Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 134

Thu, 18 Sep 2014

• 1. Judaism is not a Religion? ()
• 2. Re: Judaism is not a Religion? (Simon Montagu)
• 3. Airplane davening (saul newman)
• 4. Re: Airplane davening (Kenneth Miller)
• 5. Re: Judaism is not a religion (Y Kaganoff)
• 6. Luach Moreshes Ashkenaz for 5775 (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Major Historical Error Corrected ? The Hebrew Calendar ? Finally Dated (Simon Montagu)
• 8. Re: Major Historical Error Corrected ??? The Hebrew Calendar ??? Finally Dated (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Judaism is not a religion ()
• 10. synopsis of selichos (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Thermal Cup on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Daat Torah ()
• 13. Re: Thermal Cup on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Thermal Cup on Shabbos (Zev Sero)

"Judaism is not a religion, the synagogue is not a church, and the 
rabbi is not a priest. Judaism is not a mere adjunct to life: it 
comprises all of life."

Rav Hirsch is not the only one to assert that Judaism is not a 
religion.  The following is from today's Hakhel email bulletin.

To say Judaism is not a religion flies in the face of everything 
we?ve been taught about ?religion.?

In the following accepted definition, I would like to know how WE
are NOT included:

Religion is the set of beliefs, feelings, dogmas and practices that define the relations between human being and sacred or divinity. 
A given religion is defined by specific elements of a community of
believers: dogmas, sacred books, rites, worship, sacrament, moral
prescription, interdicts, organization. 
The majority of religions have developed starting from a Revelation based
on the exemplary history of a nation, of a prophet or a wise man who taught
an ideal of life.

A religion may be defined with its three great characteristics:
        ? Believes and religious practices
        ? The religious feeling i.e. faith
        ? Unity in a community of those who share the same faith. It is what differentiates religion from magic.


What is also interesting is the following: HIGHLIGHT QUOTES FROM THE RECENT HAKHEL YARCHEI KALLAH:

3. Rabbi Avraham Chaim Feuer, Shlita: Yiddishkeit is not a religion. 
Its definition is a live connection to Hashem!

Interestingly, the WORD ?Religion? has the etymology of ?Connection?
The word ?Ligament? is a short band of tough CONNECTIVE tissue that  
CONNECTS two bones or cartilages or holds together a joint. So yes, indeed,
R? Chaim Feuer is correct that its definition is a live CONNECTION to Hashem.
THAT is the meaning of ?Religion.? 

Richard Wolberg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140917/4a128edb/attachment-0001.htm>

Try searching Google for "is not a religion". Before I even get to the
results, the suggestions that pop up include "Christianity is not a
religion", "Islam is not a religion" and "Buddhism is not a religion".

Apparently one of the things all religions have in common is that
they're not a religion! ;-)

1] let's assume one holds the shitah not to daven out of ones seat . the
minyan has nine . should one  violate ones personal holding to then make a
minyan?

2] is  there an assumption that a frum yid on the plane would want to be
woken up before sof zman tefila?   what if the  sleeper  is  number ten?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140917/03c2bea5/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Saul Newman asked:

> 1] let's assume one holds the shitah not to daven out of ones
> seat . the minyan has nine . should one violate ones personal
> holding to then make a minyan?

My understanding is that this is not a case of a personal chumrah, but
rather that the other side is objectively wrong/mistaken. Specifically, the
feeling is that so many Bein Adam L'chaveiros get violated by a minyan in
the aisles, that it trumps the Bein Adam L'Makoms that one accomplishes.
And also that the Bein Adam L'Makoms aren't of the highest quality -- eg
davening near the bathroom, or the loss of kavana in the shaky aircraft.

If one feels as I've described, then I would think that it applies even if
one would be the tenth man. Of course, he should not worsen the situation
by being obstinate and pig-headed about it, but should gently explain WHY
he chooses not to join them.

> 2] is there an assumption that a frum yid on the plane would want
> to be woken up before sof zman tefila? what if the sleeper is
> number ten?

This is probably discussed in poskim somewhere. Perhaps in Hilchos Kibud Av? though of course the answer might change if the sleeper is not one's father.

Akiva Miller



____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2

Do you think that any Catholic or Muslim would disagree and say that
their Catholism or Islam is a "mere adjunct to life" and not that it
"comprises all of life."

We should be above criticizing straw-men.

Additionally, and more importantly, in my experience in interfaith
discussions with Catholic Priests they insist that their General Studies
have religious value and one of the important aspects of Catholic Schools
is to sanctify their General Studies, something that I find neglected
in almost all Chareidi schools.

Evangelical Protestants push the envelop further in their General Studies,
in particular their study of History and Science.

This may be downloaded at http://www.moreshesashkenaz.org/en/luach

YL

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/major-histori
cal-error-corrected-the-hebrew-calendar-finally-dated/

For centuries, the preponderance of thought has been that the Fixed
Hebrew Calendar we use today was established in 358 CE by a Patriarch
named Hillel II. In recent times there have been claims that the
calendar may have evolved many centuries later.

