Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 27

Thu, 02 Mar 2017

• 1. Re: Farfetched Ukimtas (Micha Berger)
• 2. ukimtahs (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: Farfetched Ukimtas (H Lampel)
• 4. rabbi wilner (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: Farfetched Ukimtas (Ben Bradley)
• 6. Re: RYBS at Cross-Currents (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: RYBS at Cross-Currents (Harry Maryles)
• 8. Re: RYBS at Cross-Current (Ben Bradley)
• 9. kavua/Rov (Rich, Joel)
• 10. What exactly is ?Ayin Harah? and do we have to worry about it? (Professor L. Levine)
• 11. Re: aguda yarchei kalla (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Psak (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Chometz: Less than a kezayis (Micha Berger)

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 06:58:32AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
>                I would say that the data seems to suggest that it may
> have been an attempt to reconcile a later position with an earlier one
> rather than just leaving it as a disagreement. Of course this goes to
> the debate about whether authorial intent makes a difference.

Or, ... rather than assuming the unlikely or invalid case (depending on
sides of a machloqes) of an amorah disagreeing with a tana, the gemara
assumes that the version of the mishnah repeated was missing critical
details. Much like chisurei mechasra vehakhi katani.

In other words, it could be that the norm/requirement on the amora forces
us to make assumptions about authorial intent, rather than having to
enter a discussion of whether that intent matters.

As for my own take about the interpretation of earlier sources and
whose intent matters, I argue that mesorah is a third state between the
classical academic's search for original intent and the post-modern or
deconstructionist approach to intent in
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/postmodernism-and-mesorah


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

<<The question is when the Gemara offers these ukimtas does the Gemara
really
think that this is what the Tanna meant? >>

Rav Michal Avraham has a lengthy article (in Hebrew) justifying uktimtot.
If anyone wants the article let me know (elitur...@gmail.com)

His basic argument is based on a physics analogy. Any standard physics book
will present Newton's law of motion. However, in practice this law never
holds, there is friction, gravity and a host of other complications. A
physicist would answer an ukimta - when does Newton's law hold in a vacuum
where the gravitational forces are negligible etc. One could then argue
that is a very far fetched ukimta.

The answer is that Newton's law is a basic physical law (ignoring Einstein
for now) . However, to apply it in practice one has to combine it with
other physical laws like gravity, friction etc.

The gemara is trying to do the same. The gemara is trying to set up some
circumstance where no other laws affect the issue. This requires a far
fetched ukimta to eliminate everything not pertinent. Of course in a
practical case one would have to combine this basic law together with other
laws to see the total effect just as one does in physics/engineering


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170228/c8d80de7/attachment-0001.htm>

Mon, 27 Feb 2017 Marty Bluke wrote:
> ... Sometimes the Gemara offers far fetched ukimtas where it is hard
> to believe that the Tannaic source really meant that. Here is an example
> which we learned in Daf Yomi a few weeks ago (Bava Basra 19-20).
>
> ...the Baraisa gives a list of things that block tumah.
> The Baraisa in no shape or form qualified any of the things that block
> tumah, and yet the the Gemara proceeds to attach a long list of
> qualifications to the objects which seem quite far fetched, for example do
> we really need to believe that when the Baraisa wrote a bird (with no
> qualifications) it really meant, a tied up non-kosher Kalanisa like bird?
>
> The question is when the Gemara offers these ukimtas does the Gemara really
> think that this is what the Tanna meant? Or is the Gemara just offering
> logical possibilities to avoid it looking like an Amora is arguing on a
> Tanna (this may depend on the reason why Amoraim don't argue on Tannaim)?
> How are we supposed to approach these kinds of ukimtas when learning a daf
> gemara?
See if this works:

Shmuel was taught his rule. He did not arrive at it through analysis of 
the braissa, or even the mishnah, for that matter. He knew it on the 
authority of the Tannaim who taught it to him. Once he knew his rule was 
a fact, he (as well as anyone else accepting that rule) looks at the 
tannaitic sources as taking that rule for granted as well. (Again, he is 
not depending upon the braissa for his rule.)

That being the case, the gist and chiddush of the braissa becomes: As 
opposed to the blockage of a window by snow, hail, frost, ice and water, 
which IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES are expected to disappear and not remain at 
the window permanently,

for other objects (grass, birds, etc), which commonly are also only 
temporarily placed there/destined to disappear/to be removed, THERE ARE 
SITUATIONS TO BE FOUND in which they would be left there permanently.

