Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 136

Mon, 22 Sep 2014

• 1. Re: ben sorer u'moreh (Kenneth Miller)
• 2. Re: ben sorer u'moreh (Zev Sero)
• 3. hatmana (Sholom Simon)
• 4. Re: Thermal Cup on Shabbos [hatmanah] (Micha Berger)
• 5. (Not) to Eat Meat on Rosh Hashana (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Vaccination in Halakhah and in Practice in the Orthodox Jewish Community (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: Thermal Cup on Shabbos [hatmanah] (Kenneth Miller)
• 8. Re: Judaism is not a religion (Arie Folger)
• 9. Re: Ben Sorer u'Moreh (Avi Goldstein)
• 10. Cooking on Yom Tov: A Halachic Analysis (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Re: Ben Sorer u'Moreh (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Ben Sorer u'Moreh (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Re: Ben Sorer u'Moreh (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Judaism is not a religion (Micha Berger)

R' Joel Rich asked:

<<< Do they say the same thing for ir hanidachat where this same issue appears? >>>

Yes! Sanhedrin 71b lists three: ben sorer umoreh, ir hanidachas, and a house that had tzaraas.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
The #1 Worst Carb Ever?
Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar &#40;Don&#39;t Eat This!&#41;
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/541ef62d49be8762d53c3st03vuc

On 21/09/2014 10:22 AM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> I wish I knew of a good way to protect myself against such
> misunderstandings when other absolutist statements are made. This sort
> of thing makes it very easy - TOO easy - to say about other
> situations, "He couldn't have meant that," but beware, for that way
> lies apikorsus.

One way is to observe that a machlokes about easily-determinable metzius is
unlikely.  They happen, but rarely.  In this case, R Shimon's statement is
unprovable, but R Yonoson's is a simple statement of fact.  Now he could have
been mistaken; perhaps the local legend about the grave was incorrect.  Or
the local BD could have been miseducated, and have made a horrible mistake
like that of Yoav.   Or it was a case of "eis la'asos", where the BD decided
this boy was so bad that they had to stop him although he wasn't technically
a BSuM.  And if R Shimon had said that he had this bekabalah going back to
someone with ruach hakodesh, we could dismiss R Yonasan's testimony in such
a way.

But if that were so we would expect such a rejoinder to appear in the gemara
immediately after, as we find in several places where someone cites a story
which apppears to contradict the rule that has been given, and he is immediately
answered with a detail he omitted, which distinguishes the cases.  The absence
of such a rejoinder seems to indicate that the editors of the  gemara accepted
R Yonasan's correction of R Shimon, and felt no need to comment on it.  It seems
obvious to me that in such a case we should read R Shimon's claim in a minimalist
way, so as not to create a needless machlokes in metzius.

In general, we should be wary of reading *any* claim in a maximalist way, when
there is an equally plausible minimalist way to read it.  This is a corollary of
Occam's razor, or of "hamotzi mechavero alav hara'ayah", the presumption of
innocence, "dayo leva min hadin lihyos kenidon", etc.  Basically the rule is that
we don't know more than we know; beyond that we can only speculate, and anyone
is free to dispute our speculations.   So if R Shimon could be read as a making
a factual claim that could only come from ruach hakodesh, or as making a logical
observation about the probability of something ever occurring, we should always
assume the latter.


[Email #2.]

On 21/09/2014 10:54 AM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> That's an interesting approach-are there any sources that I might
> look at that state/expand on this.

It just seems to me the most obvious and logical way to read the gemara.
I think to read it any other way requires evidence.

> Do they say the same thing for ir hanidachat where this same issue appears?

It's the exact same sugya.


> I also think the language doesn't support the low probability
> explanation: saying it will never be-the law of really big numbers
> would likely The law of truly large numbers, attributed to Persi
> Diaconis and Frederick Mosteller, states that with a sample size
> large enough, any outrageous thing is likely to happen.[1] Because we
> never find it notable when likely events occur, we highlight unlikely
> events and notice them more.

True, but we don't have an infinitely large sample.  The entire course of
human history (whether we take it as 6000 years or as from whenever we showed
up to whenever we go extinct) is a much smaller number, and there are many
theoretically possible events that we can say with reasonable confidence will
never happen.   For instance it's theoretically possible for all the oxygen
molecules in a room to concentrate on one side, causing someone on the other
side to suffocate; in an infinite universe, it will surely happen many times,
but in our finite universe one can state with confidence that such a thing has
never happened and will never happen.

