enough to use

Y-mi Makkos 7a (which you can tell from my arei miqlat question I happened
to be learning during the morning commute) discusses Yoav.

The pasuq says that after Benayahu (as av beis din) put Yoav to death,
"vayiqberuhu beceiso bamidbar". The gemara asks: "But was Yoav's home the
midbar? Rather to teach you that since Yoav the general of the Israelite
army died, Israel was make like a midbar. In teimar: He would plunder
and build for them libraries (?) and bathhouses. An in teimar: He would
plunder and feed chakhamim and their talmidim -- shevach shevachim!"

So taking tzedaqah money from someone who David charged and (years later)
the Sanhedrin found guilty of killing two generals of BY is apparently
acceptable.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

So, I'm in Y-mi Makos (2:6, vilna 6b).

I don't understand the geometry of EY implied by the placement of the
arei miqlat.

The 3 cities separated be'eiver hayardein have to be due east of those
in EY proper. Those in EY proper have to divide EY into 4 equal sections:
    Southern border to Chevron,
    Chevron to Shechem,
    Shechem to Qadesh, and
    Qadesh to the northern border.

This would mean that there was a city in eiver hayardein opposite Chevron
and opposite Qadesh, meaning that the 2-1/2 shevatim's territory ran
at least from a point less than 1/4 of the length of Israel away from
Israel's northern end to one less than 1/4 from the southern end.

I think that rules out the accuracy of the typical map one sees of the
nachalos, e.g. the one I used at
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-time-of-the-ivrim
But that means I don't have a new mental image to replace it with.

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 Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> So, I'm in Y-mi Makos (2:6, vilna 6b).
>
> I don't understand the geometry of EY implied by the placement of the
> arei miqlat.
>
> The 3 cities separated be'eiver hayardein have to be due east of those
> in EY proper.


Where does it say due east? I'm looking at that Yerushalmi for the first
time, so I could be missing it, but all I see is that they have to be
"mechuvvanot" like two rows in a vineyard, which suggests diagonal lines to
me.

If you look at
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:MapCitiesOfRefuge.svg,
that works out well for the southern four. We would only have to assume
that Golan is shown too far south to have all six aligned in three more or
less parallel and equidistant diagonal lines.

That would still mean that ever hayarden on the map you refer to doesn't
extend far enough north, but I think that that's the case anyway: Devarim
3:8 says mi-nahal arnon ad har hermon.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131211/86e3ffff/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:05:52PM +0200, Simon Montagu wrote:
: Where does it say due east? I'm looking at that Yerushalmi for the first
: time, so I could be missing it, but all I see is that they have to be
: "mechuvvanot" like two rows in a vineyard, which suggests diagonal lines to
: me.

Vinyards are assumed to be a rectilinear grid. You get a pretty clear
picture of this in Kelaim. E.g. 5:1 - a minimal cherem is 3 x 2, or
possibly 5 vines, since the missing corner would still be implied by
the rest of the rectangle.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:05:52PM +0200, Simon Montagu wrote:
: Where does it say due east? I'm looking at that Yerushalmi for the first
: time, so I could be missing it, but all I see is that they have to be
: "mechuvvanot" like two rows in a vineyard, which suggests diagonal lines to
: me.

Vinyards are assumed to be a rectilinear grid. You get a pretty clear
picture of this in Kelaim. E.g. 5:1 - a minimal cherem is 3 x 2, or
possibly 5 vines, since the missing corner would still be implied by
the rest of the rectangle.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> In the first two years they run out of money (47:14) buying food, and then
> sold their animals (v. 17) their land (v 20; except for the priests',
> v22) and even themselves (vv. 19, 23)to Pharoah for more (v 29). Then
> he allowed them to farm Par'oh's land and feed themselves (also Par'oh's
> property) and the animals used for farming from 80% of the crop. But the
> state owned all the means of production and everyone worked for the state.
>
> That's not taxation
>

What was interesting to me this year is that during the 7 years or plenty,
Yosef also taxed them at only 20% (and that was taxation). This means that
the entire collected food for the 7 years of famine was 1 and 2/5ths (7/5)
years worth of food. Even if the years of plenty were double the normal
food intake, that still means that they only really had enough food for 3
years.

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/20131211/a0c14a52/attachment-0001.htm>

> Yosef let people keep 80% of what they produced.  Halavai we should
> have such "socialism" in America, with only a 20% tax rate!

How do you know he taxed them at all, let alone at what rate?  20% was the
rate he took *after* they were slaves, farming Par'oh's land!  That was the
surplus production, over their necessities.   Any tax before the famine, if
there was one, must have been much less.


[Email #2.]

