Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 1

Fri, 01 Jan 2016

• 1. Re: Asara B'Tevet (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: difficult to perform Mitzvos (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Calling up for Aliyah, Hagbah (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Asara B'Tevet (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Asara B'Tevet (Akiva Miller)
• 6. tinok shenishba (H Lampel)
• 7. Re: Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) (David Riceman)
• 8. kosher marijuana (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: kosher marijuana (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: kosher marijuana (Saul Guberman)
• 11. Re: Anthropic Principle (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: kosher marijuana (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: kosher marijuana (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Anthropic Principle (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: kosher marijuana (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) (David Riceman)
• 17. ?poteach et yadecha? (Rich, Joel)

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 05:00:11PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: No, that's the exact opposite of what I've been saying.  My point is
: precisely that it's *agadah*, and the BY brings it for its aggadic
: value, not because it's a serious shita in halacha.  And perhaps that
: even the Avudraham didn't really mean it as a serious shita in halacha,
: but only proposed it because he knew it was impossible, and made an
: interesting point with aggadic implications.

Yes, whereas I am saying that

1- The BY does NOT quote idea just for aggadita.
and
2- Ideas that don't work halachically have no real aggadic implications.
   Otherwise, the halakhah would be in sync with the aggadita.

I discussed that there is an ambiguity whether the idea has to "work"
in terms of being a real shitah or "work" in terms of being the pesaq
we follow. Or IOW, I can't figure out when someone would see a shitah
we do not follow and say "the fact we can even suggest pesaq X is because
of aggadic idea Y", and when they would say "the fact that we reject
pesaq X reflects the fact that we do not believe Y".

But to say that we believe Y because of an X that cannot even be called
a shitah??? How does such a "fun idea to play around with" prove anything?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
mi...@aishdas.org        how can he appreciate the worth of another?
http://www.aishdas.org             - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 08:24:14AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
: is there any conflict between  - according to the pain/trouble is the
: reward on the one hand
: and on the other hand
: Gd concealed the value of Mitzvos so that they would all be performed with
: equal enthusiasm

From http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/66346/1570 (a self-quote):

    R. Chaim Vilozhiner (Derech Hachaim 1:21) writes that each sin causes
    a flaw in your soul. The punishment that is the consequence of this
    flaw heals it. The Derekh Hashem similarly (1:4:5) "sin detracts from
    one's perfection". The Michtav Me'Eliyahu explains the expression
    "Aveira goreres aveira" by saying that after repeatedly doing a given
    sin, it becomes part of one's nature, so that no conscious decision
    is required next time the situation arises.

    Yishmael was repaid in terms of "ba'asher hu sham -- as he was there".
    The way your soul stands at that moment is the direct cause of reward
    or punishment. Notice that this implies a major statement. We are not
    judged for what we did, we pay the consequences for who we are. As
    the midrash states, one of the first three questions the A-lmighty
    will ask as part of the final judgment is, "Why did you not fulfill
    your potential?" Man is judged based upon the gap between reality
    and potential. Mitzvos were given as vehicles for closing this gap.

    The reward of a mitzvah therefore cannot be measured by the type of
    mitzvah, its outcome in this world -- such as whether the recipient
    received $1 or matching funds brought it up to $2, or pretty much any
    other criterion human beings can get a handle on. Or as the mishnah
    puts it, "be [as] aware of a "light" mitzvah as with a weighty one,
    for you don't know the reward for [each of the] mitzvos." (Avos 2:1)

--> Which forces us to conclude that even "according to the pain so is
    the reward" (Avos 5:25) is a derivative idea. (Or else we would know
    which mitzvah is greater, constradicting the other mitzvah; but also
    the verse about Yismael forces this conclusion.) The greater the
    effort and sacrifice, the bigger the change in "ba'asher hu sham --
    as you are there", when being judged.

    Human justice operates very differently, though. We cannot know
    the content of a mind or a soul, even our own, well enough to judge
    it. A court instead does judge the deed.

--> For the same reason, we "don't know the reward for [each of the]
    mitzvos". Your question is unanswerable.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 06:57:47PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: In doing some research I found that there are variant practices as
: to using actual names for calling up to theTorah and for hagbah/glilah.

