Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 144

Fri, 13 Nov 2015

• 1. Re: Restricting a broadcast (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Changing Nusach heTefilah (Simon Montagu)
• 4. Re: Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: chu'l duchening (Isaac Balbin)
• 6. You can't just change accepted practice (Micha Berger)
• 7. Changing Nusach HaTefila (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Name and Reputation (Akiva Miller)
• 9. Re: Name and Reputation (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Name and Reputation (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Name and Reputation (Akiva Miller)
• 12. Changing Nusach heTefilah (Michael Poppers)
• 13. Re: Name and Reputation (Zev Sero)
• 14. truth (Eli Turkel)
• 15. Re: truth (Zev Sero)

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 04:41:19AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
: My question is in a case like this, where a rav is broadcasting on
: two public radio stations, does he have the right to restrict a
: third? ...

We discussed in the past (including last Aug) various models of how to
relate halahah to copyright.
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n113.shtml#11

Going down the list, assuming the validity of each shitah in turn (to
see arguments for or against would require going to that link and the
consequent thread):

1- Dina demalkhusa -- it would depend on Israeli law.

2- The Sho'el uMeishiv would give an answer similar to the DDD answer,
except htat since he feels the halakhah is about being at least as
moral as general society rather than following the specifics of the law,
it would also include all of halachic baalus.

3- Is this a source of parnasah? If the third station meant that
ROY wouldn't get the same royalties, eg if it hurt sales of recordings,
hasagas gevul arguments might hold.

4-6- Can't see how it's geneivah, hezeq or chilul hasheim

7- R Asher Weiss's "chamas" argument is much like hezeq, I can't
see applicability.

Notice that the SuM's position ties into another of our discussions.

I'll post it next.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Jan 01, 1970 at 12:00:00AM +0000, Zev Sero wrote:
: On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger [indirectly quoted a translation
of the Dor Revi'i]:
:>   I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is
:>   forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because
:>   of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms
:>   of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy
:>   nation;

: Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special?
: If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the
: Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages..

I just mentioned in the previous post the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44 on
copyright. To quote my summary from v7n58, when it was fresher in
my mind:

> The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral
> obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it
> is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership
> of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal
> (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights
> are lehalachah also eternal. 

> Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for
> that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a
> halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos
> of copyright.

RZS's question would be equally applicable.

But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express
a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral"
that "contradicts the Torah."

Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not
mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has
its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it
*contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether.

Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the
opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"?

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

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> The AhS prefers the Sfrard
> Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i"
> continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh
> (the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq.


He thinks the Sephardi nusah is cool ("ma tov uma yafe"). He doesn't
suggest that anybody else should adopt it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151111/9e9c54d4/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/11/2015 12:03 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral
>>obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment

Where did the SuM get this idea?  Secular society never saw anything of
the sort.   All it ever saw was the *practical advantage* of protecting
an author's creation.  And it did *not* protect a publisher's investment.


> But I would think the distinction is obvious -- whether they express
> a moral imperative we don't vs whether they call something "moral"
> that "contradicts the Torah."

Any claim that some moral imperative exists that the Torah does not
mention or seem to hold is by definition a contradiction to the Torah.


> Halakhah does a lot to limit the execesses of slavery, it does not
> mandate slavery. (Except when it comes to freeing aku"m, but that has
> its own ulterior value issue.) One cannot really assert that it
> *contradicts* Torah values to ban slavery altogether.

Of course it does.   The Torah expresses no moral problem at all with
slavery, and current Western opinion does.  Thus it claims that the
Torah's system of values is ch"v defective.   It's the same problem
as being vegetarian because one thinks it wrong to kill animals (rather
than because one thinks meat is unhealthy, or because of personal
squeamishness, etc.); it's an open challenge to the Torah, and thus
not allowed.


> Or, for that matter, to ban polygyny. Did Rabbeinu Gershom bow to the
> opinion of "savages" in ending the instituion that created "tzaros"?

No, because his takana had nothing to do with the "morals" of the
undoubted savages among whom he lived (and even in his day nobody
considered them "enlightened").   It also wasn't on any kind of moral
grounds; he never claimed that having one wife was morally better than
having two, just more peaceful.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

I read a Teshuva from R Hershel Schachter where he wrote that TODAY a
Mechalel Shabbos Befarhesya who happens to be a Cohen has a CHIYUV to
Duchen. His arguments are cogent and I followed them in encouraging post
holocaust Cohanim who had not duchened in 50 years because they 'knew' they
shouldn't since they were public Shabbos profaners and had been brought up
that way.

I used to travel to Bombay many times a year (and was a close friend of R' Gavriel and Rivki Holtzberg HY'D)

The Shule was an Iraqi based Shule and they duchened on Shabbos. They had
no Cohanim (or Leviim) unless someone visiting was in attendance. When it
came to layning, and they asked me the first time if I was a Cohen I was
not about to lie or pretend I wasn't a Cohen Muchzak.

