Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 83

Wed, 27 May 2015

• 1. More on Who Wrote the Mishna Brura? (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: More on Who Wrote the Mishna Brura? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: zilzul shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re various shofar-blowing minhagim (was "Another Chumera ends up Involving a Kula") (Michael Poppers)
• 5. Re: Lifnei Iveir (Micha Berger)
• 6. Rav Elchanan Wasserman & Why People Sin (Eli Turkel)
• 7. zilzul shabbat (Eli Turkel)
• 8. right and wrong (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Re various shofar-blowing minhagim (was "Another Chumera ends up Involving a Kula") (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Lifnei Iveir (Kenneth Miller)
• 11. Re: Rav Elchanan Wasserman & Why People Sin (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Eilu v'eilu (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Rav Elchanan Wasserman & Why People Sin (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: right and wrong (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Re various shofar-blowing minhagim (was "Another Chumera ends up Involving a Kula") (Zev Sero)

Someone sent me the following which is also in Shapiro's book.

"The first edition of Shemiras Shabbos K'Hilchasah had a footnote to 
the effect that some things in the MB had been written by the CC's 
son. See p. 263 n. 203.
The full footnote is not in the later editions of SSK."

Shapiro views this as part of the Chareidi attempt to keep certain 
information from the Chareidi public that they do want people to 
know.  His book is filled with many examples of the "rewriting of 
history"  to fit current Chareidi ideology.

He also wrote

"Rabbi Jacob J. Schachter wrote an article in The Torah U-Madda 
Journal about changes and mentioned the MB, the CC's son, and the 
original SSK footnote. See his "Facing the Truths of History" at 
<http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lect
ure.cfm/704426/Rabbi_Dr-_Jacob_J_Schacter/Facing_the_Truths_of_History&
gt;http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lect
ure.cfm/704426/Rabbi_Dr-_Jacob_J_Schacter/Facing_the_Truths_of_History 
(p. 225 and n. 114 on p. 264)."

YL

llev...@stevens.edu 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150526/b8412a43/attachment-0001.htm>

And many of the books we consider the Gra's are students' records of his
teachings. For that matter, people talk about what the Ari says in Peri
Eitz Chaim or others of R' Chaim Vital's works.

RALC piously takes blame for those occasions when he misunderstood
his father's position, saying that these errors, rather than actual
inconsistencies in the CC's shitah, is what you may find in the MB.

But the CC takes ownership of the contents of the MB. See the
title page <http://hebrewbooks.org/49623> (Warsaw 1884 ed.) "Ube'uri
qarative besheim MISHNAH BERURAH..." ... kol eileh chibarti be'ezras
H' yisbarakh, haChonen le'adam da'as, YISRAEL MEIR br' Aryeh Ze'ev
haKohein zlh"h, mei'ir Radin."

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:14:15AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
:> True; but not putting a light on or off *has* been a defining feature
:> of the Shabbos experience since the mitzva of Shabbos was given, so
:> accomplishing it by any means might properly be considered a zilzul
:> Shabbos...

: In particular using an preset switch to turn lights and off should
: be prohibited.
: While RMF originally did object he later changed his mind when it became
: the norm.

Actually, RMF's primary argument was mar'is ayin, which would naturally
change as people know to blame lights turning on and off on "Shabbos
clocks".

: In fact even the kosher lamp might be prohibited

Well, I would think that fits the zilzul Shabbos argument bewing used
WRT the kosher switch.

: Can someone come up with a definition of zilzul shabbat?

The textbook case would be on Shabbos 6a: situating someone in a meqom
petur so that someone in a reshus hayachid can hand items to them so
that they could then hand it over to someone in a reshus harabim.
Rashi ad loc explains "demezalzel be'isurei Shabbos".

I think it's making a farce out of one of the issurim / chiyuvim of
Shabbos. Notice that the case Rashi attributes to zilzul would
otherwise be perfectly mutar.

: Is every modern way of doing any melacha that does not technically
: violate hilchot shabbat zilzul?

: The gemara allows using the sun for cooking on shabbat - why isn't that
: zilzul shabbat?

I think the problem is more than just avoiding the issur, but making
it trivial to entirely avoid it.

