Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 16

Wed, 29 Jan 2014

• 1. Re: talmudic treatments (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Is there one halachic truth? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Stam Gemara (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Upstart.com (Liron Kopinsky)
• 5. Re: Avoiding Religious Hubris (T6...@aol.com)
• 6. Re: Avoiding Religious Hubris (Chana Luntz)
• 7. Re: Avoiding Religious Hubris (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Avoiding Religious Hubris (Zev Sero)
• 9. Avoiding Religious Hubr (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Cheresh (was: Avoiding Religious Hubris) (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: R. Tully Harcsztark's letter on Women and Tefillen (Kenneth Miller)
• 12. Remarkable Halacha (cantorwolb...@cox.net)

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 08:05:35AM -0800, saul newman wrote:
: ie  are we talking about segulot ,  or  accepted medical treatments?

Some of each. And prom our perspective, it will be hard to distinguish
which are which.

...
: did  these procedures emanate from the chachamim or the surrounding society?

It seems to me, the medical treatments are simply what various members
of chazal accepted of the doctors of the day taught. There is a lot of
Hippocrates (galus Bavel or early bayis sheini) and Galen (contemporary
with the 2nd gen of amoraim) in shas.

And remember we're speaking of dozens of known rabbanim who lived in
two countries across the span of centuries. They don't all agree on
these things. We need to remember to assign medical or scientific
ideas to specific names. And not "chazal believed".

I am partial to the Ramchal's opinion on science and medicine in shas.
Chazal didn't record medical advice for its own sake. Rather, they quoted
accepted ideas from medicine when they were useful meshailm for conveying
religious truths. Just as they do with stories about our past.

(Or, medicine or science might come up in descriptions of the metzi'us
to which to apply the din. And if a dirt-mouse were to exist, we know
what the din would be.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
mi...@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 08:53:51AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: Rashi explains the Gemaras answer as follows.
...
: My rough translation, Is there a safek in shamayim what a Koy is, whether
: it is a behema or a chaya?

: Rashi is saying that the pasuk can't be coming to assur a Koy because in
: shamayim there is no doubt what a Koy is, if it is a behema it is already
: assur and if it is a chaya it is already mutar.

: We see clearly that Rashi is assuming that there is one halachic truth and
: we simply don't know it.

: Rashi would seem to be agreeing with the Geonim that the halachic system is
: retrieval and not constitutive.

Rashi (Kesuvos 57a, "QM"L") seems to support a real plurality. To quote:

    When a debate revolves around the attribution of a doctrine to a
    particular individual, there is only room for one truth. However, when
    two Amoraim enter into a halakhic dispute, each arguing the halakhic
    merits of his view, each drawing upon comparisons to establish the
    authenticity of his perspective, there is no absolute truth and
    falsehood. About such issues one can declare that both represent
    the view of the living God. On some occasions one perspective will
    prove more authentic, and under other circumstances the other view
    will appear to be more compelling. The effectiveness of particular
    rationales shift as conditions of their application change even if
    only subtly.

(Also, in his essay RMH cites the Ran as calling the Rabis of France
fellow constructionists. Which this Rashi would fit.)

I would suggest that qamei shemaya does not refer to a given pesaq but
the entire divrei E-lokim Chaim. We have to resolve a doubt, which to
make halakhah, but in heaven, both coexist in certainty.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:27:07PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Since Rambam doesnt bring sources for his psak it has led to myriads of
: divrei torah trying to find the basis for some of the more controversial
: halachot. In particular some would claim that he accounted for stam gemarot

His famous "Rav Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah" would turn any stam that post
dates Ravina into geonic material and not real shas. However, the Rambam's
reversing the usual order leads one to suspect his Ravina isn't R' Ashi's
bar pelugta, but the Ravina who was R' Ashi's grandson. Which would explain
why R' Ashi's son "Mar" is quoted by name. But it would also move some
more stam into the hora'ah period.