The criteria for BSuM are not quite as unlikely as that, but they're still so
unlikely that R Shimon's statement is logical, and yet R Yonoson's testimony
remains plausible.

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

R Micha wrote:

>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.

Is this so you won't spill it?  If so, in addition to the reason that 
hatmana only applies to a kli rishon, I believe there is an 
additional reason why your action is permitted.

My understanding is that intent matters vis-a-vis hatmana.  And so, 
if you want to cover food in order to, say, protect it from dust or 
insects, prevent it  from spilling, or to hold the food together, 
then the action is muter.  (S"A 257:2)

KvCh"T !

-- Sholom 

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:29:23AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: R' Micha Berger asked:
:> IF we were to say that a cup, or now that we're talking about
:> keli rishon, a pot, designed to be thermal were hatmanah, what
:> would be the line between hatmanah and a simple lidded keli?

: Is this a hypothetical? Which universe are you speaking of? You begin
: with the proposition that "If a cup or pot designed to be thermal were
: hatmanah", but as far as I know, being designed to be thermal (i.e.,
: a very good insulator) does NOT define hatmana.

Current state of the question, just as a reminder: Someone noticed the
thermal hot water pot wasn't closed before Shabbos and instinctively
closed it on Shabbos. Could you use the water?

My LOR agreed with you, hatmanah by definition is around the keli rishon,
and can't be a property of the keli rishon itself. At the time I asked,
I didn't know if that were true, and proposed that it can't be, because
thermal-ness (thermality?) isn't the kind of thing amenable to having
a shiur. But since I was just guessing, I asked the list for confirmation.

Although, as RSSimon noted, intent matters. So, it could be possible
that choosing the pot for its thermal properties would be the "shiur".

But in any case, the keli itself is not hatmanah. And presumably the
vaccum between the inner and outer walls of the thermal pot doesn't make
it two keilim. Not that my LOR had time to discuss sevara -- he ha 3
qiddush-es to run to, BH!

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

From http://ohr.edu/5259

There is a well-known halacha that one is not allowed to fast on Rosh
Hashana (barring certain specific circumstances). Although it is a Day of
Judgment, and there are shittos of the Gaonim that do permit one to fast,
nevertheless the halacha is that Rosh Hashana is also a festive Yom Tov
and we must honor it properly. In fact, the Yerushalmi mentions that
we must eat, drink, and be mesamayach on Rosh Hashana[1]. This includes
partaking of fine delicacies, as it is written in the Book of Nechemia[2]
regarding Rosh Hashana, that everyone should Eat fatty foods and drink
sweet drinksfor this day is holy.

Interestingly, there are various customs related to the permissibility
of partaking of meat on Rosh Hashana, although it is considered to be the
most distinguished of foods, and therefore seemingly the most appropriate
with which to honor the holiday.

Many readers are probably puzzled by the last paragraph, and might exclaim
after rereading it: What? How is that possible? Everyone eats meat on Rosh
Hashana! In fact it is even widely used as one of the Simanim! How can
something meant to properly usher in the New Year possibly be prohibited?

See the above URL for more.

Note the following

Postscript:
Many later authorities, including the Chacham Tzvi (cited by his son
the Yaavetz, Toras Hakinaos 8), Rav Chaim Volozhiner (ibid.), and the
Chazon Ish (cited in Maaseh Ish vol. 1 pg. 119), among others, share
an interesting and different viewpoint regarding the Shulchan Aruchs
Maggid. [This author has also heard this view bsheim noted mekubal Rav
Yaakov Hillel shlita]. They understand that a Maggid does not actually
rule with Heavenly authority; rather it uses the individuals own merit
and koach to present rulings. Meaning, although Rav Karo cites psakim from
the Maggid, it is essentially utilizing his own personal hidden strengths
to bring out these rulings. Therefore, concludes Rav Chaim Volozhiner,
that in this instance it must be that notwithstanding how great he was,
Rav Karo must have somehow personally made a mistake, and the outcome
of that resulted in an erroneous conclusion being taught by the Maggid.

YL

Please see the article at 
http://www.hakirah.org/Vol13Bush.pdf by Rabbi 
Asher Bush whom I know personally for many years. 
The entire article is well worth reading.

