Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 70

Mon, 04 May 2015

• 1. Re: leap of faith (Kenneth Miller)
• 2. Re: Not saying Tachanun (was Yom Haatzmaut) (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Not saying Tachanun (was Yom Haatzmaut) (Ben Waxman)
• 4. Re: Not saying Tachanun (was Yom Haatzmaut) (Zev Sero)
• 5. The Netziv, Reading Newspapers on Shabbos & Censorship (Part Two) (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Re: [Areivim] kol isha (Micha Berger)
• 7. Rav Kook on Sports (Ben Waxman)
• 8. R Michael Avraham (Eli Turkel)
• 9. A halachic problem in measuring wholemeal flour (Joe Slater)
• 10. RMA (Eli Turkel)
• 11. A married sister (Kenneth Miller)
• 12. Re: A halachic problem in measuring wholemeal flour (Simon Montagu)
• 13. Re: Spouses with Conflicting Customs (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Spouses with Conflicting Customs (Zev Sero)

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> I picked the one about parallel lines because no one ever
> experienced infinitely long parallel lines. They are based
> on imagining an extrapolation from experience.

Parallel lines are not provable, but it's not because they are based on
experience.  Rather, they are based on definition. Find a pair of parallel
lines that DO meet (such as on a sphere) and we'll simply say, "What I
really meant was parallel lines on a *flat* surface." See more at "No true
Scotsman".

My choice for something which is unprovable because it is based on personal experience is, "Is there someone whom you love? Prove it to me."

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5540e9944d22f699426abst02vuc

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:53:00PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
:> #2 A good example to my mind is the chasidic groups who celebrate
:> the anniversary of their rebbe's release from prison. Would RYBS
:> insist that they say Tachanun on such days?

: I had the same question.

I bet he said tachanun on the Gra's or R' Chaim's (Volozhin or Brisk)
yahrzeit, etc... For people who are seeking his pesaq, it's very likely
he would inist on Tachanun on days like that.

But I think he would refuse to pasqen for them. Implied in your question
is that it's a rav's job to comment and rank other derakhim, an idea
RYBS did not share. He even limited his own right to 2nd guess a talmid
serving as moreh de'asra. (Stories differ as to how much he insisted on
such autonomy of the LOR, depending on which student.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 25th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          taking control too extreme?

On 4/29/2015 11:53 AM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> #1 Perhaps, since the day when Tachanun first began, the list of days 
> has never changed. What did happen (perhaps) is that some places said it 
> on Purim Katan, and some places did not. Over time, the minhag of 
> skipping it spread to more and more places, but that's somewhat 
> different than if a community would suddenly decide that they had a new 
> appreciation for the significance of the day, and hence wanted to stop 
> saying Tachanun.

I don't think so. The Rambam, Hilchot Tefila 5:15 lists the days that
one doesn't say Tachanun (or nifilat ah'payim in his words) and the list
is much more restricted than our list (Shabbat, Chaggim, Rosh Chodesh,
Chanukka, Purim, and the Mincha before them). He writes that this is
the minhag b'kol yisrael. I am not a Rambam expert so I don't know what
to make of those three words (minhag, b'kol yisrael). If it is a minhag
does that mean that it can change? What is b'kol yisrael (I realize that
at the time of the Rambam, Ashkenaz was the middle of nowhere)? But it
would seem from the Rambam that at his time, the Jewish world didn't
skip those other days.

>  #2 A good example to my mind is the chasidic groups who celebrate 
> the anniversary of their rebbe's release from prison. Would RYBS insist 
> that they say Tachanun on such days?

I had the same question.

Ben

On 04/29/2015 03:11 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:53:00PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
> :> #2 A good example to my mind is the chasidic groups who celebrate
> :> the anniversary of their rebbe's release from prison. Would RYBS
> :> insist that they say Tachanun on such days?
>
> : I had the same question.
>
> I bet he said tachanun on the Gra's or R' Chaim's (Volozhin or Brisk)
> yahrzeit, etc... For people who are seeking his pesaq, it's very likely
> he would inist on Tachanun on days like that.

Of course he said tachanun on their yortzeits, why wouldn't he?  The whole
concept of turning a yortzeit into a holiday wasn't native to his world.
The question is what he would do on a day they had been saved from some
danger, and had observed as a private yomtov, or on a day that his
community had adopted as a local "purim" to commemorate being saved from
danger, as was a common practise among Jewish communities.



-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

Please see the article at http://tinyurl.com/oqujmba

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 5:54pm EDT, R Sholom Simon replied to me on Areivim
:> The fact that some ... Jews seem to think the gemara
:> didn't realy mean it is something the ... community should have a
:> cheshbon hanfesh about. 