Also, the stam process may have begun with the first attempt to compile
the Bavli -- Abayei veRava. So there could be stam from their conversations
that even predates over a generation of quoted discussion.

Personaly, I'm partial to the Gra's theory. And while I didn't check it,
I did look a few times where the Rambam holds like the Y-mi, and it seems
to work. Not that the Gra's beqi'us needs my spot-check, but I'm explaining
my partiality.

According to the Gra, the Rambam considered named shitos in the Bavli
as most authoritative, but named opinions in the Y-mi (which has little
stam) are chosen over unnamed ones in the Bavli.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:57:17PM +0200, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> : https://www.upstart.com/how_it_works
>
> : Heter Iska?
>
> My understanding of heter isqa is that the matir is the presence of some
> acceptance of a possibility of loss, no matter how small. If the investor
> stands to make profit, but all achrayus belongs to the person utilizing
> the money, it's ribis.
>
> Anyway, I believe it's real isqa. But it does fit the above criterion.


I don't know much about how it works, but I went to a shiur about it a few
years ago and from what I recall, the way it works is that the "lender" is
really "investing" in a certain percentage of the overall personal income
of the "borrower". If the investee makes more money than the agreed-upon
percentage, the investor receives that money as a return on their
investment. If the investee doesn't make that much money (or loses money)
he has to take an oath (which he presumably would never do) that he really
truly didn't make a return and then the investor would actually lose out.

Assuming my description is correct, it sounds to me exactly like investing
in people directly, which is what Upstart are claiming to do.

Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140129/0051374d/attachment-0001.htm>

 


From: Chana Luntz _ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk_ 
(mailto:ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk) 



>>Walking around YU (assuming a male only environment) with tzitzis  out 
might
well have been yehura, but surely a man walking around in the  presence of
women with his tzitzis out is loeg l'rash?

.... Of  course in shul, no men
are by definition "in a woman's presence" given that  the fundamental
requirement of mechitza is to create a separate reshus.  However in a modern
eg working environment, where's the  heter?<<<<




>>>>>
 
Where's the issur?  Is loeg larash assur or -- as I believe -- a  matter of 
minhag, of custom, of sensitivity?
 
I confess I laughed out loud when I read this post, although I am not sure  
that R'n CL meant it humorously.  
 
But having just done a tahara last night, I am wondering if "loeg  larash" 
is generally applied to any activity /other/ than doing mitzvos in the  
presence of a deceased person?  
 
 
How about a kohen performing the avodah in the presence of a [live]  Yisrae
l?  Is that loeg larash?
 
Is it a sin to walk around pregnant in front of a childless  woman?  Is 
that loeg larash?  How about wearing a beard in the  presence of a woman -- is 
that loeg larash?  
 
My impression is that loeg larash involves doing a mitzva in the  presence 
of someone who not only is physically unable to do that mitzva anymore,  but 
is unable to do /any/ mitzvos anymore -- because he is dead.  I stress  
"physically unable" because I do not believe it applies, either, to someone  
who is "halachically unable"  to do a mitzva, say for example an  onen.
 
 
On the assumption that women do not in general wish they could wear tzitzis 
 -- and that they have plenty of other mitzvos to do -- no such sensitivity 
 is required of men who walk around where women might see them.
 
But while we're on this subject, I'll mention that my father did not  
approve of wearing tzitzis out.  He thought it looked sloppy and  undignified, 
and he said it was not done in Europe.  Bnai Torah in der  alter heim would 
wear jackets all day and the jackets were long -- like bekeshes  or kapotes 
(not that I know the difference) -- and I remember him commenting  that their 
tzitzis did not hang out from under the hems of their long  coats.  So why, 
just because people now wear short jackets, should they  wear strings 
dangling out from under their hems?
 