But a simple mathematical relationship which I will now describe and
clay tablets found in the sands of Iraq should change our collective
mindset and cause a rethinking of what we know about the Hebrew
Calendar. The Fixed Hebrew Calendar was actually established in 791
BCE.
----



I'm not sure what I'm missing, but the logic of the article completely
eludes me. At least in theory, the time of the molad is supposed to
reflect the astronomical phenomenon of the moon's conjunction -- how
can one draw conclusions about the date of the establishment the
calendar by calculating in which year the molad was at 0 hours, 0
halakim?

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 01:21:00AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote:
: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/major-his
: torical-error-corrected-the-hebrew-calendar-finally-dated/
:> But a simple mathematical relationship which I will now describe and
:> clay tablets found in the sands of Iraq should change our collective
:> mindset and cause a rethinking of what we know about the Hebrew
:> Calendar. The Fixed Hebrew Calendar was actually established in 791
:> BCE.

To summarize points made in previous iterations:

Rabbeinu Bechayei (Shemos 12:2) quotes Rabbeiun Chananel says that eidus
was only used pro-forma, and that we used an algorithm for the calendar
back miSinai. It not necessarily the same algorithm, the only claim here
is that computation was used. And we have discussion in the mishnah of
Purim falling out on any day of the week, which doesn't fit "lo bedu
Pesach", and we know that some kind of variability fell out of the system
iin Abayei's day, when he tells the Jews of Bavel to continue with YT
shaini shel golios even though there is no actual sefeiqa deYoma any more.

And Abayei was still alive during Hillel haNasi's Sanhedrin.

I suggested in 2009 that the variability might have been Sanhedrin's
ability to periodically change algorithm.

But the truth is, we don't know how these two rishonim would answer what
seem to be contrary raayos.


I also enjoy noting that the period of one average lunation (what we
approximate with the molad) changes. Tidal forces are slowing down both
the day and the month. Because of the change in day length, the units
in which we measure the molad (29 days, 12 hr, 793 chalaqim) actually
grew more than the month, and our molad is an overestimate. Not by
much, but since the calculation is cumulative, the total gap between
halachic estimate and actual lunation is 9 hr, 1 m, 13.6 chalaqim.

So when was the molad most accurate? Twice: once during the days of
the Chashmonaim, and the other (which I find more interesting) the 4th
century or so, during the lifetime of Abayei and Hillel II. So even tough
we know the Bavliim had the molad, it is notable that the molad they had
was most accurate when we needed it most -- not in their own day. So,
was it a Divinely-guided fortuitous error? Or did they get the molad
from us, and HQBH explicitly revealed to MRAH the length of the molad?

(BTW, if we look at where on the planet the molad was most accurate
back when the duration between molads were most accurate, you do not
get Yerushalayim. Rather you get the mid-point between the Ye'or and
Nachal Peras, the center of Jewish settlement at the time. I believe
"Jerusalem Standard Time" is misnamed, and we should announce the
molad by calling it "Ur Kasdim Time" or "Central Yishuv Time".)


Getting back to the article, we know when Bavel switched to the computed
calendar. As the article writes "490 BCE through 312 BCE", hundred of
years after the 0 hr 0 chalaqim molad of 791 BCE. To be more precise,
it was likely in 380 BCE, when they switched from using Ellu (Elul) as
the month to be doubled to using Adaru. Also, the last exception made to
the 19 year cycle was in 381. But in any case, it was at best 300 years
after the zero-molad. What kind of "double confirmation" is that?

Given the roles so many neviim acharonim played in the Babylonian court,
it would seem Bavel considered us the more informed civilization of
the two. I'm inclined to buck the academic norm and not just for "frum"
reasons, and assume that ideas found in both cultures flowed from us to
them. (Besides, the "frum" answer has some objective validity: academics
trying for skepticism do end up overcompensating and trying to debunk
Xianity and thus its parent religion, rather than skeptically weigh the
proof and burden of proof of each claim impartially.)

If the galus was related to the calendar, it would be for us to give it to
them, not as a means of our getting the calendar from their astronomers.

Galus Bavel more likely gave /them/ the molad than was Hashem's means
of givng it to us.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

From Toby Katz
 
 
From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" _avodah@lists.aishdas.org_ 
(mailto:avo...@lists.aishdas.org) 


>>   I have in the past pointed out that RSRH says that Judaism is not a  
religion.  From http://tinyurl.com/8rmuh98

"Judaism is not a  religion, the synagogue is not a church, and the 
rabbi is not a priest.  Judaism is not a mere adjunct to life: it 
comprises all of life."  <<

YL

 
 
>>>>
 
Hirsch was clearly contrasting Judaism -- which suffuses every waking  
moment of a Jew's life, eating, sleeping, at work and at play -- with the kind  
of religion that imposes minimal obligations, and then only a few hours a  
week.  Christianity is that kind of religion; Reform/Conservative "Judaism"  
is that kind of religion.  Torah-true Judaism is not that kind of religion.  
The contrast could not be greater.
 