Which is what I had in mind when I distinguished between eiruv, which
is built into hotza'ah derabbanan, and community eruv, which takes
that idea and stretches it until someone can pretty much ignore the
whole topic of carmelis for years on end.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

In Avodah V33n82, RAM requested:
> I suggest that we clarify the various minhagim, and tally up the
different ways of dong it....And if anyone else wants to add to the list,
please do so! <
When I davened in KAJ/"Breuer's", the minhag was:
-- 30 *dim'yushav*
-- 10 *dim'umad*
-- 60 sandwiched around post-Musaf "Aleinu" (30 just before, 30 after the
post-"Aleinu" Qaddish)

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/20150526/4ca2861d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 02:35:10AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: It is one thing to dissuade a prospective ger from joining us. But Ruth
: had been living with a Jewish family for ten years! How can Naami urge
: her to go back to avoda zara? I know that the meforshim give various
: reasons why Naami did not want them to accompany her back to Eretz
: Yisrael, but do those reasons justify this Lifnei Iveir?

On a technical level, it would be mesayeia, not lifnei iver, and I'm
not sure that mesayeia applies to 7 mitzvos benei Noach.

But if you're just asking how it's moral... Just thinking off-the cuff.

The timing is between eishes Shimshon and Shelomo's mistake with many
of his wives. It would seem that women only pretending monotheism to
join the Jewish People was common. If Rus was going to be a pagan either
way, better not one who people would mistake for a geir.


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

<<Well, if we know the curvature of the space we're dealing with, we know
which Geometry to use. And only one is correct for that particular space >>

The key word is "if" . That is the difference between math and physics.
Math assumes axioms and from there everything is provable. Physics
discusses the "real" world. This is based on observation and induction.
Hence, physics is always subject to modification based on new observations.
Hence, we have no proof of the curvature of the universe.

<<I disagree with your reisha. Evil is an objectively meaningful predicate.
Yahadus wouldn't work is evil were subjective.>>

Yahadus uses the Torah to define evil. Others don't accept this definition.
Is ISIS beheading victims and their other acts "evil" ? They believe they
are keeping the word of G-d. Destrying ancient monuments is viewed by the
world as "evil" while they see it as destroying idols and hence a mitzvah.
If we were to eradicate Amalek we would consider it a great mitzvah while
the rest of thw world would bring us to the world court for genocide.

<<But my whole point is that proof isn't the only grounds for
justifying knowledge
>>

But without a formal proof it is always debatable. You feel that the
existence of G-d is obvious even without a formal proof (which doesn't
exist) while Dawkins feels that anyone who believes in a diety that
interacts with the world is a fool.
You accept Torah mi-sinai while most academics are convinced the Torah was
written during the late Bayit Rishon if not later

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150527/168873dc/attachment-0001.htm>

<<: The gemara allows using the sun for cooking on shabbat - why isn't that
: zilzul shabbat?

I think the problem is more than just avoiding the issur, but making
it trivial to entirely avoid it.>>

In that case how about a "dud shemesh" according to the poskim that it is
allowed because it uses the sun

<<The textbook case would be on Shabbos 6a: situating someone in a meqom
petur so that someone in a reshus hayachid can hand items to them so
that they could then hand it over to someone in a reshus harabim.
Rashi ad loc explains "demezalzel be'isurei Shabbos".>>

would there be a difference between doing this once and making this a
standard procedure?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150527/efc5dcff/attachment-0001.htm>

Tangential to some of the recent discussions I wish to point out that the
defintion of right and wrong is subjective and indeed changes through
history.
As one example consider the recent post on love from
http://www.talmudology.com/

In the 1440s in England, Elizabeth Paston, the twenty-year old daughter of
minor gentry, was told by her parents that she was to marry a man thirty
years her senior. Oh, and he was disfigured by smallpox.  When she refused, she
was beaten <https://archive.org/stream/pastonsandtheir00benngoog> "once in
the week, or twice and her head broken in two or three places." This
persuasive technique worked, and reflected a theme in Great Britain, where
Lord Chief Baron Matthew Hale  declared
<https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=y39FAAAAcAAJ&;lpg=PA491&ots=3KcjInZC5R&dq=b
y%20the%20law%20of%20God%2C%20of%20nature%20or%20of%20reason%20and%20by%20t
he%20Common%20Law%2C%20the%20will%20of%20the%20wife%20is%20subject%20to%20t
he%20will%20of%20the%20husband.&pg=PA491#v=onepage&q=by%20the%20law
%20of%20God,%20of%20nature%20or%20of%20reason%20and%20by%20the%20Common%20L
aw,%20the%20will%20of%20the%20wife%20is%20subject%20to%20the%20will%20of%20
the%20husband.&f=true>
in
1662 that "by the law of God, of nature or of reason and by the Common Law,
the will of the wife is subject to the will of the husband." Things weren't
any better in the New Colonies, as Ann Little points out (in a gloriously
titled article
<https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=iuAzDHsAHT0C&;printsec=frontcover&dq=lethal+ima
gination&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XcNMVfu_E8qhNr37gagJ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA
#v=onepage&q=ye%20rule&f=false>
 "*Shee would Bump his Mouldy Britch; Authority, Masculinity and the
Harried Husbands of New Haven Colony 1638-1670.*) The governor of the New
Haven Colony was  found guilty of "not pressing ye rule upon his wife."