Again, once one assumes Shmuel's rule as fact, and as fact accepted by 
the author of the braissa, then it becomes obvious that the author of 
the braissa intended to list objects whose removal/disappearance one may 
have thought MUST ALWAYS be expected to occur, but which in reality NEED 
NOT, GIVEN SPECIAL SITUATIONS. The author of the braissa merely listed 
the exceptional objects, and left it for the reader to come up with the 
details. (This is common in note-taking of a lesson, and notes written 
for a lecture.) And/Or, having  been taught this chiddush with its 
details, the author took down notes merely listing the exceptional 
objects, leaving the details of circumstance to memory and/or oral 
transmission.

Zvi Lampel

> Does Judge Yael Willner's (an Orthodox woman who is a scion of rabbinic families.
...
> any way pose a question to those who oppose women rabbis because of
> serarah? Her powers as a SC judge are, IMO, about 1000 times greater than
> any dayan or even the Rav HaRashi; forget a shul rav.

0A religious woman was just nominated to the Israel supreme court - even
greater serara plus arkaot.
I know of other women religious (father and husband rabbis) who are judges
in Israel.



-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170228/61101871/attachment-0001.htm>

>
> The question is when the Gemara offers these ukimtas does the Gemara
> really think that this is what the Tanna meant? Or is the Gemara just
> offering logical possibilities to avoid it looking like an Amora is
> arguing on a Tanna (this may depend on the reason why Amoraim don't
> argue on Tannaim)? How are we supposed to approach these kinds of
> ukimtas when learning a daf gemara?
>
The following is a summary of a private letter I've seen from a talmid
chacham, which I don't have permission to attribute by name, only to
utilise his sources:

There is a machlokes in the rishonim and onwards as to the reason for the gemara saying chasorei machsra on occasion and seeming to correct the mishna.
Reason 1: The mishna is very abbreviated and the correction is really just an explanation , eg Rabbeinu Bachya on Shemos 34:27)
Reason 2: The mishna actually was corrupted over time and the gemara is recovering the original version, eg Klalei HaShas of the Beis Yosef
Reason 3: The mishna is 'shlogging up' the gemara but the amoraim don't have reshus to argue on a tanna, so they use ukimtas or say chasorei machsra instead.
Examples of this approach are in the Meiri (Seder Hakabala in Beis
Habechira, where he writes that it is derech stira v'tikkun), ). Also R
Shlomo Fisher (The Itry Rav) in the sefer Beis Yishai, and in the Dor
Revi'i of R Moshe Shmuel Glasner, introduction to mesechta chulin,. They
both explicitly include ukimtas as well as chasorei machsra.  Also the
Sefer Pe'as HaShulchan of R, Yisroel m'shklov says in the name of the Gra
that chasorei machsra is used when the amoraim hold like a tanna other than
the tanna of the mishna. The difference in this last approach is that the
amoraim are not arguing on the tanna just holding by a different tanna.

As I said, not my learning, someone else's.

Ben Bradley

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170228/806df86e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:20am EST, RnTK wrote on Areivim:
: See this article about RYBS in Cross-Currents and my comment there:
: http://cross-currents.com/2017/02/28/trying-to-unravel-the-leg
: acy-of-the-rav

: Part of what I posted there:
:> You speak of "those who rejected the Rav due to his support for secular 
:> education...." The Breuer Kehilla in Washington Heights was geographically close 
:> but ideologically distant from Yeshiva University. Breuer's espoused the 
:> Hirschian philosophy of Torah Im Derech Eretz (TIDE) and was sharply 
:> critical of YU's Torah U'Mada (TUM) philosophy. The issue was not whether or not 
:> to acquire secular knowledge. Both TIDE and TUM advocate such studies. 
:> ....The issue is complex, and would need many pages to do it justice. But 
:> in a nutshell, TIDE advocates studying everything--yes, everything, 
:> science, history, literature -- through the lens of Torah. TUM advocates studying 
:> "the two mountains" or "the two magisteria"--two different spheres of 
:> knowledge, two separate domains, each with its own ethical and intellectual
:> rules. TUM over the decades has produced a veritable army of people with
:> bifurcated minds, while TIDE produces integrated Torah personalities. 

: see the rest  there

Iagree with most of what you quote here, but... it's not RYBS's system
that is creating "bifurcated minds" -- a/k/a compartmentalism.

The difference is that TiDE is seeking synthesis -- Torah give form /
purpose / function to the life of which DE is the substance.

