Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 27

Mon, 07 Mar 2016

• 1. tenets of faith (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: Moshiach Ben Yosef (Ben Waxman)
• 3. Halacha Yomis - Raisins & bugs (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: Moshiach Ben Yosef (Isaac Balbin)
• 5. Re: Moshiach Ben Yosef (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Solar oven (D Rubin)
• 7. Re: Moshiach Ben Yosef (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: tenets of the Faith (Micha Berger)
• 9. What to use for karpas (Akiva Miller)
• 10. Re: Moshiach Ben Yosef (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: What to use for karpas (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Moshiach Ben Yosef (Isaac Balbin and Zev Sero)

<<if someone comes to beis din  and  says 'i want to convert to judaism, but
do not  believe in sefirot, gilgulim, klipa etc  ie  kabbalistic principles
  ----  will  he  be accepted ,  or are those fundamental dogma that makes
one not a jew if one doesn't believe in them ? >>

I don't see any problem since many religious Jews would not acceot these
kabbalistic ideas.
I think a harder question would be someone who says he doesnt accept the
Rambam's
tenets of faith pointing to the book of Marc Shapiro of rishonim that
disagreed with each and everyone of the tenets. e.g. the convert says that
G-d has a body based in fact on kabbalistic texts.

Conversely what if the convert says he follows Rambam in areas in which the
Rambam is not accepted today in many circles.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20160304/7df78af2/attachment.html>

Not true, but this is a common fallacy.

The hesped wasn't so much about Herzl at all, it was more about Rav 
Kook's take on the Messianic process. Rav Kook called Herzl's early 
death a "k'ein moto shel Mashiach Ben Yosef".

Rav Kook definitely did not accept at all Herzl's declaration that 
"Zionism has nothing to do with religion" and saw his early death as 
symbolizing the death of this disconnect that Herzl wanted between the 
spiritual and physical redemption.

Ben

On 3/3/2016 6:49 AM, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
>   Rav Kook held that Herzl was Moshiach Ben Yosef, and that
> it didn't need to even be a religious person.

  Do raisins require checking?

OU Kosher


OU Kosher Halacha Yomis
This column is dedicated in memory of:
Rav Chaim Yisroel Belsky, zt'l
Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016)
Q. Do raisins require checking?

A. This shailah was already discussed by the Taz Y.D. 84:12. He 
writes that even when it is common to find infestation in raisins, 
they do not require checking. The reason provided is because it is 
uncommon to find infestation in grapes at the time that they are 
harvested. Infestation that develops occurs primarily in storage. As 
such, when considering the status of raisins, there is what is known 
as a sfek sfeikah, a double doubt: Insects might not be present in 
this batch of raisins, and even if they are, they may be permitted if 
they were never shoretz al ha'aretz, literally "crawl on the ground". 
(Infestation that develops on fruits after they are harvested is not 
forbidden until the insects leave the fruit.) However, if one notices 
that the raisins in question are infested, they may not be eaten, 
since there is no longer a double doubt.

[]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160304/ced8f167/attachment-0001.htm>

On 3 Mar 2016, at 9:54 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> There is very little aggadita in Mishneh Torah. A concept not being in
> the Yad means it is not halakahh, not that it doesn't exist.

> E.g. if he personally believed there would be a MbY but didn't think
> there was any obligation to believe it, nor does his absence weigh
> against accepting a possible MbD as king, the concept could very well
> not make the Yad.


Shimshon is masoretic Nach, surely.

How can that event not play into the scheme of things.

Based on what you say, the fact that the Rambam did NOT say Moshiach
can be from the Meisim, as some Chabadbiks try to argue against, one
should conclude it was merely yet another a throw away line in the Gemora
and the halacha is clear: death is a failed attempt (as is failure to
implement the requirements). Pass the ball onto the next who think they
can achieve it Achishena?

On 03/06/2016 06:25 AM, Isaac Balbin wrote:
> Shimshon is masoretic Nach, surely.
> How can that event not play into the scheme of things.

Why on earth should it?   What has Shimshon got to do with Moshiach?
Shimshon happened.  There is not the slightest hint in halacha that
he had any further significance.


> Based on what you say, the fact that the Rambam did NOT say Moshiach
> can be from the Meisim, as some Chabadbiks try to argue against, one
> should conclude it was merely yet another a throw away line in the
> Gemora and the halacha is clear: death is a failed attempt (as is
> failure to implement the requirements). Pass the ball onto the next
> who think they can achieve it Achishena?

What has this got to do with anything at all?



-- 
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".

Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 21:48:24 +0200
From: Lisa Liel via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

> http://offgridquest.com/survival/go-sun-solar-cooker-brings
> -heats-to-550-

> Are there cases where you could use this on Shabbat?  I assume it's not 
> bishul d'Orayta, so would there be a lower bar for what would have to 
> happen to make it permissible?

Looks like proper toldoth chamoh bishul, so surely not de'oirayso.
It's maybe similar to the machloketh between R. OY and R. SZ about
dud shemesh..
So to work out how deRabonon it is, one would need to know the electrical
workings.. any idea how exactly it works?
looks interesting..

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 01:45:24PM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
: What is the point of the nomenclature B'Chezkas Moshiach. If I've done
: NOTHING, I might come back and then do the job.

There is no "bechazqas moshiach", as a chalos in an of itself; chazaqah
is not a chalos. There is a chazaqah that a man who did X, Y and Z
would be mashiach, and therefore we presume he is, while being aware
it's a presumption.

The presumption is broken when the man fails. The Rambam includes his
being killed as an end of the chazaqah. But the person who did nothing
has no chazaqah to end.

Then you could argue with messianic Lubavitchers whether

1- The Rambam means that death as a whole ends the chazaqah, because
he cannot finish the job any more than Daniel, Chizqiyahu or Shelomo
haMelekh could. There is no way to apply the chazaqah to any given
dead tzadiq who descends from Shelomo over any other, or over a future
candidate. And thus, no presumption holds.

2- The Rambam means being killed in war in particular, since that's
a pretty definite failure in warfare.

Neither of which I think is relevant to discussing RMMS's candidacy,
since he died before having a chance to lead any wars. The chazaqah
never applied to him to begin with. Was he the most likely candidate in
that era? Even if so, he wasn't a military king, and thus not actually
subject to chazaqah.

...
: And what, pray tell, is the significance of this Chazaka? Chazaka has
: a practical upshot.

Yes, while the king is still alive. We give corporal punishment based
on chazaqah; eg what is determining paternity for arayos, meqlalel,
making him bleed, if not reliance on a chazaqah? And so, someone who
fefied a man who was bechezqas mashiach could be found guilty of moreid
bemalkhus and even killed for it!

Zev wrote:
:> Bar Kochva was meant
:> to be the one, and was derailed by sins (the Rambam is ambiguous about
:> whose sins).  So the chazaka isn't just a description of the state of
:> our knowledge, but also refers to the metzius.

That's not what chazaqah means, though. A chazaqah is a kelal in birur,
not an chalos in itself. Why would it suddenly mean something here.

The notion that R' Aqiva not only relied on a chazaqah but also bisyata
diShmaya happened to have been somewhat right -- BK was in the plans to be
mashiach until a later decision undid him -- doesn't change the meaning
of the word "chazaqah".

Last, I must confess I also do not understand what Shimshon has to do
with our discussion. He wasn't from either David or Yoseif, never claimed
to be mashiach, etc... What do you see his leadership as proving or
disproving or even touching on the topic?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Brains to the lazy
mi...@aishdas.org        are like a torch to the blind --
http://www.aishdas.org   a useless burden.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Bechinas haOlam

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 07:44:04AM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
: if someone comes to beis din  and  says 'i want to convert to judaism, but
: do not  believe in sefirot, gilgulim, klipa etc  ie  kabbalistic principles
:   ----  will  he  be accepted ,  or are those fundamental dogma that makes
: one not a jew if one doesn't believe in them ?

I believe that nearly every beis din on the planet requires belief in the
13 iqarim and that the candidate agree that they ought to be performing
every applicable halakhah of the 613 + 7 mitzvos.

Not more, and (pace R/Dr Marc Shapiro) not less.

And even of the 13 iqarim, only in the sense of being able to be within
commonly accepted explanations distance from Yigdal or Ani Maamin, not
strict compliance to the Rambam's formulation. (Which sefiros, partzufim
and gilgulim likely don't. Ironically, a Bal'adei Teimani beith din may
well exclude a candidate who WOULD accept some of the items on your list.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

MB 473:20 says that one may use any species of yerek for karpas, but
lechatchila, one should use a species that has the same bracha as maror.

What sort of yerek is he excluding? What sort of yerek has a bracha other
than haadamah?