What was obvious in one generation is no longer regarded as true today.
Similar arguments apply to slavery


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150527/501681ff/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 07:14:36PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote:
: When I davened in KAJ/"Breuer's", the minhag was:
: -- 30 *dim'yushav*
: -- 10 *dim'umad*
: -- 60 sandwiched around post-Musaf "Aleinu" (30 just before, 30 after the

How does that work? You have three points in Chazaras HaShatz in which to
blow. How do you do less than 10 *each*?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

I asked if Naami had violated Lifnei Iveir:

: It is one thing to dissuade a prospective ger from joining us.
: But Ruth had been living with a Jewish family for ten years! How
: can Naami urge her to go back to avoda zara?

R' Micha Berger answered:

> On a technical level, it would be mesayeia, not lifnei iver, and
> I'm not sure that mesayeia applies to 7 mitzvos benei Noach.

Really? Perhaps I need a better understanding of the difference between the
two. I thought that mesayeia was when the other person is going to violate
the halacha anyway and I am merely helping him to do it. But in this case,
the three of them have been living for ten years as a family unit, and
regardless of the geirus (or lack of it) I presume there was no avodah zara
under Naami's roof. This status quo could have continued for a long time,
as we see even Orpah was reluctant to leave.

But Naami urged and insisted, and it is difficult for me to imagine a
bigger michshol. Pasuk 1:15 - "So [Naami] said: Look! Your sister in law
has returned to her people and to her god. Go follow your sister in law."
One of us might as well hand the car keys to our child on Shabbos and tell
him to have a good time.

Akiva Miller
KennethGMil...@juno.com



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

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:22:14AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: <<Well, if we know the curvature of the space we're dealing with, we know
: which Geometry to use. And only one is correct for that particular space >>
: 
: The key word is "if" . That is the difference between math and physics.
: Math assumes axioms and from there everything is provable...

Again, from a set of givens. The givens are accepted as the rules of
the formal system. Which is why I spoke of the validity of Euclid's
Postulates in the context of flat space.

But my point was that there are things other than proof.

: <<I disagree with your reisha. Evil is an objectively meaningful predicate.
: Yahadus wouldn't work is evil were subjective.>>
: 
: Yahadus uses the Torah to define evil. Others don't accept this definition.

Nu, so they're wrong. We may not be able to prove to them they're wrong,
but they are.

Somewhere "out there" is a real objective definition. Regardless of
someone's ability to know what they are, or to accept it if they did.

: <<But my whole point is that proof isn't the only grounds for
: justifying knowledge
: >>
: 
: But without a formal proof it is always debatable...

1- That's a different topic. We're talking about how I justify my
believing in something, not how I prove it to others.

2- There are synthetic a priori knowledge so self-evident people
don't debate them. Which is why I dragged Euclid into this. EVERY
proof STARTS with these givens. Logic is a means of combining
postulates, not starting yeish mei'ayin. And thus no proof is actually
more solid than its weakest postulate -- and that postulate is
justified by something other than proof.

And I brought up these notions because I think that without disentangling
why I believe from how can I get others to believe, or the general
concept of how knowlege is justified from the specific concepts of
formal or experiment proof, we cannot get to what R Elchanan Wasserman
means.

REW says that if it were not for ulterior motive, G-d's existence would
be as self evident as the conclusion that a calligraphied poem had an
author and scribe (who may be the same person), and was not just spilled
ink on a piece of paper. He doesn't yet talk about proof, and in fact,
his language is that of informal justification, not proof.

