Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 20

Fri, 07 Feb 2014

• 1. Re: bal tosif (T6...@aol.com)
• 2. Re: Leap Year (Michael Poppers)
• 3. leap year (saul newman)
• 4. Re: Leap Year (Liron Kopinsky)
• 5. Re: Women wearing Tefillin (Kenneth Miller)
• 6. Re: Leap Year (Micha Berger)
• 7. Messianic Ir haNidachas (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Messianic Ir Miqlat (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Messianic Ir Miqlat (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Messianic Ir Miqlat (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Messianic Ir Miqlat (Zev Sero)
• 12. yeshivish vs acadenic (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: yeshivish vs acadenic (Rich, Joel)

In a message dated 2/3/2014 8:44:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
avodah-requ...@lists.aishdas.org writes:

>>  Rashi had explained Rabbi Yehuda's position as being because to do
so would  be ba'al tosif, but Tosphos rejects this as a possibility, because
of the  nature of ba'al tosif, <<
 
 
>>>>>
 
 
 
As we have mentioned before, the correct Hebrew is "bal tosif" -- where  
"bal" (beis-lamed) means "Do not."
 

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


-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140203/70f9d5c9/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah V32n19, RLK wrote:
> My own Chiddush of the year is that we are davka adding a 2nd Adar, and
not
any other month. <
Not so tangentially: Minhag Frankfurt (and perhaps other places, too) is to
only add "*ulchaparas pasha*" [to the middle *b'rachah* of Musaf] on
R'Ch'AdarBeis.

All the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140203/f1a5e09e/attachment-0001.htm>

i thought the original 'pesha'   willful sin was in the tug of war between
king and cohen--- king wanting 13 months of work for price of 12;  cohen
wanting warmer floors in the fall ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140203/b2f209fb/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 4:11 AM, Michael Poppers <michaelpopp...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>  Not so tangentially: Minhag Frankfurt (and perhaps other places, too) is
> to only add "*ulchaparas pasha*" [to the middle *b'rachah* of Musaf] on
> R'Ch'AdarBeis.
>

This raises a question I've had for a while. The minhag I'm aware of is to
say "u'lchaparat pesha" in all months of a leap year until Nissan. However,
I would have expected it to be the other way round, with real Kiddush
HaChodesh, we wouldn't necessarily know if it's going to be a leap year
until later in the year. (Yes, the sanhedrin could announce it's going to
be a leap year earlier, but they wouldn't have to until the very end of
Adar 1.)

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/20140204/d77f2cbb/attachment-0001.htm>

R"n Chana Luntz brings several sources, all of whom seem to quote Rabbi Meir as saying the same thing. In her translations:

> if they want to lay them we do not listen to them since they do
> not know how to guard themselves in cleanliness.

> if they come to wear them we do not listen to them because they
> do not know how to guard themselves with cleanliness.

> if the women want to lay tephillin we do not listen to them
> because they do not know to guard themselves with cleanliness.

Okay, let's put those aside for a moment. RCL then investigates problematic situations of *men* and tefillin, and quotes various sources saying things like:

> One to whom it is clear that he is not able to  pray without
> passing wind, ...

> One to whom it is clear that he is not able to prevent himself
> from passing wind ...

> And if he sees that he is able to prevent himself at the time
> of krias shema ...

I have noticed a very clear change in terminology here:
Women avoid tefillin because they don't know HOW to stay clean.
Men avoid tefillin when they aren't ABLE to stay clean.

This distinction could all-too-easily cause a shouting match between
various factions, arguing about whether or not the women are being treated
unfairly here. But RCL provides us with a medical escape clause:

> Rabbi Meir's view about women not being able to maintain a guf naki
> might actually, even if we are talking about wind, have a certain
> medically justification.  It appears to be that, even today (and I
> will put this as delicately as I can, given the indelicate nature
> of the subject), (a) relations can cause increases in wind in many
> women; and (b) the process of childbirth and the damage it does to
> eg the pelvic floor can lead to difficulties in controlling wind
> production.  In medieval societies, we know women were married off
> very young, and were generally having children as teenagers when
> their bodies were not yet fully developed, and in the absence of
> modern medicine, it may well have been that observations that most
> women were not able to maintain a guf naki may have been medically
> justified.  It also should be noted, in relation to Michal be Shaul
> that she did not did not have a child until the day of her death
> (Shmuel II 6:24) - so it may be that she did not fall into the
> category of high risk non guf naki women, and so would, vis a vis
> the average woman in the times of Rabbi Meir, have been an
> exception.

