Volume 34: Number 157
Sat, 03 Dec 2016
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Professor L. Levine
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:46:40 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] What is Real Chassidus
I have posted Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer's (ZT"L) essay Our Way at
Our Way<https://web.s
tevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/our_way.pdf> by Rav Dr. Yosef Breuer
which was written in 1954. In it he outlines what real Chassidus is. His essay concludes with
Doubtless, the so-called German Jewishness, with its Torah im
Derech Eretz demand, can stand up proudly before genuine
Chassidism; to live up to the Torah im Derech Eretz precept in its
true meaning is to follow the path upon which Chassidus greets us
as the crowning glory of life. Thus, Rav Hirsch, and with him the
great Torah leaders in Germany,were exemplary Chassidim sent to
us by Divine Providence.
YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161129/edbaba17/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: H Lampel
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:36:31 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and
On 11/29/2016 12:24 AM, H Lampel wrote:
Chagiga 3b:
"Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh
echad." One G-d gave them, one
source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As
it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh".
...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from
any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d.'' and he explains
''Parness echad amran''to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a
proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe
Rabbeynu.''
> ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are
> both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]...learn
> and know the words of all [the disputants], and when you will
> know to distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay
> zeh yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.''
>
> Identical to the Ritva ...
Better: ''Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since
they are both making sincere attempts /to understand Mos//he and
Hashem's //Torah, no one else's, this qualifies what they say as
''divrei Elokim''--words/matters //concerning Has//hem//and His
Will, and not //concerning//any other deity/]...learn and know the
words of all [the disputants], and when you will know to
distinguish which one is valid (u'k'sheh-taya lehavchin ay zeh
yikasher), establish the halacha accordingly.''
Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161130/48ee7e02/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:53:11 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Geonim, Rambam and Other Rishonim on Mesorah and
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:36:31AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
: Chagiga 3b:
: "Ba'alei asufos" (Qoheles 12:11) ... "Kulam nitnu miRo'eh
: echad." One G-d gave them, one
: source/leader said them, miPi Adon kol hama'asim barukh Hu. As
: it says (Shemos 20:1), "Vaydaber E-lokim es kol hadevarim ha'eileh".
: ...RASHI: You don't have any of the disputants bringing a proof from
: any god's torah, only from the Torah of our G-d." and he explains
: "Parness echad amran"to mean: You don't have anyone bringing a
: proof from the words of a prophet who came to argue against Moshe
: Rabbeynu."
DH "kulan Keil Echad amran":
You do not have a disputant bringing a proof from the bible of another
god, only from Toras E-lokeinu
DH "Parnes Echad amran":
You one have one bring a proof from the words of a navi to dispute
against Moshe Rabbeinu.
Rashi could well be saying (but admittedly not mukhrakh) that both will
indeed find valid ra'ayos in Toras Moshe -- not merely try to find.
DH "asei oznekha ke'afrekhtes":
: > "Since their hearts are [directed] to heaven [i.e. since they are
: > both making sincere attempts /to understand the matter/]...
Woah! Your conculsion is in your bracketed "i.e.", not in the Rashi!
Rashi could be assuming that rabbanim who are liban leShamayim are
going to find Emes.
Since all of them have their hears toward Shamayim, make your ear
listen, and learn and know all of them. When you know how to decide
which to make kosher, extablish the halakhah like him.
"Afrekhes" is the grain-reciever on top of a millstone.
Notice he does not talk about deciding which is true or right, or even
which IS kosher, but "lehavkhin ei zeh YIkasher -- to decide which YOU
MAKE kosher" and that is who you are qoveia' the halakhah to be like.
: Identical to the Ritva ...
Yes. And again, you decided what liban laShamayim means. And ignored
that the bechinah is which to make kosher, not which is true.
For that matter, the other quote you bring from them also indicates
the reverse of your intent. See the Ritvah you quote, right before
"ela eilu va'eilu" (some lines before the part you highlighted in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/mesorahPsakSources2.pdf#page=2>
page 2):
He says what he sees according to his da'as, and he says what he
sees according to his da'as. Not one of them is lying, Rather,
"eilu va'eilu". HOWEVER, when we say that students are arguing in
their rebbe's words.... is appears that one of them is lying or
forgot his tradition...
