Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 21

Tue, 14 Feb 2017

• 1. Re: Have you perhaps become more machmir or more meikil over time? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Have you perhaps become more machmir or more meikil over time? (Professor L. Levine)
• 3. Re: Have you perhaps become more machmir or more meikil over time? (Samuel Svarc)
• 4. Have you perhaps become more machmir or more meikil over time? (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: Have you perhaps become more machmir or more meikil over time? (Prof. Levine)
• 6. The Rabbi, the Rebbe, and the Messiah (Cantor Wolberg)
• 7. Re: The Rabbi, the Rebbe, and the Messiah (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Re: The Rabbi, the Rebbe, and the Messiah (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: etrog genetics (saul newman)
• 10. Re: The Rabbi, the Rebbe, and the Messiah (Ben Waxman)
• 11. Re: The Rabbi, the Rebbe, and the Messiah (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: The Rabbi, the Rebbe, and the Messiah (Lisa Liel)
• 13. demonstrations (saul newman)
• 14. Re: etrog genetics (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: etrog genetics (Zev Sero)

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:50:49AM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote:
:     Have you perhaps become more machmir or more meikil over time?

:     Heaven forfend. I don't know what those words mean. There is no such
:     thing as a machmir and a meikil. Anyone who talks in that language
:     is not a posek. There is a halacha and there is an assessment of
:     pros and cons and different positions and then you apply it in a
:     concrete situation. Sometimes the ruling is more stringent, sometimes
:     it's less stringent. But the categories of machmir and meikil are
:     extra-halachic. These words shouldn't even be bandied about.

: This response certainly flies in the face of the many, many conversations
: and assertions in which persons or practices are designated by this one
: or that one as being meikil or machmir.

But he doesn't say anything against the notion of someone being machmir or
meiqil on any specific question. And I am surprised so many of us would
assume he could have -- such language is all over the posqim and shu"t.

He objects to categorizing a poseiq being "a machmir" -- that the poseiq
has an intentional inclination to be strict, or conversly, "a meiqil"
who has an intentional bias toward leniency. Rather, a poseiq makes "an
assessment of pros and cons [of?] different positions and then ... apply
it in a concrete situation. Sometimes the ruling is more stringent..."

The question is whether his own pesaq shows just such a general trend
and has it changed over time. and RJDB accurately answers that the
assumption behind the question is off.

There are exceptions to that rule, dinim where halakhah tells us to be
meiqil (aveilus etc...) and dinim like eishes ish where a poseiq is more
inclined to play it safe -- at least when the case is addreessed
lekhat-chilah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

This week's Jewish Press contains in interview with the noted poseik Rabbi J.
David Bleich.  See
http://tinyurl.com/jcez9on

One of the questions he is asked and his response are below.

    Have you perhaps become more machmir or more meikil over time?

    Heaven forfend. I don't know what those words mean. There is no such
    thing as a machmir and a meikil. Anyone who talks in that language
    is not a posek. There is a halacha and there is an assessment of
    pros and cons and different positions and then you apply it in a
    concrete situation. Sometimes the ruling is more stringent, sometimes
    it's less stringent. But the categories of machmir and meikil are
    extra-halachic. These words shouldn't even be bandied about.

This response certainly flies in the face of the many, many conversations
and assertions in which persons or practices are designated by this one
or that one as being meikil or machmir.

He is also asked questions about the halachic view of vaccinations,
lost diamonds and torture. See the above URL for the entire interview.

YL

On Feb 12, 2017 7:17 PM, "Eli Turkel via Avodah" <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
wrote:
<SNIP>
> OTOH R. Elyashiv has been quoted as stating that when he issues a psak the
> effect on the populace is immaterial.

I don't believe this quote, as I've heard R' Herschel Shachter repeat a
conversation with R' Elyashiv where he said basically the exact opposite.