Rabbi Meir did say that women don't know how to stay clean, but this is too
easily seen as a put-down of women. Perhaps his point was that women have
particular cleanliness problems that men don't have, and that NO ONE in his
day had any practical solutions to these problems. Women of his day did not
know how to stay clean, but this lack of knowledge is not intrinsic to the
gender as a whole, but merely situational to the medical knowledge of the
day. If so, then the day might someday come - and perhaps it already has -
when women DO know how to maintain a guf naki, at least to the same level
that men do.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Do THIS before eating carbs (every time)
1 EASY tip to increase fat-burning, lower blood sugar & decrease fat storage
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/52f0f8741b2aa78736b46st04vuc

On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 12:48:01PM +0200, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: This raises a question I've had for a while. The minhag I'm aware of is to
: say "u'lchaparat pesha" in all months of a leap year until Nissan. However,
: I would have expected it to be the other way round, with real Kiddush
: HaChodesh...

... which ended centuries before the tefillah in question was coined.

I think it's only said during the half-year that is both in the same year
as Adar II when counting years and when counting months. Otherwise, we have
an excuse to revert to the non-modified nusach.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

Nu, so an ir hanidachas isn't for killing bemeizid, nor is it for a total
shogeg (eg on the upswing). If someone needs an ir hanidachas, then they
carry some measure of criminal negligence. No?

If so, Y-mi Makos 7b implies something about sin le'asid lavo. Here's
the discussion:

Moshe separated 3 arei miqlat for Eiver haYam
On entry to Israel, they separated another 3
and le'asid lavo, we will separate another 3.
The proof tect are the three times "shalosh" appears in the discussion.
Abba Shaul takes the first instances as 3 of 3, with the third 3 = 12
R' Nehorai gets 15 by counting a ve'od.

So, doesn't a need for more arei miqlat to cover the enlarged borders
of EY le'asid lavo imply that there will be Jews who will be criminally
neglectful about others' lives even after mashiach comes?

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

s/hanidachas/miqlat/g

Or, in English... Obviously I was thinking of arei miqlat, not ir
hanidachas. And after opening the Y-mi (mechon-mamre.org, at least)
I did uncross the wires to what I saw on the page.

Time to get some rest.

Edited version below:

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:14:11PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
: Nu, so an ir miqlat isn't for killing bemeizid, nor is it for a total
: shogeg (eg on the upswing). If someone needs an ir miqlat, then they
: carry some measure of criminal negligence. No?

: If so, Y-mi Makos 7b implies something about sin le'asid lavo. Here's
: the discussion:
....
: So, doesn't a need for more arei miqlat to cover the enlarged borders
: of EY le'asid lavo imply that there will be Jews who will be criminally
: neglectful about others' lives even after mashiach comes?

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

On 6/02/2014 6:14 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> If so, Y-mi Makos 7b implies something about sin le'asid lavo. Here's
> the discussion:

> Moshe separated 3 arei miqlat for Eiver haYam
> On entry to Israel, they separated another 3
> and le'asid lavo, we will separate another 3.

Why go to the Y-mi for this?  Isn't it poshut pshat in the pasuk?

> So, doesn't a need for more arei miqlat to cover the enlarged borders
> of EY le'asid lavo imply that there will be Jews who will be criminally
> neglectful about others' lives even after mashiach comes?

Why wouldn't there be? We're not talking about Olam Hatechyah, or even
earlier stages when the nature of the world may change; we're talking
about the immediate post-mashiach period, which from the Rambam's
description sounds like a return to the days of Chizkiyahu. In his
days there were even some deliberate criminals, and surely there were
people who sinned through carelessness. Why would Moshiach's reign be
any different?

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

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:34:21PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 6/02/2014 6:14 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> If so, Y-mi Makos 7b implies something about sin le'asid lavo. Here's
>> the discussion:
>> Moshe separated 3 arei miqlat for Eiver haYam
>> On entry to Israel, they separated another 3
>> and le'asid lavo, we will separate another 3.
>
> Why go to the Y-mi for this?  Isn't it poshut pshat in the pasuk?