At the end there is a section titled

The Debate in the Lakewood Community, 2009?Present:

In part it says

"Dr. Nachum Indich, a physician in Lakewood, has reported
that subsequent to the issuing of this letter by Rav Katz,
[In this letter a strong stand is taken in favor of parental autonomy for
those who do not wish to vaccinate their children, and of welcoming
these children in the local yeshivot.] he and a 
number of other physicians met with Rav Miller. The result of these
meetings was that Rav Miller reversed his ruling and indeed supports
the need for compulsory vaccination of schoolchildren.

Of the three leading Rabbanim quoted by Rav Katz, only Rav
Kamenetzky continues to maintain the position quoted in Rav
Katz?s letter.

Subsequent to this clarification by Rav Miller, Rav Katz, together
with Rav Kamenetzky and Rav Malkiel Kotler, issued a directive
to yeshiva administrators again insisting that unvaccinated
children not be excluded from school.

Both from the writings and from oral communication58 with
Rav Katz it is clear that the potential risk factor in vaccinations
played a major role in formulating his opinion. Since these risks are
statistically negligible and are of no real concern to medical authorities,
most poskim could not accept this approach.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140921/b23da224/attachment-0001.htm>

I just thought of another possible way of looking at this. I once heard of
a shita which defined kli sheni in a way which ignores any cooling effect
of the air, and looks only at the keilim. We sometimes use this view to
consider a ladle to be a kli sheni, for example. But this more extreme view
(sorry, I have no names) considered the spout of the urn to be a different
keli than the urn itself, the making one's cup a kli shlishi suitable for a
teabag.

Regarding making tea on Shabbos, I always considered that view surprisingly
meikil. But not it seems that there would be a surprising chumra to
accompany it: If the urn and spout are distinct keilim for purposes of kli
sheni, then perhaps the inner urn and the outer shell should be distinct
keilim for purposes of hatmana.

If so, then another question can be raised: Hatmana only applies when the
insulating material is in direct contact with the kli rishon. But here, the
inner and outer pieces are davka separated by a partial vacuum! And it is
actually the vacuum that preserves the temperature, and not the outer
piece! I wonder how all this would play out l'halacha...

Akiva Miller

I find it interesting that the meme X is not a religion has now become an
accepted way to deal with some non Christian religions. I just read some
articles making that point (though admittedly partly in a negative manner)
about Islam, in some German news articles.

Of course, it all depends by what one means with "religion" and "not a
religion." I think that Rav Hirsch meant it exactly in the same way the
German reporters recently used it, namely, to contrast it with
Christianity's compartimentalization of the sacred and the prophane ("give
unto caesar what caesar is due"), while some other religions see their
system of thought as being more all encompassing. In that manner, Islam
resembles Judaism, though Judaism, not being into proselytizing, has been
far more willing to accomodate its host cultures throughout the ages.

However, people don't always use the words religion in that manner.  In
common usage, religion simply means a faith based system of thought and
praxis.
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/

* Wie entstand und was bedeutet der bevorstehender Fastentag des 17. Tammus
* Do Not Forget, Do Not Shove it Under the Carpet
* ORD-Seminar in Regensburg
* Nach welchem Prinzip sind die f?nf B?cher Mose organisiert?
* R?ckblick auf Limmud.de
* In the Paris Jewish community, more women than men are recalcitrant
spouses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140922/910ced91/attachment-0001.htm>

It has long been my contention that R' Yonasan did not  actually see the
grave of a ben sorer u'moreh. It would be quite odd if the amora who
happened to see this kever is  the same  one who saw the ruins of  an ir
hanidachas. What are the chances of  that?
I suspect, instead, that R' Yonasan was countering the view that a ben
sorer or an ir hanidachas CANNOT exist. He holds, conceptually, that the
Torah would not speak of these if there is  no chance that they can occur.
He phrased this strong opposition in terms of viewing an actual kever and
an actual ruin.
Avi Goldstein
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140922/4009b20c/attachment-0001.htm>

Please see http://cor.ca/view/169/cooking_on_yom_tov.html

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:27:31AM -0400, Avi Goldstein via Avodah wrote:
: It has long been my contention that R' Yonasan did not  actually see the
: grave of a ben sorer u'moreh. It would be quite odd if the amora who
: happened to see this kever is  the same  one who saw the ruins of  an ir
: hanidachas. What are the chances of  that?

I don't think so. Perhaps other amora'im took it for granted these
cases could happen, but he had the idea of doing the "spadework"
(as archeologists put it) to find out for himself. So R' Yonasan alone
went searching for the qever of a BSuM and for the location of an IhN,
so he alone found them.