KT,
MSS

<<Heaven forfend. I don't know what those words mean. There is no such
thing as a machmir and a meikil. Anyone who talks in that language is not a
posek. There is a halacha and there is an assessment of pros and cons and
different positions and then you apply it in a concrete situation.
Sometimes the ruling is more stringent, sometimes it's less stringent. But
the categories of machmir and meikil are extra-halachic. These words
shouldn't even be bandied about.  >>


just a note that R. Bleich has issued other controversial statements. See
for example

http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2017/01/twisting-oneself-into-pr
etzel.html


[Email #2.]

I completely agreed with Prof. Levine that these remarks are very strange.
It is no secret that  ROY had many kulot. One of his more famous teshuvot
is on bishul akum. For sefardimSA in order to avoid bishul akum the food
has to be cooked by a Jew not just have the fire lit by a Jew. This creates
enormous difficulties for sefardim as many kosher restaurants have
nonJewish cooks where the masgiach lights the fire. There is even more
important outside of Israel. ROY comes up with a heter by combining various
opinions against the mechaber.

RSZA has a teshuva about finely cutting up eggs and onions on shabbat.
Though it might seem prohibited he states that his mother and other
righteous women did it and so he must justify it.

OTOH R. Elyashiv has been quoted as stating that when he issues a psak the
effect on the populace is immaterial. Thus, when he outlaws
shabbat elevators it is irrelevant whether the outcome is that many people
are stranded in their apartment every shabbat. RSZA OTOH considers
oneg shabbat an important feature of a psak

R Bleich can object to the words mekil and machmir but the reality is that
some poskim take into the effect of a psak on real people which can lead to
kulot while other poskim work in a theoretical world and the effect on
people is not important which frequently leads to a chumra.

There is a story about RYBS which I partially recall. He gave a lecture in
Stern college about characteristics of women in halacha. The next day a
woman asked a question and got a psak. She then asked doesn't this
contradict what you said yesterday. RYBS replied last night I was talking
about theoretical women. You asked a personal question.

-- 
Eli Turkel

At 10:00 AM 2/13/2017, Micha Berger wrote:
>But he doesn't say anything against the notion of someone being machmir or
>meiqil on any specific question. And I am surprised so many of us would
>assume he could have -- such language is all over the posqim and shu"t.
>
>He objects to categorizing a poseiq being "a machmir" -- that the poseiq
>has an intentional inclination to be strict, or conversly, "a meiqil"
>who has an intentional bias toward leniency. Rather, a poseiq makes "an
>assessment of pros and cons [of?] different positions and then ... apply
>it in a concrete situation. Sometimes the ruling is more stringent..."
>
>The question is whether his own pesaq shows just such a general trend
>and has it changed over time. and RJDB accurately answers that the
>assumption behind the question is off.

Someone on my email list sent me the following regarding this topic.

"R. Bluth once told me that RMF used to say that he doesn't say 
chumros or kulos. He says Halacha."

YL

On 10/10/17 13:13, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote (re: Message: 1):
THere was never any attempt to suppress knowledge of the SZ affair.


Patently UNTRUE. The following is from documented historic texts and I quote:
'In the vast majority of believers, revulsion and remorse set in and there was an active endeavor to erase all evidence, 
even mention of the pseudo-Messiah. Pages were removed from communal registers, and documents were destroyed. 
Few copies of the books that celebrated Shabbetai Zvi survived, and those that did have become rarities much sought after by libraries and collectors.'


On the same date at 14:47, Zev Sero wrote (Message 2, re: Prof. Levine?s statement that because of technology, 
RMMS won?t be forgotten in the way others were):
The Baal Shem Tov was forgotten?!  All the others who were thought to be Moshiach were forgotten?!

Prof. Levine?s point is totally misunderstood. From now until the Moshiach arrives, anyone can see videos of RMMS. I, personally, have watched
HUNDREDS of videos of RMMS and I?m not even part of the Movement. Our great-great grandchildren and their great-great grandchildren will
have access to watch videos of RMMS which will keep him alive. True, there may be pictures and stories of the Besht but as Prof. Levine so accurately points  
out, there is a huge difference because of technology.

I have extended the following clich?: ?A picture is worth a thousand words, but a video is worth a thousand pictures'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170213/25ee6010/attachment-0001.htm>

At 10:07 AM 2/13/2017, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
>On 10/10/17 13:13, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote (re: Message: 1):
>THere was never any attempt to suppress knowledge of the SZ affair.