: Gemara? Don't the ge'onim take the gemara to
: mean that kol isha is a problem during krias sh'ema? (Which is, after
: all, the context of its appearance in Berachos). 

: (Granted, halacha has
: gone much further since then, but you were focused on the gemara) 

You're thinking of Berakhos 24a, where the gemara concludes that R'
Yitchaq's tefach be'ishah ervah is to even include one's own wife during
qeri'as Shama. (We knew about other women not during qeri'as shema from R'
Sheishes.) And then R' Chisda continues with shoq be'ishah, Shemu'el
says qol be'ishah ervah and R Sheishes adds sei'ar be'ishah.

From which one may conclude that all of them are in the same context
as R' Yitchaq.

R' Hai Gaon (Otar haGeonim Berakhos, peirushin #102), R Yehudai
Gaon (acc. to the Yeriem 392), the Behag (1:3). the Eshkol (vol 1,
pg 15), the Rivra (Berakhos ad loc) and his father (?), Rabbeinu
Yonah (17a), the Shitah meQubetzes (ad loc), only speak of this
rule WRT qeri'as shema.

Interestlingly, one might also have concluded that all of them were
about eishes ish, for the same reason that sei'ar be'ishah is only
about eishes ish, but I don't think anyone does understand the gemara
that way.

But there is also Qiddushin 70a, where R' Yehudah refuses to relay
regards from R Nachman to Yala (Mrs Nachman) citing Shemu'el's qol
be'ishah ervah.

It was this gemara I was remembering (due to recently re-encountering
it).

Pisqei haRid (Berakhos p' 3), Ri haChasid (Berakhos ad loc), Tosafos
haRosh (ad loc) and the Rosh (Berakhos 3:37), say the rule is in
general.

The Rambam has qol be'ishah ervah in Isurei Bi'ah (21:2), not Hil'
QS. Similarly the Tur has nothing about it in QS, but has it in EhE 21.
(But then, since his father [the Rosh] and the Rambam do the same,
that's no surprise.)

And from there -- the Rif is silent, the Rambam and the Rosh agree
it's in general -- the SA conforms to his rules and prohibits in
general.

I think it's a machloqes whether we hold like Shemu'el, who was
indeed oly talking about Shema (but not only married women) or
like R' Yehudah's extrapolation from Shemu'el.

Al pi din, we do hold like the gemara in Qidushin.

But it's not as much of a given as I had thought when writing.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 27th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507               taking control result in relationship?

He most certainly did!

http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/4234

The article is an examination of Rav Kook's writing on the subject. RK 
very much supported exercise and sport, and of course he opposed 
breaking Shabbat to play football (soccer).

One quote/translation (mine):  Exercise  . . . .improves the spiritual 
strength of the greatest tzaddiqim, those involved in the Unification of 
God's name, including bringing the Light of God into the world, and no 
revelation of Light can happen without all the required components.

Ben

On 5/1/2015 3:36 AM, via Areivim wrote:
 > and I wonder if it is true that Rav Kook ascribed positive value to 
sports.

After another shiur with R Michael Avraham (RMA) I wish to clear up some of
my previous posts. Apologies for repeating some material but I wish to make
it self contained.

1)  With regard to Pluaralism, Monism and Harmonism these are typologies.
As with any typology real people are combinations and pure members of these
groups.
Avi Sagi has a book on the topic with listing on many reabbis on each side
of the topic.

Pluralism means that one accepts ALL opinions as true and legitimate. There
is no one single truth Certainly as long as it doesn't harm someone else.

RMA pointed out that pure pluralism is not consistent as it would mean
accepting monism as also a legitimate truth
Nevertheless it is popular in some circles

2) Monism says there is only one truth. I accept that one truth based on
the normal rules of halacha, eg majority, chazakah etc.  Nothing is ever
known with 100% certainty both that is irrelevant.

2b) accepting monism (savlanut in Hebrew) . Though there is only one truth
we accommodate those within a certain radius of the real truth even though
they are wrong

Normally we view pluralism as being more "mekil" than monism. However he
considered the case of giving someone food that I consider kosher and he
doesn't . The pluralist won't do it because his position is also truth and
he doesnt consider the food kosher. However the pure monist has no trouble
giving it to someone else. He is wrong and I am right and so the food is
kosher (again the fact that he might be right is irrelevant - a bet din can
kill based on rov and certainly for shabbat and kosher food we work on
majority)
The accepting monist won't give the food to someone else. Even though he is
wrong I respect his being wrong as long as he is within my radius - ie he
relies on someone I consider legitimate and not just an idiotic opinion.
OTOH I would give him the food if I feel his "chumra" is too wild fetched
and beyond my radius as distinct from the pluralist