However, taken out of context, the statement that "Judaism is not a  
religion" is misleading.  The statement needs to be slightly modified in  order to 
make it more accurate and more precise.  I propose that what we  need to 
say, and what Hirsch clearly intended, is this:
 
Judaism is not JUST a religion.  It is so much MORE than just a  religion.
 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140918/8055ba99/attachment.htm>

see http://halakhah.com/rst/selichos.pdf

-- 
Eli Turkel

I got up to hatmanah in AhS, so now I'm wondering..

As I mentioned on-list a few times now, I generally walk around
carrying a cup of tea. For logical reasons, it is usually a travel
mug with a closing lid of some sort. Usually, these are thermally
insultated.

Does that qualify as hatmanah?

And if so, what's the line? A thicker stoneware mug holds in heat
better than a glass. Hatmanah requires full inclosure, so let's say
the mug has a lid, like a bear stein. Would that be a problem? (Not
a plausible case; just trying to find the limits of the din.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
mi...@aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)

 
In Avodah Digest, Vol 32, Issue 132 dated 9/10/2014 

From:  Micha Berger via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

The current  issue of Jewish Action has a piece by R' Julius Berman
coming out in favor  of da'as Torah. (Notable since this is an OU organ,
not  Agudah's.)

RJB says that da'as Torah requires three things,  though:

1- Sufficient expertise: either first-hand, or the rav having  whom to
consult,

2- Distinguishing between pesaq, daas  Torah, and strong personal opinion.

3- There are profound advantages  when a poseiq explains his basis. (Shu"t
style.) It allows for  dialog and peer review with other posqim,
allowing for a more  sound consensus to emerge.

See  
<http://www.ou.org/jewish_action/09/2014/daat-torah-missing-ch
apter-shulchan-aruch>
or  <http://j.mp/1rC4ZS8>.

-- 
Micha  Berger    






>>>>>
 
 
   
I read that same article not as being in favor of the concept of "da'as  
Torah" but as implicitly /rejecting/ the most common understanding of what 
da'as  Torah is.  
 
Because he insists that a poseik should declare his reasoning and  sources 
-- not only in a halachic teshuva, but in a "da'as Torah" opinion or  psak 
-- he is implicitly denying that a Torah-steeped personality has a sense  
"from the boich" of what the Torah would require in an ambiguous,  
not-clearly-halachic, dilemma in one's personal life or in a question of public  policy.
 
He is also suggesting that all da'as Torah decisions should be subject to  
argument and counter-argument, sources and counter-sources, the same way 
that  halachic decisions are.  That's why he demands that "da'as Torah" should  
come with footnotes, the same way straight halacha does.
 
PS Although I do believe in the concept of da'as Torah, I do wish to  
categorically deny -- or head off at the pass -- the notion that there is  some 
ONE "da'as Torah" that all charedim would agree on.  The Satmar  Rebbe's 
boich is obviously different from, say, the Gerrer Rebbe's boich, e.g.,  as 
regards how to view the Medinah.  Nevertheless there are common  threads.   
 
My personal da'as Torah was and remains my father, except in areas where I  
don't know what he held or would have held.  So, for instance, I am trying  
to find a venue for my daughter's wedding IY'H and even though respected  
rabbanim permit making a wedding in the social hall of a Conservative 
building,  I won't do it because I know that my father was strongly opposed to it.  
He  wouldn't even enter such a building, any more than he would enter a 
church  building.  It was his commitment to emmes and his sense of achrayus to 
all  of Klal Yisrael -- not just to "unzerer" -- that caused him to take 
this  principled stance.  It's not in the Shulchan Aruch and it doesn't come 
with  footnotes.  It's da'as Torah.  Obviously, not everyone would agree  with 
his da'as Torah, any more than everyone would agree with all his  halachic 
opinions.  Disagreement among learned rabbanim and poskim does not  mean 
there is no such thing as da'as Torah any more than it means there is no  such 
thing as halacha.  
 
But da'as Torah usually doesn't come with sources and footnotes.  It  comes 
with what the Supreme Court might call the penumbra of halacha.
 
Just to remind you of where we started, I don't think that R' Berman in his 
 JA article is really expressing support for the concept of da'as Torah -- 
or he  is defining the very concept differently than most of those who do 
believe in  the concept would define it.
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140918/5ae4b58a/attachment.htm>

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 04:21:07PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
: I got up to hatmanah in AhS, so now I'm wondering..

: As I mentioned on-list a few times now, I generally walk around
: carrying a cup of tea. For logical reasons, it is usually a travel
: mug with a closing lid of some sort. Usually, these are thermally
: insultated.

I jyst saw AhS OC 254:22 - hatmanah is only in a keli rishon.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 18/09/2014 5:20 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> I jyst saw AhS OC 254:22 - hatmanah is only in a keli rishon.

Yes, otherwise a thermos would be a problem!

-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond


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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


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


***************************************

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.)