On 10/12/2013 8:57 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> It sounds to me like Yoseif decided that a time in which the majority
> of the country was threatened by death by starvation, socialism was the
> correct course of action.

What socialism?  If it were socialism he would have distributed the food
for free, not hoarded it and sold it for profit!

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

>
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:38:17AM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
> : The problem that R' Melamed has though is that while it is very easy to
> : point to the Torah requirement of keeping shabbas (in the aseres hadibros
> : and elsewhere), pointing to where the obligation for tznius can be found
> : in the Torah is much more difficult -- requiring one to focus on the more
> : pre Sinatic aggadaic references -- such as to Sarah Imenu in her tent,
> : and Rivka Imenu putting on her veil when she meets Yitzchak.
>
> : Because of this, just saying "kacha" to these girls is far more likely
> : than with keeping shabbas, to give the impression that actually there
> : are no real sources.
>
> It depends what it meant by just saying "kakha".
>
> In the Bavli, "mai ta'ama" is answered with a sevara; in the Y-mi, it's
> answered with a quote from Tanakh. To the Y-mi, the question is about
> a proof that there is such a din, not ta'am in the sense of being able
> to get a cognitive handle on it.
>
>
Well to use that terminology, the "Bavli's answer" is predicated on the
existence of the "Yerushalmi's answer".  What I was trying to point out is
that everybody knows that the Yerushalmi's answer exists in the case of
shabbas, so kacha can only be understood as escrewing the need for
a Bavli's answer (and the idea of needing to be an eved haShem as per RAL),
whereas in circumstances where one might have a suspicion that even the
Yerushalmi's answer does not exist, kacha can easily be understood as
suggesting that there isn't even a Yerushalmi answer.


> : The Meiri says: These are those who go out without their ketuba: one who
> : violates das Moshe and das Yehudis, that is to say, not [just] at the
> : end of the matter when she commits adultery does she lose her ketuba
> : but even if she violates das Moshe and das Yehudis; and das Moshe is
> : said on those mitzvos that are written in the Torah or are hinted at in
> : it and das Yehudis are those that are said on those customs which the
> : people are accustomed to from tznius so it should be that the daughters
> : of Israel are greater in the midah of tznius than the rest of women ...
>
> : Now I confess that I would read this Meiri as understanding the
> : requirements of tznius as being a typical rabbinic fence on the Torah
> : mitzvah of adultery...
>
> That's not what he says, though. A gezeira is enacted to prevent
> violation. He speaks here of a commonly accepted and binding practice
> to further the ideal of tzeni'us.
>
> Read the Meiri carefully.  Down the bottom he indeed talks about commonly
accepted and binding practice to further the ideal of tzni'us, but that
wasn't what I was focussing on.  What is much more fascinating is the
Meiri's explanation higher up "that is to say, not [just] at the end of the
matter when she commits adultery does she lose her ketuba ..." ie the idea
that these behaviours may lead in the end to adultery (Torah prohibition)
and hence need to be eliminated even at the beginning.  And as a
consequence it was instituted that these will cause her to lose her
(rabbinic) kesuba.  The implication I see from this is that these things
are prohibited  since the behaviour has to be proscribed before the
financial penalty can kick in.  But since the onesh is rabbinic, it would
seem logical say that so is the prohibition, ie that it was the rabbis
who identified these as at the end potentially leading to adultery and who
therefore forbad them (or at the very least tried to make sure she was
divorced, so adultery was not possible..   That seems to me to be a classic
case of a gezera enacted to prevent violation

> -Micha
>
> Regards

Chana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131211/1b812057/attachment-0001.htm>

I'd like to comment on two basic questions:

1.  A person has the practice of not eating at other people's houses.  
What does he do when this comes in conflict with halachic norms?

2.  A person is unsatisfied with the normal rules of halacha about 
uncertainty, and wants to add his own strictures.  What is the status of 
those strictures?

RMB:

<<if someone habituates in being machmir to avoid accidental sinning, 
because he personally likes the sevara or taam hamitzvah of some shitah 
that he knows isn't iqar hadin (e.g. many men who don't use the eruv but 
their wives do), that's a hanhagah rather than an actual minhag.>>

Does this practice falls under the rubric of halacha at all.  To take an 
extreme example, Nero Wolfe wears only yellow pajamas.  If he were an 
observant Jew would that be allowed to override any practice mandated by 
Judaism, or is it simply an aesthetic practice irrelevant to religion? 
The flip side: is the imperative of comity strong enough to override 
personal preference.  Suppose he has ugly furniture, and you don't want 
to eat at his house because of your aesthetic sensibilities? Or do only 
halachic issues count?