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


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140128/a171cc6b/attachment-0001.htm>

>
> I wrote:
> >>   But if you hold that it is forbidden for women to wear tzitzis, then
> >> why is it not loeg l'rash to wear them out in a woman's presence just
> >> as much as it is in the presence of the dead?  Of course in shul, no
> >> men are by definition "in a woman's presence" given that the
> >> fundamental requirement of mechitza is to create a separate reshus.
> >> However in a modern eg working environment, where's the heter?
>
> And RBW replied:


> >But if someone isn't "in the inyan" than what is the problem? A cohen
> >does the work in the Beit HaMiqdash in front of all those non-cohanim
> >who are forbidden to do those tasks.


Well first of all, fundamentally they don't.  The areas that the cohanim
primarily do the avodah in are areas where it is forbidden for Yisraelim to
go.  The Mamidim stand outside the main area, in the places designated for
Yisrael (and did not the chachamim even put up a fence according to at
least some opinions)?

But secondly, the Beis HaMikdash is the place for the Avodah, and a Yisrael
who goes there is placing himself in cohanic territory (like going to
shul).  And what are the requirements for a Yisrael to be at any given time
in the Beis Hamikdash?  He is required to  bring eg korbanos, including the
korban pesach, and the korban reiya, and in many cases required to do
smicha (which should be close to the shechita), but in the normative case
he then hands the animal over to the kohanim and the korban is not strictly
speaking offered in his presence, but up on the mitzbeach, where he cannot
go.  .

This is in contrast to the dead, where (because they are incapable of
moving), you are the one going into their territory, either into a
cemetery, or within the immediate area they have been koneh.  Kohanim
rarely have loeg l'rash issues vis a vis the dead, because unless it is a
very close relative, they are never in the presence of the dead.

 >What could be the problem? If someone can't, they can't.
True of the dead too, who can't.  And what's more, they now have access to
the olam haemes, isn't that better? so what could the issue be?

And yet the normative halacha is that it is insulting to the dead to
perform mitzvos in front of them that they can no longer do.  And this is
despite the fact that there is at least a machlokus, if it is not the
dominant opinion, that the dead do not know (Brachos 18a-b).

It reminds me of the famous story of the Chafetz Chaim and the uncovered
challa.  The teaching from that story is that the reason to cover the
challa to prevent its embarressment is fundamentally not because a challa
gets embarressed, but because it teaches the importance of sensitivity to
those people who may get embarressed on being passed over.

In this case,we have a machlokus as to whether or not the dead even know
whether you are doing mitzvos in front of them, and yet it is held
important to be sensitive enough to not deliberately go in front of them
and flaunt your mitzvah observance, then kal v'chomer it should be wrong to
do this in front of women, who do unquestionably know.

R' Menucha wrote:


> >According to the Pri Megadim (OC EA 23:2) it wouldn't even be loeg larash
> >in front of a kever of a woman.
>
> Yes precisely, and the Mishna Brura rules this way as well, although the
Ttzlach disagreed (I brought the relevant sources, if you recal,l in
http://lists.aishdas.org/htdig.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/2013q2/026474.h
tml)

But that poistion would make sense since it is now two steps removed.  If a
woman can't during her lifetime wear tzitzis, then it may be insulting to
her to wear them in front of her while she is alive, but once she is dead,
and two steps removed, it would seem extreme to worry about loeg l'rash in
the specific case of tzitzis. I tis very common in halacha for one step
removed to be assur, but two steps, mutar. For example:  lifnei (iver) is
assur, lifnei d'lifnei is mutar.  A safek may be assur, a sfek sfeka is
mutar.  This position is consistant with that.

Then RZS replied:

>AIUI, the issue of loeg larash is not that one is (literally) dangling
>this specific mitzvah in their faces, but that one is figuratively rubbing
>their noses in the fact that they no longer have *any* mitzvos (especially
>now that they're in a place where they appreciate how precious mitzvos are
>and wish they had done more while they were subject to them).