(I've blogged the notion that the more formal we make the Argument from
Design the LESS solidly it justifies belief. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/argument-by-design-ver-40>. For example,
R Aqiva's -- or REW's -- version only requires common experience. The
Rambam's requires dividing matter into Form and Substance and accepting
certain postulates about Form and Time. Later versions will instead
speak of entropy and time... But they all suffer from involving *more*
givens and insisting they are self-evident and precede the attempt to
prove anything.)

REW then says that it's only ulterior motive that allows many of us to
create arguments and proofs (validly drawn but from broken givens or
flawed in reasoning) to let convince ourselves away from that default
position.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:48:03AM +0300, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
: Very briefly, R. Rosner cites three approaches in the sources
: 
: 1. Illustrating the truth - The Ran in Drashot HaRan drasha 5 - In this
: approach, which severely limits the principle of eilu v'eilu, the Ran
: states that actually only one of the opinions is true. The other opinion is
: 'divrei Elokim chaim' only insofar as it serves to illustrate and elucidate
: the other opinion, which is the real truth, as the dark enables us to
: appreciate a candle...

R/Dr Moshe Halbertal forms his opinion of the Ran's shitah on the haqdamah
to haMafteiach leManulei haTalmud. He translates:
    It is a known fact that the entire Torah, written and oral,
    was transm itted to Moses, as it says in the tract ate Meggilah,
    R. Hiyya bar Abba said in the Name of R. Yohanan: The verse:...and
    on them was written according to all the words.." teaches that the
    Holy One blessed be He showed Moses the details prescribed by the
    Torah and by the Sages, including the innovations they would later
    enact. And what are those? the reading of Meggila. The 'details'
    provided by the rabbis are halakhic disputes and conflicting views
    held by the sa ges of Israel. Moses learned them all by divine
    word with no resolution every controversy in detail. Yet [God]
    also gave him a rule whose truth is manifest, i.e., 'Favor the
    majority opinion'....as the sages of that generation saw fit, for
    the decision had already been delegated to them as it is written:
    'And you shall come to the priest the Levites, and to the judge
    that shall be in those days' and 'You shall not deviate....".

(Quoted from <http://rambam.merkaz.com/Class%204%20-%20Halbertal.pdf>.
I do not know where to find the original, to see what's ellided or
whether my own attempt to translate would agree.)


This quote from the Ran pretty clearly backs the third position in RSR's
survey:
: 3. Multiple truths (Ritva in Eiruvin, Maharal) - Both opinions are true,
: reflecting different perspectives of the subject at hand (IMO, this is
: similar to the previous explanation, without establishing a hierarchy
: between the truths expressed by the different opinions)...

(BTW, I happen to agree with this parenthetic. )

OTOH, in Derashah #7, I think I could defend RSR's #2!

To quote the Ran:
    We have been commanded to obey their decision whether it represents
    the tru th or its opposite ...for the power of decision-making
    has been entrusted to the halakhic authorities for each
    generation. Whatever they decide is what God has commanded.

Compare:
: 2. Levels of truth - R. Moshe in the hakdama to IM, and R. Yaakov to
: Bereishit 26, the Netziv in his Hakadama to Haamek Sh'eila, his commentary
: to the Sheiltot). Using R. Moshe's terminology. there is Emet Shamaymit,
: and Emet L'Horaa. Both are correct, and in this world we are obligated to
: follow the emet l'horaa even if it deviates from the ultimate, heavenly
: truth.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 05/27/2015 04:22 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> Yahadus uses the Torah to define evil. Others don't accept this definition.

Why is that relevant?   Objective truth doesn't depend on how many people
are aware of it or accept it.  It's true for everyone, whether they know
and accept it or not.   Those who don't know it are simply ignorant, and
those who dispute it are simply wrong.

Subjective truth is a very different matter.  If a truth is subjective
then those who dispute it are not wrong, it *isn't true* for them, and
if someone insists it must be true for them then *he* is wrong.

-- 
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

On 05/27/2015 05:20 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> Tangential to some of the recent discussions I wish to point out that
> the defintion of right and wrong is subjective and indeed changes
> through history.

No, it isn't and it doesn't.  That the majority of people in the course
of history have been wrong is no chiddush; the majority of people *today*
are wrong.  Truth isn't determined by democracy.


-- 
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

On 05/27/2015 06:47 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> How does that work? You have three points in Chazaras HaShatz in which to
> blow. How do you do less than 10*each*?

Tashrat for Malchiyos, Tashat for Zichronos, and Tarat for Shofros.

-- 
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.)