>Patently UNTRUE. The following is from documented historic texts and I quote:
>'In the vast majority of believers, revulsion and remorse set in and 
>there was an active endeavor to erase all evidence,
>even mention of the pseudo-Messiah. Pages were removed from communal 
>registers, and documents were destroyed.
>Few copies of the books that celebrated Shabbetai Zvi survived, and 
>those that did have become rarities much sought after by libraries 
>and collectors.'

Cantor Wolberg is totally on the mark here and Zev Sero is incorrect.

 From http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/shabbetai-zvi

The apostasy [of Sabbatai Tzvi} shocked the Jewish world. Leaders and
followers alike refused to believe it. Many continued to anticipate
a second coming, and faith in false messiahs continued through the
eighteenth century. In the vast majority of believers, revulsion and
remorse set in and there was an active endeavor to erase all evidence,
even mention of the pseudo-Messiah. Pages were removed from communal
registers, and documents were destroyed. Few copies of the books that
celebrated Shabbetai Zvi survived, and those that did have become rarities
much sought after by libraries and collectors.

YL 

At 10:07 AM 2/13/2017, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
> On 10/10/17 13:13, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote (re: Message: 1):

>> THere was never any attempt to suppress knowledge of the SZ affair.


>  From http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/shabbetai-zvi
> The apostasy [of Sabbatai Tzvi} shocked the Jewish world. Leaders and
> followers alike refused to believe it. Many continued to anticipate
> a second coming, and faith in false messiahs continued through the
> eighteenth century. In the vast majority of believers, revulsion and
> remorse set in and there was an active endeavor to erase all evidence,
> even mention of the pseudo-Messiah. Pages were removed from communal
> registers, and documents were destroyed. Few copies of the books that
> celebrated Shabbetai Zvi survived, and those that did have become rarities
> much sought after by libraries and collectors.


I dispute this source's characterisation of events.  The evidence he 
presents does not show any attempt to suppress knowledge of the affair, 
but rather a perfectly normal process of destroying heretical books, and 
of removing the name of a rasha from places where it ought not to 
appear, such as in proclamations honouring him.  Lehavdil, when after a 
divorce one removes the ex's photos from the family album, one is not 
trying to suppress all knowledge that the marriage had once existed, 
it's just that the person is no longer a member of the family and those 
photos don't belong there any more.  Or has "yimach shemo" suddenly 
become an exercise in dishonesty?!  Cf the coexistence of the two 
mitzvos, to wipe out the memory of Amalek and at the same time to 
remember what Amalek did.


-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 08:06:56PM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
>: http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/40/7/1963.full.pdf+html
>: all analyzed species were at  least 95% related, whether moroc , yemen,
>: calabria, or israel...

> Since grafting doesn't change the genetics of the fruit seeds, this is
> measuring cross-breeding more than eliminating murkav altogether.
...
> But what does "95% related" mean?

> They say that out of 190 genetic fragments, 160 were monomorphic,
> while 30 showed polymorphism...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism_(biology)    it would seem these
are like ABO blood types, a factor that doesnt make a new species, but
shows a certain degree of relation.  i think given there that there were 3
original species that all citrus descended from, if those bands [pomelo eg]
dont show up, then there is no pomelo source.   am not sure how grafting
might change the genes found in the fruit , ie what does rootstock have to
do with genes in the fruits themeselves

Depends on what comes along with this process, like denying that 
Shabbatei Zvi was supported by great rabbis and enjoyed world wide 
communal support. There is removing the proclamation and there is 
denying that a proclamation was ever given.

Ben

On 2/13/2017 8:42 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> The evidence he presents does not show any attempt to suppress 
> knowledge of the affair, but rather a perfectly normal process of 
> destroying heretical books, and of removing the name of a rasha from 
> places where it ought not to appear, such as in proclamations 
> honouring him.

On 13/02/17 22:09, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
> On 2/13/2017 8:42 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:

>> The evidence he presents does not show any attempt to suppress
>> knowledge of the affair, but rather a perfectly normal process of
>> destroying heretical books, and of removing the name of a rasha from
>> places where it ought not to appear, such as in proclamations
>> honouring him.