I can't see any source for this assertion.  Indeed, the discussion about
whether a man needs to tuck his tzitzis in in front of a female meis
indicates to the contrary.  If it was just about doing *any* mitzvos, and
not the specific one, then the Pri Megadim and the Mishna Brura would say
that a man needs to tuck for a female meis, even if this happened to be a
mitzvah that she didn't keep.  And the Meharitz should have said this, as
one of his reasons one way or the other.

 >Perhaps there is an issue of loeg larash in another case: While acharonim
>struggle to find reasons to that a deaf-mute who is intelligent and aware
>is chayav in mitzvos, the pashtus of the gemara and all rishonim is that
>he is not, and that a normal person whose eardrums and vocal cords are
>injured so he is now completely deaf-mute is patur from mitzvos, even if
>he communicates fluently in writing and it's obvious that his intelligence
>has not been affected at all.  Perhaps doing mitzvos in front of such a
>person is loeg larash.  I have never seen this anywhere, but it makes
sense.
I would agree with you, except that normative psak today in these cases,
despite what you say about the gemora and the rishonim, is to encourage
(not discourage) such a person to do mitzvos and act as though this is
perfectly permissible (and I certainly would be reluctant to set myself up
against those who have ruled this way and allowed it).  If we followed what
seems to be the pshat position of the gemora and rishonim in such a case, I
would say that you were right.

Regards

Chana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140129/ebde416c/attachment-0001.htm>

On 28/01/2014 11:40 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> My impression is that loeg larash involves doing a mitzva in the
> presence of someone who not only is physically unable to do that
> mitzva anymore, but is unable to do /any/ mitzvos anymore -- because
> he is dead.  I stress "physically unable" because I do not believe it
> applies, either, to someone who is "halachically unable"  to do a
> mitzva, say for example an onen.

On the contrary, the gemara seems to go out of its way to stress the fact
that the dead are exempt from mitzvos, which implies that that is the key
issue, not their physical inability to perform them.


-- 
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

On 29/01/2014 7:06 AM, Chana Luntz wrote:

> True of the dead too, who can't.  And what's more, they now have access
> to the olam haemes, isn't that better?

No, it isn't.  And that's the whole point; "a moment of teshuvah and good
deeds in this world is better than all the life of the next world".  That's
why neshomos come down in the first place, and that's why they don't want
to go home.  Because while the Torah is better over there, they are exempt
from mitzvos, and that's the whole purpose of creation.


> And yet the normative halacha is that it is insulting to the dead to
> perform mitzvos in front of them that they can no longer do. And this
> is despite the fact that there is at least a machlokus, if it is not
> the dominant opinion, that the dead do not know (Brachos 18a-b).

On the contrary, the only one who thought that the dead are unaware was
R Yonasan, and when R Chiya corrected him he accepted it and reversed his
opinion.  The whole sugya takes for granted that the dead are aware of
everything that they can see and hear from their graves, and the entire
discussion is about whether they are also aware of what happens in the
rest of the world, and in the next world.

-- 
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

<<Or at least, if you hold that tzitzis is a normal mitzvah aseh shehazman
graman, then a woman has an option to keep it, so there is no loeg l'rash
issue.  But if you hold that it is forbidden for women to wear tzitzis,
then why is it not loeg l'rash to wear them out in a woman's presence just
as much as it is in the presence of the dead?  Of course in shul, no men
are by definition "in a woman's presence" given that the fundamental
requirement of mechitza is to create a separate reshus. However in a modern
eg working environment, where's the heter? >>

Is loeg lerash ever used except for the case of doing things in the
presence of a corpse.
Is a Cohen eating terumah in the presence of non-priests loeg lerash?
Why is Tzizit any different than wearing tefillin in the presence of women?
In the old days men wore tefillin all day long presumably also when women
were present.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140129/05a0ab17/attachment-0001.htm>

On 29/01/2014 7:06 AM, Chana Luntz wrote:
> I would agree with you, except that normative psak today in these
> cases, despite what you say about the gemora and the rishonim, is to
> encourage (not discourage) such a person to do mitzvos and act as
> though this is perfectly permissible (and I certainly would be
> reluctant to set myself up against those who have ruled this way and
> allowed it).