Henceforth, they used to call me 'the Cohen' because it was a matter of
such excitement for them to have a Cohen and duchaning (I even wailed in a
similar manner to the Chazan in time)

The suggestion of walking out could make me seem like a consistent Baal Keri or Baal Moom and I felt very uncomfortable with a charade of sheker.

Just last week, I went to an aufruf in a Sephardi Shule in Melbourne. I had
never been there and I must say I didn't even think that they duchened/or
about it (in reality I was lost in thoughts of Bombay and felt much emotion
given the murders of the Holtzbergs by Muslim terrorists).

When it came to duchening I went robotically to have my hands washed as I
did in Bombay. I must say I wasn't thinking it was forbidden for me to give
brachos in the Minhag hamakom (Melbourne has no Melbourne Minhag ... It is
whatever refugees brought with them upon settling therein)
I daven Nusach Sfard and it was quite similar to their mangled Nusach Eydot Hamizrach because they were a cornucopia of Egyptians, Italians, Iraqis etc

I'm now inclined to ask Mori VRabbi Rav Schachter (who is in Israel at the minute) what my hanhogo should be

Isaac Balbin

I thought this would be an interesting topic to collect sources for.

1- The best known case is probably the Rambam on counting years toward
shemitah. In Shemitah veYovel 10:2-4 the Rambam calculates when shemitah
would fall out, and he gets that churban bayis sheini would have been
mota'ei shevi'is. Although in hal' 5 he notes that the ge'onim has a
tradition that they didn't count yovel during galus Bavel nor after
chuban sheini "zeh shehu qabalah".

The Rambam says that lehalakhah, accepted practice trumps sevarah.

2- The case I encountered a couple of weeks back in AhS Yomi was YD 61:53.
The gemara establishes that the accepted pesaq in their day was to give
the matenos kehunah from each animal even in Bavel (see Shabbos 10b
and Rashi sham). The AhS says that even so, we see around us that we do
not hold by that pesaq, and we can continue not to give matenos kehunah
from animals shechted in chu"l -- keneged the gemara! (But if you do,
lo michzei keuhara.)

Presumably this is because the gemara's conclusion was itself based on
what was nahug.

But in both cases, mimeticism trumped textualism. (Insert here diatribe
about mesorah and preserving the momentum of halachic development.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

At 11:29 AM 11/11/2015, R. Micha wrote:
>There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks
>about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz,
>since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening
>Ashkenaz and switched.

I believe Rav Moshe held that while one could switch from Sefard to 
Nusach Ashkenaz,  one could not switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151111/9b56ca5b/attachment-0001.htm>

from R' Micha Berger, in the thread "Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem":

> And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible?
> His name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes.
> But the Creator Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H"
> to make it the kinui "Hashem" is theologically problematic.)

I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for
research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled
heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think,
though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better.

Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect
this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own, like the
second shin in "shaloshudis", or the missing comma in "Hakadoshboruchu".
And, very relevant to this thread, the vowel of "HaSheim" becoming "HaShem".

(By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening
where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it
actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't
think either could be twisted into "the Reputation". Coincidentally or not,
both are in the Avodah section of Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana
Hasheim! - And so he'd say, Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es
HaSheim - he would aim to complete The Name".)

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151111/9482e444/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 08:12:14PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: I don't have an answer, but I can suggest a possible direction for
: research: When this chillul is discussed by the poskim, it it spelled
: heh-apostrophe, or heh-shin-mem? The former is near universal, I think,
: though the latter would fit RMB's explanation better.

Historically, the phrase "chilul hasheim" is older (Tosefta, Y-mi and shas)
than the notion of calling the Aibishter "Hashem".

: Any linguists around? I think RMB is on the button logically, but I suspect
: this an example of where a phrase takes on a life of its own...

Idiomatic expression.

: (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in davening
: where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In one place it
: actually means "the Name", and in the other it means "G-d", and I don't
: think either could be twisted into "the Reputation".....

"Sheim" means reputation in "to sheim mishemen tov", no?

Or in Avos, "qanah seim tov"(2:7), "keser sheim tov" (4:13).

And it fits here; when a TC behaves in a way that would make people think
less of Torah (eg dress like a slob) he diminishes Hashem's reputation,
not the proper noun we call Him by.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter

On 11/11/2015 08:12 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> (By the way, perhaps this is a good place to mention two places in
> davening where we actually say "Hasheim", spelled heh-shin-mem. In
> one place it actually means "the Name", and in the other it means
> "G-d", and I don't think either could be twisted into "the
> Reputation". Coincidentally or not, both are in the Avodah section of
> Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And so he'd say,
> Please G-d!", and "haya miskavein ligmor es HaSheim - he would aim to
> complete The Name".)


Actually in both places it means The Name.  He didn't actually say "Ana
haSheim"; what he said was "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual
Name that only he could say.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

I referred to:
> Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And
> so he'd say, Please G-d!"

But R' Zev Sero explained it better:

> He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was
> "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that
> only he could say.

Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem.

Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any other
cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the Shem Adnus?