> Depends on what comes along with this process, like denying that
> Shabbatei Zvi was supported by great rabbis and enjoyed world wide
> communal support. There is removing the proclamation and there is
> denying that a proclamation was ever given.

There was never any attempt to cover it up, and nobody knowledgeable has 
ever tried to deny it.  But the proclamations themselves were quite 
properly destroyed; what else should have been done with them?  When a 
publisher withdraws and pulps a book, something which happens regularly, 
is it trying to cover up its mistake?!

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

The difference is that knowing -- in detail -- what happened, what was 
said, and by whom, and in what way, is vitally important in order for us 
to not repeat the mistake.

There is going to come a time when we will look back on all the people 
who continued to believe R' Shneersohn was mashiach and wonder how it 
happened again.  There's a saying: "Those who ignore history are doomed 
to repeat it."  It sounds like you're actually advocating ignoring history.

Lisa

On 2/14/2017 7:57 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> On 13/02/17 22:09, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
>> On 2/13/2017 8:42 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
>
>>> The evidence he presents does not show any attempt to suppress
>>> knowledge of the affair, but rather a perfectly normal process of
>>> destroying heretical books, and of removing the name of a rasha from
>>> places where it ought not to appear, such as in proclamations
>>> honouring him.
>
>> Depends on what comes along with this process, like denying that
>> Shabbatei Zvi was supported by great rabbis and enjoyed world wide
>> communal support. There is removing the proclamation and there is
>> denying that a proclamation was ever given.
>
> There was never any attempt to cover it up, and nobody knowledgeable 
> has ever tried to deny it.  But the proclamations themselves were 
> quite properly destroyed; what else should have been done with them?  
> When a publisher withdraws and pulps a book, something which happens 
> regularly, is it trying to cover up its mistake?!
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/5
23860/the-current-hafganos-why-everyone-holds-they-are-forbidden-a-halachic
-analysis.html

one rabbi's view on current anti-army demonstrations . i am sure others
hold such demonstrations are a chiyuv lechatchila
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170214/5a81b5e3/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:29:30AM -0800, saul newman wrote:
: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism_(biology)    it would seem these
: are like ABO blood types, a factor that doesnt make a new species, but
: shows a certain degree of relation.  i think given there that there were 3
: original species that all citrus descended from, if those bands [pomelo eg]
: dont show up, then there is no pomelo source.

First, something I learned since this post... There are only fourt known
species of non-hybrid citrus fruit: citron, pomelo ("shedock" in British
English), mandarin and papeda.

Eg the grapefruit is a hybrid of sweet orange and pomelo, cross-bred
by HQBH (wind from one plant to another) in Barbados. The orange itself
is a older hybrid, between pomelo and mandarin (and re-crossed a number
of times with each).

Citrons (both esrogim and the multi-fingered varieties) self-pollinate.
So hybrids are likely intentional by human intervantion.

Whether we are worried about breed, rather than species would depends
on whether a fingered citron is kosher, even if only a fingered citron
that by some fluke only has one finger. If any fingered citrons can be
kosher, than breed doesn't seem to matter.

:                                                   am not sure how grafting
: might change the genes found in the fruit , ie what does rootstock have to
: do with genes in the fruits themeselves

It doesn't. Which is why I wrote:
:> Since grafting doesn't change the genetics of the fruit seeds, this is
:> measuring cross-breeding more than eliminating murkav altogether.

An esrog can be genertically pure and still murkav because it or some
ancestor grew on a graft.

But I noticed a happy pattern... Hybridization is unlikely without
human intervention and grafting is obviously impossible. So if you
go somewhere where there are no nearby citrus hybrids of similar type,
I think you could assume the esrogim aren't murkav.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 14/02/17 11:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> First, something I learned since this post... There are only fourt known
> species of non-hybrid citrus fruit: citron, pomelo ("shedock" in British
> English), mandarin and papeda.

Shaddock, not "shedock".

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all


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



_______________________________________________
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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)