Lying or forgetting is ony an option because they are arguing about
what the rebbe said. A normal machloqes, where they disagree about
the din is eilu va'eilu Divrei E-lokim Chaim, in contrast to (aval)
this case where "meshaqer o shakhack".
What you say is a rule, Rashi and the Ritva are explicitly saying is
the exception.
I again wish you had gone le'at le'at, as I tried to redirect the
conversation. You wrote yesterday:
: 1.You read the Gemora in a way that introduces an esoteric concept that
I started with Greek vs Modern vs Halachic logic to show that denying
the former does not require anything esoteric. It just seems that way
after two millennia of Galus Edom, Edom having built much of its culture
atop Yavan ("Greco-Roman").
I am not arguing that Chazal are ignoring the Law of Contradiction.
I am saying that it's a Greek invention we never had use for to begin
with.
I should point out that the notion that the LoC and Law of Excluded
Middle are not givens was introducted to me by books on logic. Modern
logicians have learned to accept that other systems of logic may be
more valid in other venues.
Like ones where humans try to take a spectrum and divide it into
predicates -- the Sorites paradox we already discussed. See e.g. "Fuzzy
Set Theoretical Approach to the RGB Color Triangle"
<https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8c0d/accf329de2bd612c46c4a7771f
4b1d0eda99.pdf>
(If you have a newer thermostat, it could well be using fuzzy logic
too.)
Or when dealing with the internal contradictions of the human psyche
as in Hume's "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding".
We are under no obligation to follow Plato, Aristotle and Boole. Their
position only seems self-evident because we are Westerners; moreso,
Westerners living in a world that confuses technologial advance with
human progress.
(And ironically, we live in a world where the latest technological
advances rely on semiconductor, which in turn are designed using Quantum
Mechanics, in disobeyance of the laws of Paradox and Excluded Middle!)
As R' Tzadoq wrote, it's great for analyzing po'el, but that's about it.
This is not esoterica. No one in the East would find any of what I wrote
surprising. Including, for example, the self-same Persians who taught
(like the idiom the tannaim and the first generations of Babylonian
amora'im employed) that the sun goes above a shell at night. Chazal
were not basically Greek in mathemtical and scientific orientation.
It is my belief that the *dialectical* nature of the human condition is
why HQBH gave us a Torah with machloqesin, and left it up to use to
decide when to develop Chesed and when Din, when Emes and when Shalom,
vechulu... This is why we learn the *dialogs* of Shas rather than
simply picking up a Rif.
...
: Thus, Rashi (Sota 47a-b) writes that the first of the Zuggos brought to
: an end "Torah b'amitah, v'ein dofi v'shikcha umachlokess." The
: reference to forgetfulness-free, dofi (two-panim)-free, and
: machlokess-free as the characteristic of "Torah b'amitah," (and not just
: halacha b'amitah), indicates that there was a true, single din for each
: situation that was the emes of Torah, as opposed to when machlokos began.
47a DH "ha'eshkolos":
It is explained in the gemara that all of them, until their era, there
was no machloqes among the chakhmei Yisrael. They all said things
as they were given to Moshe from Sinai. And they were the first who
disagreed about the semichah of qorbanos on YT, as is says in Chagiga
(16a). This was the first machloqes in Israel in words of Torah
Nothing about Torah ba'amitah being machloqes free. You are assuming that
Rashi means "there was no machloqes ... [because] they all said things
as they were given..." Which is not accumulative either, and goes back
to forgetting / imperfect retrieval. The missing connective could just
as well be "despite".
For that matter, there are cases of Rashi acknowledging different Batei
Din haGadol before the zugos having conflicting pesaqim, that only weren't
machloqesin because the two sides were different pesaqim lemaaseh for
different eras.
Eg, the shisin in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini. Zevachin 61b, DH "shisin
hosifu". According to Shelomo, the mitzbeiach in bayis sheini wasn't
atum ba'adamah, and according to Ezra, no one in bayis rishon did
nisuch as the shisin were alongside the mizbeiach, not eithin it.