Interesting. I thought the iqar ha minhag was to use names, but tirkha
detzibura allowed cutting corners and not making the gabbai obtain them.
(Kind of like the Simchas Torah "Mi shebeirakh es ha'avos..." being a
fake coinage that TdZ allowed.)

More info?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 12/29/2015 05:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But to say that we believe Y because of an X that cannot even be called
> a shitah??? How does such a "fun idea to play around with" prove anything?

Because it's a svara; the language in Yechezkel is suggestive, it leads
us to think along this path, even if it's not something we would ever
consider paskening lema`aseh.

-- 
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".

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> I don't see it, because the BY doesn't quote "fascinating ideas";
> this is a work about how to reach halakhah lema'aseh.

R' Zev Sero responded:

> If the BY confined himself to opinions that are relevant to
> halacha lemaaseh then why would he quote an opinion that is
> guaranteed *not* to be lema'aseh, even if he agreed with it
> completely? Clearly he didn't quote it for any practical purpose,
> so why did he, especially when, as you say, he often doesn't
> bother to quote the Abudraham's psakim that *are* lema`aseh? I
> think it's because, like all of us, he was fascinated by it, and
> since it was "safe" he felt justified in introducing it to his
> readers.

Chazal are not a comic book intended for our entertainment.

I find it offensive, the idea that the Avudraham would mention something
merely because it is "safe to have fun with".

Most crucially, I disagree with the premise that this opinion is
"guaranteed *not* to be lema'aseh". True, it isn't l'maaseh here and now,
but Who knows about tomorrow?

Do I really need to elaborate on this? Aren't there MANY areas of halacha
where a posek writes, "Such a situation could never happen, but if it did,
the halacha would be sucn and such." Halacha is built on theoretical rules,
which are then given a practical application. I don't see why the case of
10 Teves on Shabbos must be excluded from that.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151229/d47f59f4/attachment-0001.htm>

On 12/29/2015 5:42 PM, via Avodah wrote:
> a list member included a remark that 'the
> tinok shenishba excuse is wearing thin' [in regard to hiloni behaviour
> in the Holy Land]...
> that given the various forms of electronic media, it is impossible to
> have an excuse not to know the Truth, and drew conclusions from that fact.
The Rambam (Mamrim 3:1-3) teaches that merely being exposed to the truth 
does not remove the ''tinok shenishba'' status from those who were 
raised in other belief systems:

    However, this is speaking solely of those who ... initiate such
    denial, such as Tsadok and Bysoos. But the children and
    grandchildren of these kinds of men, who were misled by their
    fathers, that is, those who were born into and bred by the Karaites,
    are like people who while still young had been taken into captivity
    and raised in another religion. Such captives are not quick to take
    hold of the mitzvos, for their situation is prac?tically beyond
    their control: Even if they later hear that they are Jewish and are
    exposed to Jews and Judaism, they still are consi?dered people who
    practice another religion only by force, since they were raised and
    educated erroneously. The same is true with those who keep the ways
    of their erroneous Karaite fathers.

Zvi Lampel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151229/d549c6e6/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB:

<<Doesn't it have to be because HQBH gave us the system?
Othewise, why does the Tanur shel Akhnai story end with Him laughing 
"nitzchuni banai"?>>

Look at the Sidrei Tohoros ad. loc. (Keilim 5:10):

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20463&;st=&pgnum=191

He posits a mahlokes rishonim about whether this is a mahlokes about (1) 
whether hakol holech ahar hama'amid is a din d'orayysa which applies 
l'kula and l'humra, or a din d'rabbanan which applies only l'kula, or 
(2) whether the oven still has the status of a broken kli, i.e., what is 
customary usage of ovens.

The ST prefers reading (2).  According to reading (1) God thinks that 
this is a din d'rabbanan, but he acknowledges that the Rabbis have the 
authority to construe it to be a din d'oraysa.  I think the gemara in BM 
needs more elaboration according to this.  It stretches the concept of 
d'oraysa very far.  Perhaps RMB can elaborate.