RYBS was neo-Kantian, and therefore that the dialectics of the human
condition don't in general reach a synthesis. E.g. we study the
dialogues of the gemara, not just the Rif's collection of conclusions
because there is more value in how we get there than just the final
resolution. Similarly, he believes that the ramatayim tzofim can only
lead to a life whose meaning is found in navigating the conflicts between
Torah and Maddah. Not in trying to live with their non-existent final
resolution.

The reason for the frequency of compartmentalism is that dialectics
require a subtlety that makes it a difficult model for a the masses to
aspire to. RYBS's dielectics too often collapse into compromise, or to
avoiding negotiating the conflict.

There are a few issues I have with the strategy of teaching a community to
live according to RYBS's approach. They all boil down to the gap between
the person who is the subject of his very autobiographical observations
and where the majority of the community are holding.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The meaning of life is to find your gift.
mi...@aishdas.org        The purpose of life
http://www.aishdas.org   is to give it away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Pablo Picasso

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:17 PM, Toby Katz via Areivim
<arei...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> ... The issue is complex, and would need many pages to do it
> justice. But in a nutshell, TIDE advocates studying everything -- yes,
> everything, science, history, literature -- through the lens of Torah. TUM
> advocates studying "the two mountains" or "the two magisteria" -- two
> different spheres of knowledge, two separate domains, each with its
> own ethical and intellectual rules. TUM over the decades has produced
> a veritable army of people with bifurcated minds, while TIDE produces
> integrated Torah personalities.

You are misinterpreting TuM, Toby. The '2 towers' is but one
interpretation of TuM. TIDE can be interpreted as TuM too... as noted
by Dr. Lamm in his book on the subject. Torah Umada is excaty what
those words mean: Torah and general knowledge. See for example RAS's
interpreation of it in his book, LOTH, LOTM. I also believe you have
unfairly attacked RYBS in your CC comment.

HM

> TUM advocates studying "the two mountains" or "the two
> magisteria"--two different spheres of knowledge, two separate domains,
> each with its own ethical and intellectual rules. TUM over the decades
> has produced a veritable army of people with bifurcated minds, while
> TIDE produces integrated Torah personalities.

Seems to me that the ideology of TUM is far more due to the views of R
Norman Lamm than to RYBS. In fact I don't know that RYBS ever presented
his views on the relationship between Torah and limmudei chol in any
broad or systematic way. I am not an expert on RYBS though so please
correct me if I'm wrong. R Lamm's long presidency and the eloquence
of his speeches and writings was, I think hugely influential, and he
made his TUM ideology a cornerstone. The term TUM originates with him,
as do the terms Modern Orthodoxy and Centrist Orthdoxy, which shows the
penetrance of his thinking into mainstream parlance.

So as much as I agree with Mrs Katz's criticism of TUM, I think the
blame is not with RYBS.

I disagree with Mrs Katz that the style of RYBS's writings result in
ambiguity as to his meaning and that this is the cause of the diversity
of his talmidim's views. Any given essay that I've read seems quite
clear in its intent. It's more that he seems to have expressed himself
in different ways at different times and to different groups of people,
causing divergent perpectives as to his views. Prof Lawrance Kaplan has
in fact documented a few cases of blatant contradiction in his expressed
views, I don't have the precise details to hand but I'm sure someone does.

Ben Bradley

I've always wondered about the underlying seeming discontinuity in treating
a safeik in a kavua (doubt generated in its original location) as 50/50,
whereas any other safeik gets adjudicated based on statistical majority
(the whole 10 stores thing). I'm wondering if this might have anything to
do with behavioral economics heuristics (Kahnemann/Tversky, et al). I have
some thoughts on the matter and would be interested in hearing from others.
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170302/329dd2df/attachment-0001.htm>

From today's OU Halacha Yomis


Q. What exactly is ?Ayin Harah? and do we have to worry about it? (A subscriber?s question)


A. Most people think that an Ayin Harah is an ?Evil Eye? which can cause
them harm. This is incorrect. If this were the case, it would be called
?Ayin Ra?ah?. Since the word ayin is feminine, the correct adjective should
be ra?ah. Rather, Ayin Harah means ?a negative and hostile focus? (Sefer
Olei Ayin p.29 quoting Rabbeinu Yonah on Ovos 2:11 and Machzor Vitri) or
?the eye of an evil person? (ibid p.28 quoting Encyclopedia Otzar Yisroel
Vol. 8 p. 58).

Chazal teach us that an evil person has the capacity to cause physical
damage through his evil gaze. Throughout Tanach, Bavli, Yerushalmi,
Midrashim, Shulchan Aruch, Rishonim and Achronim we find many examples of
Ayin Harah (Sefer Olei Ayin p. 16 ? 85).