RYL has hinted, but not stated clearly, that his reluctance to eat at 
others' houses is religious in origin.  What precisely is the motivation?

Incidentally, I'd still like to know what term the SA uses for 
"hanhagah".  If there is no such term, is it really a halachic concept?

What's the binding mechanism? Is it a type of implicit neder?

RMB again:

<<And a hanhagah could end up binding because a chazaqah could create an 
effective neder.>>

I understand the idea that doing something 3 times may create a 
hazakah.  How can not doing something? Are we claiming that refusing an 
invitation is a ma'aseh? This seems far fetched to me.  If we're 
adopting an extreme, non-halachic definition of neder can that override 
other halachic norms?

Even if it is an actual implicit neder isn't it possible that it 
contains implicit conditions? What will RYL do if (rachmana litzlan) he 
becomes an avel and has to deal with the din of eino ochel mishelo 
bis'udah rishonah? Maybe the neder applies only in the absence of 
halachic imperative or even desireability?


I'm also puzzled about case 2.  After all, the same Torah which 
prohibits some things permits these.  What is the motive for not wanting 
to eat them? Is it timtum halev? But then why does the Torah permit them?

Arguably one might adopt a humra because one thinks social or physical 
reality has changed.  But how is one to decide which uncertainty has 
changed? Is reason 2 equivalent to replacing halachic rules about rov 
and safeik with probability theory?

The bottom line is that we're nibbling at the edges of basic issues 
without addressing them explicitly, and I hope the discussion becomes 
more direct.

David Riceman

From: Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopin...@gmail.com>

I'm  looking online at the permissibility of sledding on Shabbat and I see
one of  two things:
1) "There is no problem with that"
2) "Athletic activities,  bicycle riding, tennis, ball playing, swimming,
skating and sledding are  forbidden.

What about sledding would not be allowed on Shabbat assuming  one is in an
Eruv?


-- 
Liron Kopinsky
_liron.kopinsky@gmail.com_ (mailto:liron.kopin...@gmail.com) 
 


>>>
1. Exercise -- breaking a sweat -- similar to running -- not  "Shabbosdig" 
2. Making grooves in the snow and/or smoothing out the snow.
 
 


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





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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131211/72ae6d6e/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: "M Cohen" <mco...@touchlogic.com>
I find that many  activities (even when no melacha involved) are not done on
Shabbos because  they are not 'shabbosdik'

Ie sledding / skating / kite flying / tennis /  basketball / roller blading
etc

What exactly is the definition of  'shabbosdik' activities?

Anything besides  eat/sleep/pray/learn?

Shabbos walks are ok. Why are Shabbos walks  different than kite flying?

Mordechai Cohen






>>>
 
Anything that requires physical exertion and is not needed for Shabbos is  
not Shabbosdig.  So for example, re-arranging the living room furniture is  
not Shabbosdik -- unless you need to move the couch to make room for  a 
folding bed for your sleep-over guests.
 
Kite-flying is a halachic problem, not just a "Shabbosdig" problem.   You 
have to tie things and maybe cut things and so on.
 
Running is not Shabbosdig.  Walking is the only form of locomotion  that is 
Shabbosdig, because by its nature walking is peaceful.  Hopping,  skipping, 
jumping and running are OK for small children but not for  adults.  
Teenagers are in a doubtful category, as plain old walking may be  tzaar baalei 
chayim for them.
 
Further thoughts:  When we moved from a neighborhood where Shabbos was  not 
Shabbosdig, to our present more RW community of North Miami Beach, I was  
dismayed to find my then-six-year-old son playing ball on Shabbos -- which I  
associated with my former MO neighborhood.  There, children changed into  
shorts and t-shirts after lunch on Shabbos afternoon, and went outside to  
play. Here, he was in the street with all these frum-looking children --  all 
dressed in very nice and Shabbosdig clothing -- and yet they were all  
outside playing ball!  
 
But when I spoke to an experienced rebbetzen who was the mother of many  
children, she assured me that playing ball was fine for a six-year-old and 
that  he and his friends would naturally stop playing ball on Shabbos as they 
got a  little older.  And she was right.   So playing ball (and maybe  some 
of these other activities you mention) may not be strictly assur --  
otherwise you could not permit even young children to engage in them -- but  whether 
or not something is Shabbosdig may depend at least partly on the degree  of 
maturity of the person who wants to do x, y or z.  So thus we segue to  
another but related subject:  reading secular books and magazines on  Shabbos.  
My father did not approve of reading anything secular on Shabbos,  but the 
only firm line he drew with me was not to read novels on Shabbos.  
 
 

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


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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20131211/f399b208/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 203
***************************************

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.)