Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 153

Tue, 01 Dec 2015

• 1. Re: A Simple Yes or No Question (Micha Berger)
• 2. Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Re: Ahab ()
• 4. Re: A Simple Yes or No Question (Lisa Liel)
• 5. Re: Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Ahab (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah (Ben Waxman)
• 8. Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey (Micha Berger)
• 10. A Parable on Redemption (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Re: Rav P. M. Teitz Did Eat Turkey (Micha Berger)
• 12. maaseh avot siman lebanim (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: Ahab (Ilana Elzufon)
• 14. Re: Ahab (Ilana Elzufon)
• 15. Re: Ahab (Ben Waxman)

I want to bring a totally different model to the discussion -- violating
Shabbos for piquach nefesh, and huterah vs dechuyah.

If you hold huterah, then it would seem that violating one command for
the sake of a higher value is not a sin.

If you hold dechuyah, then it would seem it is a sin, but the right
choice because enough more is gained to make it worth incurring the
damage caused by the sin.


On a different note, wasn't the Aqeidah a test that could only be passed
if Avraham would violate one of the 7 mitzvos? I realize the concept of
hora'as sha'ah (nevu'ah can temporarily override tzivui in a way other
texts can't) complicates things, but maybe someone analyzing the aqeidah
says something of use along the way.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

At 12:07 PM 11/27/2015, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:

>On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
>: 
>http://attemptsatjewishtho
>ught.com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orth
>odox-clergy
>:
>...
>: Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of
>: Orthodox Jews eat turkey.  How? Because Rabbinic leadership is
>: entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and
>: innovation...

I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. 
Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav  Yaakov Kamenetsky. 
I  am  sure  there  are ohers.

YL

 
From: Ben Waxman via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ahab


The  Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. 
Itzhiq had  to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed 
nations. OTOH,  Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no 
problem marrying  non-family.

Ben

 
 
 
>>>>
 
 
Where do you see that Yakov married "non-family"?  Bilhah and Zilpah  were 
family -- they were half-sisters to Rochel and Leah.  Yes their  mother[s] 
were pilagshim but very likely also family.
 
Until the Torah was given on Sinai the Avos were not obligated to keep it  
-- which is why Yakov could marry two sisters, and Amram could marry his  
aunt.  However, for the most part they did keep the Torah even before it  was 
given. Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what?   To 
monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to Judaism,  which 
didn't formally exist until the Torah was given.  At that point,  every 
single Hebrew converted!
 

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


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


 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151127/bfe77b86/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/27/2015 6:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
>>> =======================================
>>> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif
>>> because a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"? 
>>> What about one who has Tourette's and continually curses?
>> No, and no.  In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun
>> is put to their head is *obligated* to do so.	One who has
>> Tourettes would presumably have a din of oness.
>>
>> Lisa
>>

> Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure
> determinist would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime
> should be considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes. 
> Society may need to protect themselves but the offender is not to be
> blamed for his actions.

I think that sort of determinism is inherently silly.  I make my own 
choices, as do they.  I realize that there are people who abuse language 
in this way, but I think the reality is clear.  *Only* if a person is 
literally unable to avoid an action can the action be considered 
entirely involuntary.  People often say "I had no choice".  But a bad 
choice is still a choice.  If I'm hanging by my fingers from the edge of 
a tall building, fighting to hang on is my *choice*.  Even though the 
alternative is certain death, it's still my choice.

> Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics
> and other forms of mental illness,    homosexuals etc. are all oness
> to the extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies.

In some of those cases, people literally have no control over their 
actions.  While I obviously object to the implication that homosexuality 
is a mental illness, I also think the only place where oness can 
possibly enter into the issue is a situation where a gay man literally 
*cannot* function sexually with a woman.  In such a case, I'd say that 
oness would exempt them from marrying a woman, but it wouldn't create a 
heter for anything else.  That said, oness isn't the only mechanism 
involved here.  Halakha does recognize the idea of psychological harm.

Lisa

On 11/27/2015 09:36 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long
> enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining.
> Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era.

What is your source that women weren't *allowed* in shul?  AFAIK there
was no prohibition, it just wasn't customary for them to go, just as
even today in many/most communities few women come to shul on Friday
night, and even fewer for Mincha on Shabbos.

Also what is your source that the mechitza is geonic?  AFAIK the
phenomenon of substantial numbers of women regularly attending the
men's shul (rather than a separate women's shul), and thus the need
for a mechitzah, dates to the late middle ages.


On 11/27/2015 12:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M.
> Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky. I am sure there are
> ohers.

Male-line descendants of the Shalah don't eat turkey.   Also some
female-line descendants, because their mothers never learned how to
cook it, so they grew up not eating it, and therefore it isn't in
their usual diet as adults.