If a person is not overly concerned about an Ayin Harah, his chances of
being negatively affected in any substantial manner are diminished (Sefer
Olei Ayin p. 14 based on Pisochim 110B and Torah Temima Bemidbar 23:23).

In tomorrow?s Halacha Yomis we will discuss a relevant halacha in Shulchan Aruch based on an Ayin Harah.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170302/4e33c4a2/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 05:59:38AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
...
:      * http://www.aiayk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016audio/YK/YKY2017.1.
:        16.RavAWeiss.hakdama.mp3
:        HARAV ASHER WEISS-Shiur Hakdama
:        Hiddur Mitzvah (beautification) can be both in the item used in the
:        mitzvah or in the act of the mitzvah.
...

So, hiddur can mean a beautiful / clear megillah and/or a beautiful /
clear leining.

What about a silver megillah case?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 08:07:21AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: Seeing a recent discussion of R' Bleich's thoughts on kula vs. chumrah as
: a poseik dovetails with an issue that came up at a shiur I recently gave
: on Prayer and OCD. The question was raised as to how one should relate
: to a poseik who one perceived as being on the OCD spectrum...

Staying on the first topic, trying to understand what RJDB meant...

I understood R' Bleich as talking about the meaninglessness of a poseiq
being a meiqil or a machmir, not qula vs chumerah.

But here, one can view the same thing two ways:

1- We could talk about the role of humanism in pesaq, that we have to
make allowances for the OCD-ness of the sho'el. Or...

2- We could consider the OCD-ness part of the metzi'us about which the
poseiq has to pasqen. This would then change the pro-vs-con balance in
a halachic evaluation that the poseiq thinks of as a clean-room analysis
of the halachic imperatives.

On one level, these are just two attitudes about doing the same thing. But
because pesaq is an art, not an algorithm, even that difference in
attitude may change the shiqul hada'as and the resulting pesaq.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 08:31:29PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: The same page is available on line in a few other magazines, such as page
: 99 at https://issuu.com/weeklylink.com/docs/vol_10_issue_28
...
: They write in the name of Rav Chaim Pinchos Scheinberg ztz"l:
:> The general obligation to check for and get rid of crumbs
:> does not apply if the crumbs are less than the size of an
:> olive (k'zayis) and are dirty or spoiled enough to deter a
:> person from eating them.

: And they quote Rabbis Elozor Barclay and Yitzchok Jaeger that:
:> If the chometz is dirty then only a piece that is the size
:> of a k'zayis (an olive) must be removed.
:> If the chometz is edible, then even a smaller [than a kzayis]
:> piece that one may be tempted to eat must be removed.

: If this is indeed the halacha, then it explains and simplifies several
: difficulties I've had over the years. But *is* this the halacha? The page
: has very few references to printed sources, and I'd appreciate any mar'eh
: m'komos that anyone might offer.

This is in line with the posts we used to get annually about how keeping
Pesach doesn't require driving ourselves crazy with Spring Cleaning. And
therefore driving yourself crazy to the point of dreading the approach
of Pesach is assur as violating simchas YT. 

Eg
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n044.shtml#01 - R/Prof Levine
http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/pesach/stress_relief.pdf

http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n131.shtml#08 - posted by
RET "R. Elyashiv on Pesach" (highlights from a booklet)

There are others, I think Rt Boublil posted a couple. But I am in
Israel, and now that my lives-too-far-away grandson is awake, I am
motivated to invest less time searching and letting you do the rest.
(What is below was written earlier.)

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 06:52:59PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: We are told many times how very thorough the bedikah must be: Cracks and
: crevices. Holes in a wall. And so on. These places have always led me to
: believe that we must search for all chometz - even if it is small and even
: if it is dirty....

In the past, I "blamed" the havtachah of the Ari zal that omeone who
totally purges their chameitz will not sin in the coming year. A
minhag based on Qabbalah, not din.

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 07:45:29AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: Here's my guess at the answer: We often put eating chometz and owning
: chometz into the same category, but that's a mistake. Eating chometz is a
: very severe issur, but owning chometz is more like a "gezera d'Oraisa" to
: insure that we don't go so far as to eat chometz...

After bitul, we aren't even dealing directly with the deOraisa. At this
point the matter is derabbanan. So, maybe bal yeira'eh isn't a "gezeira
deOraisa", but not having chameitz be'ein laying around is a gezeira
derabbanan

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l


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



_______________________________________________
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.)