But what is their basis?  Where did they get the authority to change a
crystal clear halacha?   The only explanation I've ever heard is that the
status of a cheresh was based on a metzius that since they were unable to
communicate they could not develop intelligence; but that is clearly wrong,
and cannot be seriously argued.  It is explicitly contradicted by the
halacha that a normal person, even a genius, who became a deaf-mute has
the exact same status as one who was born that way.   And this is so even
if he communicates clearly in writing.   How can anyone argue with that?

Of course it is different if the person can still talk, even if not clearly.
A person who is deaf but not mute, or vice versa, has *never* been a cheresh.
And there's never been a requirement that a person must have perfect elocution
to count as speaking.  Someone with impaired speech shouldn't be a chazan,
and shouldn't duchen, but nobody suggests that his speech isn't speech.  But
in the case of one who has completely lost both his hearing and his speech,
e.g. the eardrums and vocal cords have both been damaged, I don't understand
how any rov today has the right to deny that he is a cheresh.


-- 
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

R' Aryeh Frimer wrote:

> In the case of men who are absolutely obligated, we make
> dispensations, but limit the time of tefillen to Shaharit
> - not all day.

This is technically accurate, but from what I can tell, those who wear tefillin rarely FEEL that they do so in the manner of a "dispensation."

As I see it, the exceptions lie solely among those who are actually ill
with a digestive problem. They know that they are obligated to don the
tefillin, but at the moment they feel no particular distress, and so they
use this dispensation to put on their tefillin for a very short time, and
are careful to maintain an awareness of their situation, so that they'll be
able to remove the tefillin quickly if the situation changes.

The vigor with which women are told not to don tefillin would suggest that
men should *always* have the above-described awareness, but I have not seen
or heard of it. Rather, men who remove their tefillin quickly are
criticized, while those keep their tefillin on while learning before or
after shacharis are admired.

This idea of "dispensation" is not a foreign one. War may be a mitzvah, but
it is distasteful, and we are not eager to engage in it. A more common
example is medical care on Shabbos; we all agree that it is important and
must be done, but we are also eager for this dispensation for Chillul
Shabbos to be over and done with as soon as is feasible.

I do not see anyone who relates to their tefillin in a similar manner. I do
not see anyone who is reluctant to put them on, and waits until he
absolutely must. Many rush to remove their tefillin for purposes of
convenience and rushing to work, but I'm not aware of anyone who rushes to
remove them because he is worried about the Guf Naki requirement (again,
except for those who actually have a digestive problem).

If men were indeed reluctant to keep their tefillin on for longer than
necessary, then I think women might accept it when their rabbi says, "Look,
I wear tefillin *only* when I absolutely *have* to. If I didn't *have* to,
then I wouldn't wear them at all. And you *never* have to!" But we can't
say that convincingly, because we don't really feel it deep deep inside.
What we *do* tell the women is the technicality that men are obligated and
women aren't, and we shrug off the idea (if indeed we even think about it
at all) that this obligation is a reluctant dispensation. So it is any
wonder that they don't understand how tefillin is different from shofar?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Amazing Sleep Secret
If you have trouble falling or staying asleep, try this weird trick.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/52e954982150f54976cc3st02vuc

I came across the following halacha taken from MBY 440:1-4 and taught by Rabbi Menashe Goldberger. 

if a non-Jew enters a Jew?s home on Pesach carrying his own chametz, the Jew is under no obligation 
to ask the non-Jew to leave with his chametz or even to leave the chametz outside.  In fact, the Jew may 
even invite the non-Jew to enter his home and eat the chametz right at his table (!), provided that the Jew 
does not eat together with the non-Jew at the table (even on separate place mats), and that he cleans up well after the chametz is removed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140129/3dba0eab/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 32, Issue 16
**************************************

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.)