3) Harmonism states that both sides are only part of the real truth. Rav
Kook and others bring the second gemara about "Elu V-elu". The gemara in
Gittin discusses why the man from Binyamin killed his mistress)(pilegesh
be-givah) - after an amoraic argument the truth was both were right either
because he found a fly in his soup but got angry only he found a hair in
the soup. So both views were ight and "Elu V-elu"

Based on this RMA had a different interpretation of the argument between
Bet Hillel and Bet Shamai  Both sides presented arguments supporting their
position.  Both sides agreed that all the arguments were legitimate.
However, in the end one has to make a decision when there are legitimate
arguments on both sides and Bet Shamai and Bet Hillel arrived at opposite
conclusins.
The Harmonism implies that both sides have legitimate arguments. Hoever, in
the end there is only one truth that comes out of contradictory arguments.
The harmonism means that both sides are right (pluralism) on the basic
stands. But only one side is right (monism) in the final decision.

As stated before the one truth is found based on standard halachic grounds.
Nothing is ever known 100% but that doesnt matter.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150503/adfc2507/attachment-0001.htm>

I have recently become aware of a practical halachic problem with measuring
wholemeal flour for the shiurim of challah and the kezeitim of matzot
mitzva. I don't think this issue is generally recognised, and I hope
Areivim members will be able to bring it to appropriate authorities'
attention.

Traditional flour mills produced a mixture of white flour and bran by
grinding whole grains between millstones. This mixture was sifted to
produce finer or coarser grades of flour by removing more or less bran,
respectively. Halachically, the bran that is removed has changed its
status: dough produced from bran is not subject to challah. Furthermore,
mixing bran back into its flour does not restore its status: the bran and
flour are not "mitztaref". (See Challah 2:6)

This was not an issue with traditional mills: nobody would sift bran out of
flour and then ruin the white flour by replacing the bran. This is not the
case today, though. Modern flour mills do not grind flour between stones.
They use a series of graduated rollers that crack the grain into
progressively-smaller particles, and the bran is separated off at an early
stage of the process. Millers make wholemeal flour by adding bran back to
the fine flour near the end of the milling process. You can find a
description and video of the process here:
http://www.fabflour.co.uk/fab-flour/how-flour-is-milled/

If modern wholemeal flour is halachically considered a mixture of flour and
bran, as it seems, then to be obliged in challah one would need a greater
shiur of wholemeal than of regular flour, and to fulfil one?s obligation of
eating matza one would need to eat more than a kezayit of wholemeal matza.
(See S.A. Y.D. 324:3 and M.A. & SAHR O.C 454:1,2)

It is not possible to state a definite ratio of bran to white flour, as
this will vary between species of grain and between varieties of each
species. The relevant shiurim are not measured by weight but by volume,
which is affected by the fineness of the bran compared to the fineness of
the white flour. Furthermore, the amount of grain removed as bran will
depend on the operation of the mill. My research indicates that up to a
quarter of each grain of wheat (by weight) consists of bran.  If we take
this as a rule of thumb then a shiur of wholemeal wheat flour would be one
and a third times as large as a shiur of white flour.

As a practical matter, I think people making wholemeal bread should
probably avoid doubt and bake either less than a minimal shiur (for which,
consult your LOR) or bake sufficiently more than one and a third shiurim.
Many people deliberately try to use enough flour to require the taking of
challah: they consequently use just over a  regular shiur and need to be
warned about this.

With respect to wholemeal matzot mitzva, I presume that people would have
noticed and queried any reintroduction of bran to flour ground using modern
methods. None the less, it would be very good to establish this for each
bakery.

Joe Slater
Melbourne, Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150504/e31ad020/attachment-0001.htm>

On another issue I had quoted RMA as saying that one who doesnt believe in
a creator has no punishment or reward for keeping mitzvot. After 120 years
he will be punished only for being an atheist but for each individual sin.
Hence, there is no problem of "lifne iver" . In particular in the frequent
case a religious doctor can ask an atheist to take over for him on shabbat
(wouldnt apply to a chiloni doctor who does beleive in G-d)

This applies only to mitzvot like shabbat. Of course an atheist can't claim
that he is not bound by sins like murder because he doesnt believe in G-d.
An atheist will be punished for all moral sins that he commits and all
usual laws of :lifne iver" etc apply to all moral commandments.

------------------------
He is now starting a series on religious autonomy. In particular he holds
that one goes to a rabbi for a psak only if he is in doubt. If one has
seriously learned the halachaot and is convinced of the "truth" then he
should follow his own psak and there is no need to go to a "higher
authority".