I wouldn't think so, not without the derashah. Bamidbar 35:6 explicitly
refers to givine the levi'im "es arei hamiqlat" and another 42 cities.
And again, v. 13 "vehe'arim asher titeinu -- sheish arei mitqlat..."
Then our quote:
    Eis shelosh he'arim titenu me'ever laYardein
    ve'eis shelosh he'arim titenu be'eretz Kena'an ...

Then we have to skip to Devarim 19:9:
    Ki sishmor es kol hamitzvah hazos la'asosah ...
    veyaasafta  lekha od shalosh arim
    al hashalosh ha'eileh.

Peshat only refers to the original 6 cities. That the time desbribed
being le'asid lavo, and three more other than these three AND other
than Yehoshua's, and perhaps 6 or 9 more, requires the derashah. Perhat
doesn't force us to conclude that there will be a need for arei miqlat
le'asid lavo.

>> So, doesn't a need for more arei miqlat to cover the enlarged borders
>> of EY le'asid lavo imply that there will be Jews who will be criminally
>> neglectful about others' lives even after mashiach comes?

> Why wouldn't there be? We're not talking about Olam Hatechyah, or even
> earlier stages when the nature of the world may change; we're talking
> about the immediate post-mashiach period, which from the Rambam's
> description sounds like a return to the days of Chizkiyahu....

1- The Rambam and Ramban echo the machloqes between Shemu'el and Rav.
I am not taking sides.

2- Even the Rambam/Shemuel vision includes world peace. Nature won't
change for literal lions and lambs, but the nevu'ah isn't ignored,
either.

So I find it non-obvious that people will learn enough to abandon
war, but retail devaluation of life would still continue...

1- The Rambam and Ramban echo the machloqes between Shemu'el and Rav.
I am not taking sides.

2- Even the Rambam/Shemuel vision includes world peace. Nature won't
change for literal lions and lambs, but the nevu'ah isn't ignored,
either.

So I find it non-obvious that people will learn enough to abandon
war, but retail devaluation of life would still continue.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org        Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 6/02/2014 9:14 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:34:21PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 6/02/2014 6:14 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

>>> If so, Y-mi Makos 7b implies something about sin le'asid lavo. Here's
>>> the discussion:
>>> Moshe separated 3 arei miqlat for Eiver haYam
>>> On entry to Israel, they separated another 3
>>> and le'asid lavo, we will separate another 3.

>> Why go to the Y-mi for this?  Isn't it poshut pshat in the pasuk?
>
> I wouldn't think so, not without the derashah.
> [...]
> Then we have to skip to Devarim 19:9:
>      Ki sishmor es kol hamitzvah hazos la'asosah ...
>      veyaasafta  lekha od shalosh arim
>      al hashalosh ha'eileh.

On top of which three?  The ones in Ever Hayarden have already been
dedicated.  Moshe tells them that when Hashem cuts off the nations of the
land they're entering, they should dedicate three cities there.  That's
the three on the West Bank.  Then he says that when Hashem widens their
borders even further, giving them *all* the lands He spoke of to their
ancestors (i.e. those of the Keni, Kenizi, and Kadmoni), because they will
have been keeping the mitzvos, then they should add another three, on top
of the three that he's telling them to dedicate when they get the land
they're about to be given.   This is simple pshat.  Rashi explains it this
way matter-of-factly, not calling it a medrash or giving any source, and
I really don't see how you can read it any other way.  The "shalosh ha'eleh"
*can't* refer to the ones he dedicated himself, and which are not mentioned
at all in this parsha, because they've already been done.



> Peshat only refers to the original 6 cities. That the time desbribed
> being le'asid lavo, and three more other than these three AND other
> than Yehoshua's, and perhaps 6 or 9 more, requires the derashah.  Perhat
> doesn't force us to conclude that there will be a need for arei miqlat
> le'asid lavo.

To say 6 or 9 more requires a drasha.  In fact I've never heard of this
until now.  But 3 more is straight pshat.  In fact this is one of the
pesukim used to prove that Moshiach will come, and which make it a Torah
requirement to believe it.   http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/e511.htm#5


> So I find it non-obvious that people will learn enough to abandon
> war, but retail devaluation of life would still continue...

Carelessness doesn't reflect devaluation, it reflects human nature.
The person doesn't think human life is cheap, he just isn't thinking,
he isn't taking the proper and prudent care that a reasonable man in
a similar situation would take, and suddenly someone is dead.  He's
as horrified as anyone, but it was his fault.