I am presuming that green grapes and green tea do not count as "yerek". I
am also presuming that every type of maror is haadamah.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160306/422205ff/attachment-0001.htm>

On 03/06/2016 11:24 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Zev wrote:
> :> Bar Kochva was meant
> :> to be the one, and was derailed by sins (the Rambam is ambiguous about
> :> whose sins).  So the chazaka isn't just a description of the state of
> :> our knowledge, but also refers to the metzius.
>
> That's not what chazaqah means, though. A chazaqah is a kelal in birur,
> not an chalos in itself. Why would it suddenly mean something here.
>
> The notion that R' Aqiva not only relied on a chazaqah but also bisyata
> diShmaya happened to have been somewhat right -- BK was in the plans to be
> mashiach until a later decision undid him -- doesn't change the meaning
> of the word "chazaqah".

Usually chazakah is about a fixed metzius.   This woman is either an
eishes ish or not,  this piece of meat is either kosher or not, and
klapei shmaya galya, but we don't know so we rely on a chazakah.  In
the end we may find out that the chazaka was correct or that it was
incorrect, or we may never find out.  If it's nisbarer that it was
incorrect then we should examine whether perhaps we erred in applying
it, perhaps we missed some factor that should have distinguished it
from the usual case.

But this chazakah is about a moving target; a person may be intended
to be Moshiach, so that the chazakah about him is in fact correct, and
then things may change.  So when Bar Kochva failed it was not nisbarer
that the chazakah was incorrect.  Rather it was correct at the time and
later became incorrect.

I'm not sure of this distinction's significance, because in principle
you are still correct, but it is a distinction that must be considered.


-- 
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 03/06/2016 11:17 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> MB 473:20 says that one may use any species of yerek for karpas, but
> lechatchila, one should use a species that has the same bracha as
> maror. What sort of yerek is he excluding? What sort of yerek has a
> bracha other than haadamah?

If a species is not usually eaten raw it's shehakol, so Lechatchila it
should not be used for karpas.  See the Magen Avraham's discussion about
parsley, which was the minhag in his time and place, and whether raw
parsley is shehakol or ha'adama.

-- 
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".

[Another morning digest of their conversation. -micha]

From: Isaac Balbin <is...@balb.in>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 22:25:59 +1100

On 3 Mar 2016, at 9:54 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> There is very little aggadita in Mishneh Torah. A concept not being in
> the Yad means it is not halakahh, not that it doesn't exist.

> E.g. if he personally believed there would be a MbY but didn't think
> there was any obligation to believe it, nor does his absence weigh
> against accepting a possible MbD as king, the concept could very well
> not make the Yad.


Shimshon is masoretic Nach, surely.

How can that event not play into the scheme of things.

Based on what you say, the fact that the Rambam did NOT say Moshiach
can be from the Meisim, as some Chabadbiks try to argue against, one
should conclude it was merely yet another a throw away line in the Gemora
and the halacha is clear: death is a failed attempt (as is failure to
implement the requirements). Pass the ball onto the next who think they
can achieve it Achishena?



"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
From: Isaac Balbin <isaac.bal...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 13:33:36 +1100

Let me get a few things on the record. Shaul was from Binyamin. He could
have been Moshiach. Which Moshiach Ben Yosef or Ben Dovid?
This is Nach. There is a feeling and writings that Moshiach Ben Yosef is
like the preparator warrior but the Rambam seems to combine them. Maybe
he did NOT have a Mesora in this. I do not know.

Note though, Yosef was Yosef HATZADIK. Do his offspring who wish to
fulfil the Moshiach Ben Yosef have to be Tzaddikim or is there is a
special inyan in blood, which is mixed up anyway everywhere today?

The Rambam doesn't tell us, at least in the Yad. Many other Torah
authorities take views. For example, see Maharal in Netzach Yisroel Perek
Lamed Zayin. Sefer HaTanya, is, I am led to believe very much in line
with the Maharal. Not completely I'm told, but lots. Now, who according to
Chabad, who "cooks" in the Inyan of Moshiach was this Moshiach Ben Yosef,
or do they believe it is no longer a concept, that Moshiach Ben Yosef, as
per the Rambam in the Yad is melded into one person from different tribes?
On Rav Kook see His Maamorim on page 93 or 4.
Check out Zechariah 12: 10-12 and Targum Yonason Ben Uziel. What was
the Rambams views on these. Do we need a R' Chaim or a Rogachover to
understand his way of Psak?
On Rav Kook and Herzl see Orot Yisrael, 6:6 and note that Rabbi Mark
Angel in his recent book shows revisionism because everyone is afraid
of the Hungarian Chareidim.
On the Ari, see R' Chaim Vital, Pri Eitz Chaim, Sha'ar Haamidah. The
Kaf Hachaim (and yes both were Mekubolim) also held this way.