He was asked what if the personal psak goes against the generally accepted
psak. His answer was that in theory the same holds. However, a person
should have enough humility that if he is a "daas yachid" he better be
awfully sure that he is right.



-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150504/eadd1b64/attachment-0001.htm>

In this morning's parsha, we learn that a kohen may m'tamei himself for his
unmarried sister, but not for one who has been married. I used to think
that this was because upon marriage, the sister leaves the family that she
grew up in, and is no longer part of that family, and becomes part of her
husband's family. Thus, she is no longer part of her brother's family.

But what about her father? According to the above logic, her father may not
be m'tamei for her either. And in fact, she *has* left her father's family
in the sense that if her husband is not a kohen, then she has been
disallowed terumah ever since the wedding. Yet the halacha is that her
father *may* be m'tamei for her, despite that change in status.

So, in very simple terms, here's my question: If a Bas Kohen is married and
then dies, why is it that her father may attend the funeral, but her
brother may not?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55475caae730f5caa5375st01vuc

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:46 AM, Joe Slater via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> I have recently become aware of a practical halachic problem with
> measuring wholemeal flour for the shiurim of challah and the kezeitim of
> matzot mitzva. I don't think this issue is generally recognised, and I hope
> Areivim members will be able to bring it to appropriate authorities'
> attention.
>
> Traditional flour mills produced a mixture of white flour and bran by
> grinding whole grains between millstones. This mixture was sifted to
> produce finer or coarser grades of flour by removing more or less bran,
> respectively. Halachically, the bran that is removed has changed its
> status: dough produced from bran is not subject to challah. Furthermore,
> mixing bran back into its flour does not restore its status: the bran and
> flour are not "mitztaref". (See Challah 2:6)
>
> This was not an issue with traditional mills: nobody would sift bran out
> of flour and then ruin the white flour by replacing the bran. This is not
> the case today, though.
>

Just a thought: perhaps the halacha that the bran and flour are not
mitztaref depended on the metziu't that nobody would return bran to white
flour? So if returning the bran to the flour is now the normal way of
producing wholemeal flour, maybe today they are mitztaref?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150504/37d0f56b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 11:47:38AM +0000, RAM wrote on the thread
"A married sister":
: In this morning's parsha, we learn that a kohen may m'tamei himself
: for his unmarried sister, but not for one who has been married. I
: used to think that this was because upon marriage, the sister leaves
: the family that she grew up in, and is no longer part of that family,
: and becomes part of her husband's family...

But Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 02:12:59AM +0000, RAM wrote on this subject:
> I once heard an interesting argument against Rav Moshe's logic on
> this point. He is viewing the wife as the one who is moving to a new
> location, but we have an explicit pasuk that takes the opposite view:
> Bereshis 2:24 - "Therefore, a man will desert his father and his mother,
> and stick to his wife." (The woman may of may not leave her parents,
> but the man explicitly does.)

> Granted that there are other arguments for the wife taking the husband's
> minhagim - terumah is the first that comes to my mind. But if Rav Moshe's
> main argument is Minhag Hamakom, I wonder how he would have defended it
> against this pasuk.

Anyone else see one answering the other?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 30th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  result in holding back from others?

On 05/04/2015 12:45 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 11:47:38AM +0000, RAM wrote on the thread
> "A married sister":
> : In this morning's parsha, we learn that a kohen may m'tamei himself
> : for his unmarried sister, but not for one who has been married. I
> : used to think that this was because upon marriage, the sister leaves
> : the family that she grew up in, and is no longer part of that family,
> : and becomes part of her husband's family...
>
> But Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 02:12:59AM +0000, RAM wrote on this subject:
>> I once heard an interesting argument against Rav Moshe's logic on
>> this point. He is viewing the wife as the one who is moving to a new
>> location, but we have an explicit pasuk that takes the opposite view:
>> Bereshis 2:24 - "Therefore, a man will desert his father and his mother,
>> and stick to his wife." (The woman may of may not leave her parents,
>> but the man explicitly does.)
>
>> Granted that there are other arguments for the wife taking the husband's
>> minhagim - terumah is the first that comes to my mind. But if Rav Moshe's
>> main argument is Minhag Hamakom, I wonder how he would have defended it
>> against this pasuk.
>
> Anyone else see one answering the other?

Not at all.  Her father must still become tamei for her.  Only her brothers
may not.

What's more, suppose her husband dies without issue.  She returns to her
father's house, and is once more entitled to eat terumah and kodshim.
Now suppose the father dies; she continues to eat the terumah and kodshim
that her brothers bring home. When she dies the brothers are the only people
left who sit shiva for her, and yet they are not allowed to become tamei for
her unless there is literally nobody else who can do it!


-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams


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



_______________________________________________
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.)