According to reading (2) whether something is an oven is determined, not 
by Platonic ideals of an oven, but by prevalent human behavior. The 
Rambam in several places in H. Mamrim perek 2 (see especially 2:7) talks 
about BD observing what people do, but I'm not aware of anyone who 
suggests a methodology for this.  Could it be that R. Eliezer's opinion 
reflected local practice in his home town and Hachamim were trying to 
normalize practice everywhere? In that case "nitzhuni banai" could mean 
that their methodology gave them the wrong answer about how many people 
connected oven pieces with sand, but they nonetheless had the authority 
to enforce their mistaken result.

RMB:

<<And why would decisions about what would work override actual 
miraculous evidence? I am developing the theory that the reason for "lo 
bashamayim hi" is because "befikha uvilvakha la'asoso". That just as all 
of Torah is an elaboration of "mah desani lakh, lekhaverkha lo sa'avod" 
to an extent beyond a human's ability to work out, the same is true in 
the converse. Halakhah cannot be decided in shamayim, detached from a 
heart that has a natural moral calling.>>

To some extent this is what the Ran argues in the passage I cited in a 
previous email.  But "natural moral calling" is too constraining. One 
can make a plausible argument that dinei tumah and taharah have a moral 
dimension, but can one make such an argument about the construction of 
break-down ovens?

I'm hoping to write one more email about my own opinion on this topic.

David Riceman

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/O-U-certified-Koshe
r-marijuana-to-hit-shelves-next-month-438911

why does marijuana need a hechsher?

In cigarette form it should be no different than tobacco cigarettes (do
they have a hechsher?)

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151231/8318e529/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 05:16:49PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: why does marijuana need a hechsher?

Beyond marketing, I can't imaging why it would. There is industry price
involved to selling something other than pure product in the *legal*
marijuana industry.

: In cigarette form it should be no different than tobacco cigarettes (do
: they have a hechsher?)

Mentholated cigarettes pose a more plausible kashrus issue. Once it's
more than shredded tobacco leaves, why wouldn't it need as hekhsher?

Since smoking is the normal means of ingesture, it is derekh akhilah.

Vaping is generally the inhaling of a liquid that is mostly VG/PG,
which in turn can be made from animal fat. (One actually carries a cRc.)

Rumor has it that R Meir Serota of the Edah said that they're all poisons
akashrus is a non-issue. If he meant that seriously (and the rumor is
even true) -- chamira saanta mei'isura.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Problems are not stop signs,
mi...@aishdas.org        they are guidelines.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Robert H. Schuller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I don't think they are dealing with cigarettes.  They are dealing with
consumption.  They will check for bugs on the leaves.  You don't want to
eat bugs in your brownies.  Also the OU stated that giving the hechsher
will allow people to realize that this is a legitimate treatment and not
something that is against halacha.


On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 05:16:49PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> : why does marijuana need a hechsher?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151231/9dd7625e/attachment-0001.htm>

The more philosophical rishonim had a problm with miracles that defy
nature. I don't mean the Ralbag's extreme position, but even the Ramban
and Seforno both deal with the question of how the need for such things
do not represents flows in Hashem's initial design. Wouldn't a Perfect
Creator make a system that doesn't need the occasional tweaking?

This is what drives statements like the Ramban's that miracles were
"written in" from that beginning. IOW, that His Design is that liquids
seek the lowest point except for on 22 Nissan 2448 and again around 40
years later, etc...

(LAD, since the only difference is when the One Who is lemaalah min
hazeman is scene asmaking one decision, I don't see an real chiluq --
just how we time-bound beings model something we don't really understand.)

What is interesting about the way these rishonim relate to nature
vs miracle is that it's pretty much the reverse of a God of the
Gaps. (Invoking God only to explain away the gaps in our knowledge,
the way ou figuring out lightning as electricity caused by the rain
eliminates the need for Thor.)

Instead, Hashem is more connected to the very existence of nature. The
more we learn of science, the more we learn of His Genius. More G-dliness,
not less. The very existence of any laws of nature is itself indication
of Design, and then in addition, the actual content of those laws being
such that accomodate sentient life.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The greatest discovery of all time is that
mi...@aishdas.org        a person can change their future
http://www.aishdas.org   by merely changing their attitude.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Oprah Winfrey

On 12/31/2015 10:16 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:

>
> why does marijuana need a hechsher?

The marijuana doesn't.  The products it's in do.

> In cigarette form it should be no different than tobacco cigarettes (do
> they have a hechsher?)