: How could this fit the notion that Moshe literally handed down opposite
: halachos? Will you say that through the generations up until the Zugos,
: even though they knew the Torah b'amito, they preserved the shitta that
: was not Torah b'amito to be available for later generations to choose?
Yes.
Or, that he was literally handed down a system by which both are derivable
-- by HQBH's Intent, of course -- because He wanted to "Say" both!
Which is what I believe the Qorban ha'Eidah
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/mesorahPsakSources2.pdf+page=4>
page 4 is saying. Beis Shamai derives Torah because they are working
the system, mevi'im ra'ayah min haTorah, and as you underline "veChadei
QBH becharifus pilpulam". Their deductions are more joy-making, as Beis
Shammai were the more charifin. But BH, through their anavah, were zokhin
to reach the emes [lehora'ah]. Not emes le'amito, as HQBH wouldn't
be thrilled with a bright person's ability to all the better to fool
himself. Nor would their wrong answer help you decide another case.
And last, you don't quote to the end, and the final words "... mimenah
nora'os ALIBA DEHILKHITA".
More, when I have the time.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:36:20 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] minhag shtus
We have already discussed customs that seem to be against halacha like not
eating in the succah on shemini atzeret (outside EY) and cohanim keeping
their hands under the tallit during birkhat cohanim.
There are other customs which though not minhag shtus seem a little
counter-intuitive.
One famous one is the custom (again outside EY) not to have
birkhat cohanim every day. The reasons given by the Ramah sound contrived
to explain an existing custom.
Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten
u-matar le-brachah on December 5th.
The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days
after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November
22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the
shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent
Julian calendar where both are wrong. Si in essence December 5th is based
on a wrong calculation. Thus the rainy season is Bavel should start
November 22 and that is the appropriate time to start requesting rain (the
halacha in other countries is already a disagreement among rishonim). So
why don't we change a wrong minhag> The answer seems to be that we continue
old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect.
see
http://www.vbm-torah.org/en/mystery-december-4th
for more details about December 4th-5th
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161130/150cf9ad/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:26:49 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] minhag shtus
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:36:20PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: Another strange halacha (again outside EY) is to start ten
: u-matar le-brachah on December 5th.
: The gemara says that (at least in Bavel) the rain season begins 60 days
: after the tekufah (equinox). 60 days after September 22 is about November
: 22. The difference between November 22 and December 5th has to do with the
: shitah of Shmuel that the solar year is 365 1/4 days and the equivalent
: Julian calendar where both are wrong...
Although the truth is, any value is an approximation. And Shemu'el's
tequfah wasn't so much his shitah, as his proposal as being "close enough"
for certain uses. See Rashi BM 85b DH "Shmuel" and the Tashbetz vol 1,
#108 DH "teshuvah da'a". The Tashbetz proves that Shemu'el's knowledge
of sod ha'ibur (referred to in the gemara) included knowing that the
year was really shorter than 4o of his tequfos.
(I was pointed to those sources by R' Mordechai Kornfeld, BTW.)
So what you're really asking is that now that it's easy to use the
more accurate Gregorian approximation, why don't we switch? We'd still
be off, but by far less.
: The answer seems to be that we continue
: old customs even when the basis is known to be incorrect.
Yes, lke in pretending that the majority of Jews living in the golah
care about the rainy season in Bavel.
(During the Second Iraq War my father quipped: The reason why Saddam
Hussein was so anti-Israel is that he knew that the more Jews he forces
into the golah, the more Jews will be praying for the agriculture in
his country. <grin>)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Harry Maryles
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 16:20:06 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Avodah] minhag shtus
It is not so Pashut that those who do not eat in the Sukkah on Shemini
Atzeres (outside of Israel) are in violation of Halacha.
I'm not sure if anyone brought this up so I'll mention it. The Aruch
HaShulchan (OC 668:4) deals with this issue and offers a marvelous Limud
Zechus for those who don't in very cold climates.
The Gemarah (Sukkah 47a) paskin that because of two issues of Sefeika
D'Yoma and Bal Tosif conflict -- Mesiv Yasvinan Bruchi Lo Mevrachinan. We
sit but do not make the Bracha of Leishev BaSukkah. (I believe there are
other Girsos quoted by some Rishonim that do not come to this conclusion.