And why davka *here*? If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even
more appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk
"...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"? I anticipate that some might answer "because
it's a pasuk", but that merely highlights the fact that we are so
habituated to the Shem Adnus that we forget that it is itself a replacement
for the Real Name. So if we must replace the Real Name with something (and
indeed we must because we are not the Kohen Gadol), wouldn't this be a
great place to use the "$haSheim" replacement instead of the more common
Adnus replacement?

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151112/2b2d0c62/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah V33n143, R'Micha asked:
> Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above,
and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari? <
I suspect R'Micha was asking in a semi-rhetorical fashion while implying,
via what he wrote before asking that Q, that the answer is no.  Regardless,
my 1st thought is that the answer should be "it depends".  Sometimes, as
when the #words in the given stanza is considered key to a deeper
understanding and/or *kavvannah*, e.g. the section which immediately
follows *q'riyas Shma* in Shacharis [100 words through "zulasecha"], a
seemingly-minor change is significant, perhaps as significant as the order
of *p'suqei d'zimra*; sometimes, when we're all still basically "on the
same page", e.g. the differing *nuscha'os* in *bircas haminim* or whether
the last *b'rachah* in the Amidah for Shabbos Minchah is "Sim Shalom" or
"Shalom Rav", I would suggest the change is not the same as a "wholesale
change in nusach".

P.S. Dare I introduce using a "daka"-*aleph* vs. a "daka"-*heih* *seifer
Torah* into the conversation?

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/20151112/2cc9094f/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/12/2015 07:56 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> I referred to:
>  > Yom Kippur Musaf: "V'kach hayah omer: Ana Hasheim! - And
>  > so he'd say, Please G-d!"
>
> But R' Zev Sero explained it better:
>
>  > He didn't actually say "Ana haSheim"; what he said was
>  > "ana $haSheim", where $haSheim is the actual Name that
>  > only he could say.
>
> Yet WE pronounce it heh-shin-mem.

Because we are referring to what he actually said.  He said "Please
[insert Name here] ...  please, by [insert Name here] ...".   The point
of that paragraph in the machzor is to highlight that he used the Sheim.


> Which brings up a whole bunch of further questions. Are there any
> other cases in our entire liturgy where we use HaSheim instead of the
> Shem Adnus?

But this *isn't* instead of Sheim Adnus.  It's literally a reference to
the Shem Hameforash.  Perhaps nother example is "..bayom hahu yihyeh
A-Y echad USHEMO echad".  Or, in the RH machzor, "Shevach migdol oz
SHEM HAGADOL".

> If we are re-enacting the Avodah, wouldn't it be even more
> appropriate when citing the Kohen Gadol's recital of the pasuk
> "...lifei HaSheim tit'haru"?

I do wonder that, and also why the description of what happened at
that moment, before the KG finished the pasuk, is not a hefsek in
the pasuk itself.  Especially since the chazanim developed a tradition
of extending this interpolation with a long tune.  Why not finish the
pasuk first, and then describe what would happen while the KG was saying
it?


-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov)
Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's
strength

convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try
and make a deal under normal circumstances

Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems
to make matters worse then better)

Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share
Running away from Lavan without telling him

Note that any one instance can be always explained however there appears a
pattern.

One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time.

However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav he
indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as meaning in the
days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain meaning of the words.
Again we have a case later where need to explain away Yaakov's words

Looking for help


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151113/5780b333/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/13/2015 05:25 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> Yaakov is the epitomy of truth (titen emet le-yaakov)
> Nevertheless from the parsha it would seem that is far from yaakov's strength
>
> convincing Esav to sell the birthright when he is starving and not just try and make a deal under normal circumstances

How is that less than complete truth?


> Deceiving his father that he is Esav (Rashi splitting Yaakov's words seems to make matters worse then better)

This was indeed contrary to his nature, which is why it was such a
challenge, just as Avraham was challenged with going contrary to his
nature of chessed.  The brachos had to be obtained indirectly, just as
David Hamelech had to be born in dubious circumstances, in order to
forestall the opposition that would try to prevent it.



> Yaakov's dealing with Lavan and working to increase his share
> Running away from Lavan without telling him

Again, where is the lack of truth in either case?  Yaacov dealt
with more than complete honesty with Lavan.  It was Lavan who kept
changing their deal every time he saw that Yaacov was doing OK with
the last one.  Why would you expect anyone *not* to do whatever he
can to profit by whatever deal he has?  And why should Yaacov have
told Lavan that he was escaping?   That would have been very stupid
of him.


> Note that any one instance can be always explained however there
> appears a pattern.

Where's the pattern?  The only incident of deceit was with the brachos,
and even there, as Rashi explains, he stuck as close to the truth as
he could, and let Yitzchak's expectations shape what he thought he heard.


> One answer I saw was that Yaakov improved over time.
>
> However, I find trouble with that also when Yaakov finally meets Esav
> he indicates that he will come to Edom which Rashi explains as
> meaning in the days of the Moshiach. Doesnt seem to be the plain
> meaning of the words. Again we have a case later where need to
> explain away Yaakov's words

Where's the falsehood?   He said he would get there eventually, and so
he will, eventually.  Was he supposed to volunteer that he was not about
to walk his family into a crocodile's mouth?!


-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".


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



_______________________________________________
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.)