Who said anything about cigarettes?  Read the article again.  Unflavoured
cigarettes don't need a hechsher, and the OU is not planning to give them
one.


On 12/31/2015 01:03 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Mentholated cigarettes pose a more plausible kashrus issue. Once it's
> more than shredded tobacco leaves, why wouldn't it need as hekhsher?
> Since smoking is the normal means of ingesture, it is derekh akhilah.

How is it achilah at all?  Reicha lav milsa.

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

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 01:23:35PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: How is it achilah at all?  Reicha lav milsa.

Well, not everyone says it's derech achilah, but I believe RSZA does
(Minchas Shelomo vol II #10) when he permits smoking on YT a cigarette
that has a text printed on it. He gies a few arguments, this is part
of a few of them -- he reduces the issur and then says and since it's
okel nefesh, it's mutar.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 12/31/2015 01:34 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> The more philosophical rishonim had a problm with miracles that defy
> nature. I don't mean the Ralbag's extreme position, but even the Ramban
> and Seforno both deal with the question of how the need for such things
> do not represents flows in Hashem's initial design. Wouldn't a Perfect
> Creator make a system that doesn't need the occasional tweaking?

Why not just say that there isn't any flaw, but Hashgacha is a different
system than nature?    I've been reading a lot of Malbim lately, and
he's heavily into that worldview.  For instance I've just been reading
him on Yonah, and he says that they did teshuvah only for stealing but
not for AZ, so Hashem cancelled the miraculous punishment He had planned
for them, and instead left them to the forces of nature that they
worshipped.  Had there been a natural disaster in the offing, He would
have let them die, but since there wasn't one they were safe.  Had they
done proper teshuvah He would have protected them even from that.

-- 
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".

On 12/31/2015 02:20 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 01:23:35PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> : How is it achilah at all?  Reicha lav milsa.

> Well, not everyone says it's derech achilah, but I believe RSZA does
> (Minchas Shelomo vol II #10) when he permits smoking on YT a cigarette
> that has a text printed on it. He gies a few arguments, this is part
> of a few of them -- he reduces the issur and then says and since it's
> okel nefesh, it's mutar.


"Ochel nefesh", for yomtov purposes, doesn't mean "achilah", it means
"hana'as haguf", and includes rechitza and sicha.  "Lechol nefesh"
comes to include all needs of the body.  Smoking is clearly a hana'as
haguf, but it simply isn't achila, just as sicha is not achila even if
it's the derech of 100% of people.


-- 
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".

One final post on RJR's implicit question.

Halachists think in rubrics but vote in case law.  I cited the din that 
each member of the court must have a unique source to convict someone of 
a capital crime.

What has this to do with precedent? The precedents we have are described 
as case law.  When I was in yeshiva it bothered me that Sha'arei Tshuva 
often summarizes responsa without even mentioning their reasoning.  Now 
I think that was deliberate.

Now there are certainly a lot of opinions about how binding precedent 
is.  But even someone who finds it strongly binding has lots of wiggle 
room for two reasons: (1) any one physical behavior may have many 
halachic descriptions, and (2) the precedents are open to many halachic 
descriptions.

Here's one example.  RMF, in the introduction to IM, says that he hopes 
the book will be studied for its reasoning rather than for its 
conclusions.  Yet that doesn't seem to be what happened.  His ruling on 
mehitza is based on the claim that one may not have mixed groups of men 
and women in public.  But my town has street fairs several times a 
year.  We have lots of people here more haredi than me, but I've never 
heard anyone try to make the case that we need a mehitza for a street 
fair, or try to avoid the fair.  RMF's ruling is taken as a precedent in 
case law, not a precedent in reasoning.

One of the recurring themes in Tosafos is that minority opinions in 
Hazal are never discarded.  The rubrics are always viable.  The question 
is whether there's another way to construe any particular precedent so 
it doesn't contradict the current case.

So the dual system - - think in rubrics, rule on cases - - is a feature, 
not a bug.  It enables a complex mix of precedent and hidush.

David Riceman

The S?A points out that one must say the verse ?poteach et yadecha? with
specific intent, yet the commentaries disagree as to whose ?ratzon? the
verse refers. So what do you have in mind?
KT
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/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20160101/7b048cfa/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.)