The Gemarah there explains that the reason we get away with it as not
being Bal Tosif is because eating outdoors at that time of year in those
climates was pleasant and a common occurrence. (Which is why we don't
take the Daled Minim on Shemini Atzeres based on Sefeka D'Yoma even
without a Bracha since that would be Bal Tosif)
In very cold climates like ours, that rationale of 'eating meals outside
being normal' doesn't work. So eating in a Sukkah will most definitely
be Bal Tosif, hence we shouldn't do it in our climates. Except for maybe
Miami Beach. :)
HM
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Professor L. Levine
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 23:31:18 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova?
A neighborhood housewife recently asked an interesting sheilah. Apparently,
after hosting several friends and relatives for a Shabbos Seudah, she
washed Mayim Acharonim along with the men, earning her much scorn and
ridicule. The incredulous men commented that their washing Mayim Acharonim
was only a chumrah, and there obviously was no basis for a woman to do it
as well. Our distraught domestic denizen wanted to know who acted
correctly, and was astounded when I replied that technically speaking they
both were...
To find out why, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Mayim
Acharonim, Chova?<http://sable.madmimi.com/c/10500?id=75620.483.1.dcbf29450060e6
730f0a3e6d55735d43>" For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just
ask.
Insights Into Halacha<http://sable.madmimi.com/c/10500?id=75620.484.1.baeaf10483a25b
1bf6d618ef96fd0560> is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha
articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with
friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me.
kol tuv and Good Shabbos,
Y. Spitz
Yerushalayim
ysp...@ohr.edu<mailto:ysp...@ohr.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161201/d6f788c7/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 13:22:50 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar
> *From:*Lisa Liel
> *Date:*Tue, 12 May 2015 08:17:09 -0500
> *Subject:*Re: [Avodah] missing years in Hebrew calendar
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.
> cgi?section=M#MISSING%20YEARS%20IN%20HEBREW%20CALENDAR>
> Professor Levine posted about Rabbi Alexander Hool's book "The
> Challenge of Jewish History". I don't agree with all of his
> conclusions, and I'm embarrassingly late completing a review of the
> book, but he posits the Persian line continuing even after Alexander
> whupped Darius at Gaugamela. And in fact, the Parthian Empire, which
> started only about 70-80 years after the Alexandrian conquest, claimed
> descent from the Achaemenids of the Persian Empire. As did the later
> Sassanids. Names like Ardashir are just Late Persian versions of the
> Old Persian Artaxerxes.
*I don't see that there was every any follow-up on Rabbi Hool's
theories. Lisa (or anyone)?*
KT, GS,
YGB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161202/75f3bc7b/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Ben Waxman
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 21:26:23 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova?
My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir
about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a
doreitta or two regarding how to treat people.
Ben
On 12/2/2016 1:31 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> earning her much scorn and ridicule. The incredulous men commented
that their washing Mayim Acharonim was only a chumrah, and there
obviously was no basis for a woman to do it as well. Our distraught
domestic denizen wanted to know who acted correctly, and was astounded
when I replied that technically speaking they both were.
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 18:34:33 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] 4 kingdoms
In regard to an old discussion I saw the following in the sefer of R
Sender on Chanukah
Te gemara says we don't say Hallel on a miracle outside of EY. There are 4
kingdoms that invaded EY and sent them into exile. Babylonia, Persia,
Greece and Rome. The Maharsha asks why is Greece included when they never
exiled the Jews from EY. He answers that since they ruled EY it is the
equivalent of exile.
The Pachad Yitzchak explains that one might think that therefore Hallel
should not be recited on Chanukah since it took place (halachically)
outside of Israel. He answers that once the chashmanoim reestablished a
Jewish government and drove out the Greeks the Greek exile was over and now
the miracle happened in EY
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161203/ae9deb32/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Professor L. Levine
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 00:34:43 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mayim Acharonim, Chova?
Ben Waxman wrote
My take-away from the article: A perfect example of people being machmir
about a minhag/d'rabbanan bein adam lemaqom while probably violating a
doreitta or two regarding how to treat people.
Ben
Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky sent me his article about the topic which is at
http://ou.org.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/ja/5762winter/legaleas.pdf
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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.)