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

On 11/26/2015 09:19 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> R'Zev Sero wrote:
>> Surely she did convert. ... And she did accept her
>> new country's god ... But she didn't abandon her
>> old gods. She must have accepted the obligation of
>> mitzvos, including the obligation not to serve avoda
>> zara, and that if she were caught serving AZ she
>> could be executed, but either she intended to break
>> her obligation and expected not to be caught, or she
>> originally intended to abandon her gods but later
>> backslid.

> My understanding is that if one accepts an obligation with intention
> to break it, that does not count as accepting it at all.

> This is not quite the same thing as "I accept the obligation, but I
> don't think I'll be strong enough to do it 100%", which *would* count
> as acceptance. This level must surely be okay, since every ger is
> human, and no human is perfect; there will inevitably be some
> failures, and that doesn't affect the validity of the acceptance.

Actually there's a teshuvah in IM where he addresses precisely such a
case and paskens that the giyur was valid. The woman confessed that in
the mikvah she had the specific intent of committing an avera, because
she didn't have the strength to avoid it, and RMF ruled that all that
matters is that she wholeheartedly accepted the obligation not to do
this avera, and that what she was going to do was wrong.

As I've pointed out before, the language of the gemara (which is cited
verbatim by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch) seems to imply that we
*expect* a ger to do averos. He is not told "Now you can eat chelev and
break shabbos, but if you go through with this you won't be able to";
rather, he is told "Now if you eat chelev you don't earn kares, and if
you break shabbos you don't earn skillah, but if you go through with this
then eating chelev will get you kares and breaking shabbos will get you
skillah". It's as if his *not* doing these things is considered unlikely.


On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote:
> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before?

There was no switch.  It's de'oraisa.

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

If the only people who don't eat turkey are a few gedolim, az mah? 
Gedolim commonly have hakpadot that the rest of us common folks don't 
observe.

Ben

On 11/27/2015 7:30 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
>
> I have been told about two gedolim who did not eat turkey - Rav P. M. 
> Teitz of Elizabeth, NJ and Rav  Yaakov Kamenetsky. I  am  sure there  
> are ohers. 

I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz.  I was
mistaken when I wrote that his father,  Rav. P. M. Teitz,  did not eat turkey.

Rav E. M. Teitz wrote:

My father z"l ate turkey.  My maternal grandmother's family, who are
descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not.

I received that following message from Rav. E. M. Teitz.  I was 
mistaken when I wrote that his father,  Rav. P. M. Teitz,  did not eat turkey.

Rav E. M. Teitz wrote:

My father z"l ate turkey.  My maternal grandmother's family, who are 
descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151129/1394227d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 08:58:45AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: Rav E. M. Teitz wrote:
:> My father z"l ate turkey.  My maternal grandmother's family, who are
:> descended from the ShL"H haKadosh, did not.

R' Dovid Lifshitz didn't eat turkey either. But I do not believe he
held it was iqar hadin, just that he personally saw no need to enter
the sugya.

The Gemara (Chullin 63b) has R Yitzchaq requiring a mesorah for birds.
R Yochana says as long as he knows the requisite species. R' Zeira
asks mesorah from where -- his rebbe in Torah or his teacher in hunting?
R' Yochanan is requoted to show it must be his hunting instructor,
as his rebbe would be less capable of recognizing the species.

Implications about daas Torah noted.

Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid
requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require
mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to.

The Rama (#3) requires mesorah in all cases. Which follows Rashi.

So in short, the question is why Ashkenazim demand a mesorah to confirm
already condirmed simanim. Would relying on Sepharadi acceptance due to
not requiring a pre-existing tradition be sufficient?

The Arugas haBosem (qunterus hateshuvos #16) seems to be saying that we
are relying on Sepharadi testimony that it indeed is not a doreis. After
all, other Jews raised the things for centuries, they'd know.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
mi...@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507

The following is from pages 146 - 148  in Rav Schwab on Chumash.

In the Holy Land, a Jewish state was established by governing officials and
lawmakers who were heretics. flagrantly desecrating the holiness of the Jewish
People. Their laws are the antithesis  of Torah, yet these officials
shamelessly called their medinah, their Jewish state,  the name 
"Israel," appropriating
the holy name "Yisroel." Just as Samael, Yaakov's adversary, called himself
"Yisrael,", the  sacrilege still persists today;  the use of holy 
names to disguise profane
entities is a common subterfuge in the world of sheker."

This is followed by quoting form Rav Schwab's essay A Parable on
Redemption that appeared in the Jewish Observer in March 1974 and is
reproduced in the book Selected Writings.  I have put the entire
essay at

http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/parable_on_redemption.pdf

Even though this essay appeared in 1974 I thing it rings very true today.  YL

In part it says

A secular Jewish State, its remarkable
accomplishments notwithstanding, even with allowances
made for a thriving Torah life, is at its best a Golus
phenomenon. It can be likened to a heavily fortified island
surrounded by a stormy sea of unspeakable hatred, bloody
intrigues and political conspiracies by hundreds of millions
of sworn enemies.