Some will be interested in this
<http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/10926>

I'm not lazy, but time poor, but look here
<http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/JSIJ/11-2012/Fogel.pdf>

See also
<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1303355/Shimshon.pdf>

See also
<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1303355/Shimshon2.pdf>



See
<http://www.he.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1582529/jewish/-.htm
>

For Zev's Chabad perspective.

It's hard to ignore the Geonim, but the Rambam did.



"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 22:07:22 -0500

On 03/06/2016 09:33 PM, Isaac Balbin wrote:
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1303355/Shimshon.pdf

I didn't see any reference to Shimshon in this

> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1303355/Shimshon2.pdf

This is incoherent.  Reads like a machine translation.  



"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 21:50:38 -0500

On 03/06/2016 09:33 PM, Isaac Balbin wrote:
> Let me get a few things on the record. Shaul was from Binyamin. He
> could have been Moshiach.

Could he?  Since when?

And BTW the pashtus of the gemara is that R Akiva was entirely from
gerim, i.e. he had no descent from either Dovid or Yosef.   Or, if that
would have disqualified him from sitting in the Sanhedrin, then he had
one line of descent that was not from gerim, but there's no reason to
suppose it went back to either Dovid or Yosef.



"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
From: Isaac Balbin <isaac.bal...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 16:19:21 +1100

On 7 Mar 2016, at 1:50 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> On 03/06/2016 09:33 PM, Isaac Balbin wrote:
>> Let me get a few things on the record. Shaul was from Binyamin. He
>> could have been Moshiach.

> Could he?  Since when?

If he did all the things that the Rambam said!

> And BTW the pashtus of the gemara is that R Akiva was entirely from
> grim,

He wasn't. He had mixed blood and you know it.

> i.e. he had no descent from either Dovid or Yosef.   Or, if that
> would have disqualified him from sitting in the Sanhedrin, then he had
> one line of descent that was not from gerim, but there's no reason to
> suppose it went back to either Dovid or Yosef.

There is every likelihood that everyone has blood from there today



"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 22:13:58 -0500

On 03/06/2016 09:33 PM, Isaac Balbin wrote:
> It's hard to ignore the Geonim, but the Rambam did.
  
Which geonim?  According to your own sources, the geonim agreed that
Moshiach ben Yosef will *not necessarily happen*.   If so, then he must
not be halachically required, so he has no place in *Hilchos* Moshiach.
Since your question was why the Rambam omitted him, it is answered
exactly as I told you from the beginning.   The Yad, as a sefer halacha,
lists only that which is a halachic requirement.  Anything else belongs
in a sefer of inspiration, in a story book, in speculative writing, but
not in halacha.

For instance the Rambam mentions the possibility that Moshiach may
perform miracles *only for the purpose* of ruling that it's not necessary.
And the reason he holds it's not necessary is that Bar Kochva didn't
perform any, and yet he was properly thought to be Moshiach.  Since there
is no hava amina that MBY would be required, the Rambam has no need even
to mention it in order to rule it out.



"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
From: Isaac Balbin <isaac.bal...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 16:26:20 +1100

On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:13 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> On 03/06/2016 09:33 PM, Isaac Balbin wrote:
>> It's hard to ignore the Geonim, but the Rambam did.
> Which geonim?  

Start with Rav Achai, they were closer to Mesora

> According to your own sources, the geonim agreed that
> Moshiach ben Yosef will  not necessarily happen.   

In that way. It might be incorporated OR we mightn't acknowledge it. The
latter is certainly a possibility in our spiteful world.

> If so, then he must
> not be halachically required,

And where does the Rambam know that Bar Kochba was a Binyan Av especially
as there are contradictions

> so he has no place in  Hilchos  Moshiach.
> Since your question was why the Rambam omitted him, it is answered
> exactly as I told you from the beginning.   The Yad, as a sefer halacha,
> lists only that which is a halachic requirement.

But it prevaricates, and you seem to keep eliding that!

>  Anything else belongs
> in a sefer of inspiration, in a story book, in speculative writing, but
> not in halacha.

Don't say story books. That does your argument no harm.

> For instance the Rambam mentions the possibility that Moshiach may
> perform miracles  only for the purpose  of ruling that it's not necessary.
> And the reason he holds it's not necessary is that Bar Kochva didn't
> perform any, and yet he was properly thought to be Moshiach.  

And was no Tzaddik HaDor either. He was a fighter.

> Since there
> is no hava amina that MBY would be required, the Rambam has no need even
> to mention it in order to rule it out.

Of course there us a HAVA AMINA. The question is why he did't write that
Hava Amina which would NOT have changed Halocho!


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



_______________________________________________
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.)