-- 
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

I recently gave a shiur on an interesting gemara where the non-yeshiva
interpretaion is very different from the yeshiva one

The gemara is on Baba Metzia 62a in a famous story of 2 people lost in the
deset with enough water for only one to reach new water. Ben Peturah says
they should split the water while Rav Akiva says the owner of the canteen
gets all the water

The yeshiva explanation basically agrees with Rav Akiva and tries to
explain Pen Petorah while the nonyeshiva approach has a basic philosophic
argument
1) R Chaim Soloveitchik dsitinguishes between passive killing (eg being
thrown on someone) and indirect killing by not giving someone water. R
Akiva allows this indirect killing while Ben Petorah does not and so we
come back to the halacha that one cant kill someone else to save ones life

Chazon Ish strongly disagrees with this distinction and explains the gemara
(along with several others including the Netziv) that there is enough water
for both of them to survive for a while (chaye shaa). Ben Petorah holds
that this temporay life is important enough for them to share the water. R
Akiva disagrees and says that the owners chaye olam (long term life)
overrides the others short term life.

Interestingly this discussion is not brought either by Rambam or SA. Modern
day poskin assume the halacha is like R. Akiva on general grounds while R
Kook is not sure based on details of the gemara and its connection with
collection interest paid in court

2) Achad Haam has an article in which he claims that Ben Peturah represents
the Xtian viewpoint that emphasizes subjective emotion over objective
justice. This one has to be willing to sacrifice ones life for someone
else. R Akiva represents the Jeiwsh (correct!) viepoint that saving a life
(ie one dead and not 2) overrides compassion. So the owner gets everything.

Interestingly a medieval Arab philosopher brings a similar story and
"paskens" that the water should go to the one who will bring the greatest
help to mankind.
There is even an ancient philosopher who brings a similar story of 2 from a
sinking ship holding onto a piece wood that is strong enough for one. He
"paskens" that the stronger one should throw off the weaker one and if he
doesnt he is a foolish tzadik.

Domiel quotes Achad Haam and disagrees and says compassion should win out
over justice.

3) Others have pointed out that simple pshat in the gemara is more like
Achad Aham than the yeshiva attitude. First of all Ben Puterah appears only
once in Shas and the name appears similar to "Peter" especially in some
other girsot. Furthermore the language of the gemara is unusual. Instead of
the usual X says Y says the gemera says "Ben Peturah darash" - ie no pasuk
then "ad she-bah Rav Akivah" indicating that the accepted explanation was
Ben Peturah until much later Rav Akivah disagreed based on a pasuk.
Most telling is Ben Peturah's reasoning in the gemara (as distinct from RCS
or CI) that one shouldnt see the death of the other which sounds like an
emotional argument.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140207/776cf0f1/attachment-0001.htm>

2) Achad Haam has an article in which he claims that Ben Peturah represents
the Xtian viewpoint that emphasizes subjective emotion over objective
justice. This one has to be willing to sacrifice ones life for someone
else. R Akiva represents the Jeiwsh (correct!) viepoint that saving a life
(ie one dead and not 2) overrides compassion. So the owner gets everything.

Interestingly a medieval Arab philosopher brings a similar story and "paskens" that the water should go to the one who will bring the greatest help to mankind.
There is even an ancient philosopher who brings a similar story of 2 from a
sinking ship holding onto a piece wood that is strong enough for one. He
"paskens" that the stronger one should throw off the weaker one and if he
doesnt he is a foolish tzadik.

Domiel quotes Achad Haam and disagrees and says compassion should win out over justice.

??????????..
then "ad she-bah Rav Akivah" indicating that the accepted explanation was Ben Peturah until much later Rav Akivah disagreed based on a pasuk.
Most telling is Ben Peturah's reasoning in the gemara (as distinct from RCS
or CI) that one shouldnt see the death of the other which sounds like an
emotional argument.

--
Eli Turkel
===================================
I?ve wondered about that ad she-bah and have not seen a compelling explanation (no body before r?akiva thought of that pasuk?)

On the broader question the use of the word ?correct? is very interesting. 
  There?s a lot to discuss as to exactly what ?Jewish ethics? are  in
practice (e.g. deontological, consequentialist?..) ? start with this one ?
would rabbi akiva?s answer be the same if the one without the water was the
gadol hador? Would it be required, forbidden or permissible to give up the
water in that case?  What if it were the child of the water owner?  (there
is literature on the former case)
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/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140207/d47cbc71/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 20
**************************************

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.)