No, the Golus has not even begun to end as long as the
ominous cloud of nuclear self-annihilation hovers over the
human race. The Jewish people is still very deeply caught
within the tragic grasp of the Golus and, by the way, so is all
of mankind. The sovereign Jewish State is the most recent
development of our 2,000 year old Golus history and by no
means the answer to our prayers, let alone the self
contradiction of a secular "Israel" with all its insoluble
problems : Jewish identity (Mihu Yehudi), the religious
educational dilemma, autopsies, conscription of girls,
missionaries, to name but a few.

The horizons of mankind are covered with black
darkness and we still scan the heavens for the first faint
glimmer of dawn.

As far as we are concerned, the first sign that would
initiate the end of Golus would be: the absence of
bloodshed. Imagine, for the first time in 2,000 years no Jews
are killed by Jew-haters! No Jewish blood will be spilled
anymore, once and for all! But instead of the fulfillment of
this basic requirement we face a stark, raving-mad alliance
of sworn enemies busily turning their plowshares into
swords and their scientific know-how into ever deadlier
missiles.

On the other hand, let us spell out some of the true
characteristics of the ultimate Geulah, the promised
redemption we yearn and pray for.

It means the restoration of the Jewish people as a
Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation.

It means the supreme rule of the Divine Torah over Am Yisroel and
Eretz Yisroel.

It means the complete abolishment of all traces of
G-dlessness, heresy and idolatry from the Holy Land.

It means the pacification of mankind and the end of
the reign of violence and terror.

It means the unification of all men in justice and
righteousness, to recognize the G-d of Yisroel as the
Supreme Ruler of all human affairs.

In short, it means: "Hashem shall reign as King over all
the Earth."


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151129/2530abb4/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 3:32pm EST, I wrote:
: Going to the SA YD 82:2-3, the SA only talks about mesorah to avoid
: requiring bediqah, and if the bird had clear simanim, it doesn't require
: mesorah. Thus limiting the case R' Yitzchaq is referring to.

RAZZ corrected me off-list.

The SA does require a mesorah in addition to the simanim (YD 82:2,
citing Rambam Ma'akhalos Asuros 1:14, which lists the birds).

He makes one exception (se'if 3), yeish omerim that any bird that has a
broad beak and a wide foot like a goose and the three simanim is known
not to be a doreis.

To which the Rama says and yeish omerim not, .... vekhein nohagim ve'ein
leshanos.

But the SA's exemption from mesorah is very specific, requiring more
simanim that make it gooselike.

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

We are supposed to learn how to act from the avot.
The problem is that we frequently we have opposite mefarshim on what
happened

I gave one example previously from the story of Chushim and the burial of
Yaakov

Another example is from this past week's parsha: Yaakov meets Esav and
sends him various gifts and finally prostates himself before Yaakov
I have seen 3 approaches to this story
1) We see how far one should go to avoid possible bloodshed
2) Yaakov's bowing down to Esav was wrong and a chillul hashem
3) Yaakov should not have started with contacting Esav perhaps had he gone
straight to Canaan Esav would not have reacted. Why look for trouble

-- 
Eli Turkel

RET: Ahab's children were not Jewish since their mother Jezebel was not
Jewish
>
> and hence certainly not fit to be kings    Nevertheless Tanach indicates
> they were wicked but not that they were illegitimate kings


Izevel's daughter, Atalia, married Yehoram ben Yehoshafat, king of Yehuda.
Atalia was the mother of Achazia and the grandmother of Yoash, both malkhei
Yehuda. My late first husband, R' Moshe Sober z"l, liked to point out that
the entire line of Beit David from that point on depends on the giyur of
Izevel. So apparently, even though she was wicked and an ovedet avodah
zarah, her giyur remained valid.

- Ilana
ilanaso...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151201/10e111f3/attachment-0001.htm>

And of course Atalia herself was at least as wicked as her mother. So one
cannot claim that she realized her mother's giyur was invalid, and
underwent a more kosher giyur herself.

Interestingly, Ahazia's sister, Yehosheva, was a tzadeket. But we don't
know if her mother was Atalia, or if she was Yehoram's daughter by a
different wife.

- Ilana
ilanaso...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151201/a94c6866/attachment-0001.htm>

Whatever Yosef and Moshe did, that wasn't good enough for Yitzhaq and 
Yaacov, who dafka had to marry family. Locals were out.  So my original 
point remains: For at least some of the Avot, it wasn't simply 
patriarchal descent.

Ben

On 11/27/2015 11:07 PM, via Avodah wrote:
> Yosef and Moshe certainly converted their wives, but to what?  To 
> monotheism and to membership in the Abrahamite tribe -- not to 
> Judaism, which didn't formally exist until the Torah was given.  At 
> that point, every single Hebrew converted!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20151201/2d8400d0/attachment.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)