Or perhaps the others knew of these locations, and the machloqes led
them to assume the BSuM and the IhN R Yonasan spoke of were adjudicated
by non-halachic sects.

A third possibility, R' Schwab understands R' Yonasan as referring to
someone HQBH killed al pi Sanhedrin 37b -- when the courts can't punish,
shamayim still makes sure the guilty get the same basic punishment.
A boy died young, and R' Yonasan concluded that according to heaven,
it was because he should have died as a BSuM. He saw a city in ruins,
and concluded it was an IhN that beis din shel maalah razed.

It could well be that the boy was guilty despite not all the criteria met
for a human BD to find him guilty. It depends which of those trstrictive
criteria are about magnitude of guilt, and which are about the guilt
being clear to human observers.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. 
mi...@aishdas.org        "I want to do it." - is weak. 
http://www.aishdas.org   "I am doing it." - that is the right way.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk

It has long been my contention that R' Yonasan did not	actually see the
grave of a ben sorer u'moreh. It would be quite odd if the amora who
happened to see this kever is  the same  one who saw the ruins of  an ir
hanidachas. What are the chances of  that?
I suspect, instead, that R' Yonasan was countering the view that a ben
sorer or an ir hanidachas CANNOT exist. He holds, conceptually, that the
Torah would not speak of these if there is  no chance that they can occur.
He phrased this strong opposition in terms of viewing an actual kever and
an actual ruin.
Avi Goldstein

================
Another nice way to resolve the cognitive dissonance ? but the language is
pretty straightforward, and is reported by the gemara as such.	Perhaps an
academic student of talmud (oops ) might opine if the discourse of the time
included such ?exaggerations?
KVCT
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140922/d5dda4ca/attachment-0001.htm>

On 22/09/2014 11:27 AM, Avi Goldstein wrote:
> It has long been my contention that R' Yonasan did not actually see
> the grave of a ben sorer u'moreh. It would be quite odd if the amora
> who happened to see this kever is the same one who saw the ruins of
> an ir hanidachas. What are the chances of that? I suspect, instead,
> that R' Yonasan was countering the view that a ben sorer or an ir
> hanidachas CANNOT exist. He holds, conceptually, that the Torah would
> not speak of these if there is no chance that they can occur. He
> phrased this strong opposition in terms of viewing an actual kever
> and an actual ruin.

In other words, he lied?! There is no way to read his words nonliterally.
He is not offering an opinion, he's offering a *fact*, with which he
automatically wins the debate.

Now he could have been reporting a mistaken local legend, or it could
be that a local beis din was guilty of gross and horrible malpractise
through ignorance of TShBP (in which case it would make sense that the
same BD would carry out both commandments). But if he claimed to have
seen something that he did not then he was attempting to influence
a halachic dispute with false testimony. There's a word for that.
And I don't think anyone has the right to accuse him
of such a thing, especially without any evidence.


On 22/09/2014 1:49 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> It could well be that the boy was guilty despite not all the criteria met
> for a human BD to find him guilty. It depends which of those trstrictive
> criteria are about magnitude of guilt, and which are about the guilt
> being clear to human observers.

Most of the criteria have *nothing to do* with guilt, whether proof of
or magnitude of. They are simply gezeros hakasuv. As I wrote earlier,
I don't think it's valid to rely on an obscure drasha by a post-Acharon
to overturn the established halacha of all the generations.

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

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:47:56AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote:
: However, people don't always use the words religion in that manner.  In
: common usage, religion simply means a faith based system of thought and
: praxis.

This is also non-trivial, because different belief systems view "faith"
differently.

The Rambam's i'tiqad is rendered "emunah" by ibn Tibbon and "yedi'ah"
by el-Qafeh (Rav Kapach). It is used to describe both being sure Hashem
exists and to describe yir'ah. Which is probably why ibn Tibbon had
to hunt for a word that implies both abstract knowledge and something
internalized on a gut and emotional level. The Rambam assumes that the
faith that moves us is the philosophy we study.

That's very different than how a Breslover would understand faith,
which would be *divorced from* philosophical argument.

Meanwhile the church father Tertulian would define faith as being
specifically *despite* reason.

By your definition, are Scholasticism / Qalam and lehavdil Rav Saadia
Gaon and the Rambam religion?


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar


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



_______________________________________________
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.)