Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 67

Sun, 28 May 2017

• 1. Re: Holy Smokes (Akiva Miller)
• 2. Bmidbar (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen (Micha Berger)
• 4. The Aruch haShulchan and the Government (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: The Aruch haShulchan and the Government (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: The Aruch haShulchan and the Government (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: The Aruch haShulchan and the Government (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim (Micha Berger)
• 9. [Tvunah] St. Petersberg White Night Zmanim (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Another approach to Ruth's geirus (Akiva Miller)
• 12. Re: Another approach to Ruth's geirus (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Another approach to Ruth's geirus (Ben Waxman)
• 14. Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (Professor L. Levine)

R' Ben Bradley wrote:

> The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is
> that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui
> which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in
> fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha
> nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it
> either as far as I recall.

This surprised me so much that I looked it up. Here's what I found:

These words are from Devarim 4:15. The only comment of the Torah
Temimah is: "This is brought and explained above, in the pasuk Ushmor
Nafsh'cha (#9)."

So I look at Devarim 4:9, and the Torah Temimah quotes a lengthy story
from Brachos 32b, which references both pesukim (4:9 and 4:15). The
comments of the Torah Temimah that I found particularly relevant to
RBB's comment are found in the second and third paragraphs in Torah
Temimah #16, and I will quote them here:

> The Maharsha writes here, "This pasuk is about forgetting
> the Torah, and these pesukim have nothing at all to do with
> a person protecting his own nefesh from danger." According
> to him, the tzadik of that story said what he said to the
> government official merely to get out of the situation,
> because the pasuk is really not about Shmiras Haguf. Further,
> the fact that it is a common saying, for people to quote the
> pasuk V'nishmartem Me'od L'nafshoseichem for any physical
> danger - according to the Maharsha that's a mistake.
>
> But isn't it the explicit opinion of the Rambam, who wrote
> in Rotzeach 11:4, "It is a Mitzvas Aseh to remove any
> michshol which could be a Sakanas Nefashos, and to be very
> very careful about it, as it is said, 'Hishamer L'cha,
> Ushmor Nafsh'cha Me'od.'" So it is explicit that the language
> of these pesukim *is* about protecting one's body.

At first glance, this seems to go against what RBB wrote. BUT: Even
according to the Rambam as cited by the Torah Temimah, it seems to me
that the most one can say is that Ushmor Nafsh'cha (Devarim 4:9) talks
about physical danger; we don't necessarily know that about
V'nishmartem (Devarim 4:15), and it is not clear to me why the Torah
Temimah closes that paragraph referring to "THESE pesukim" (hapesukim
ha-ayleh).

Akiva Miller

 Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has
: been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced
: the monotheistic faith...

But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our
parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the
plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged
during the Exodus  >>

However, the avot were shepherds and it has been suggested that being alone
with the flock and nature helped them perceive monotheism.

BTW I am now reading The exodus you almost passed over by Rabbi Fohrman who
demonstrates that the debate between Moshe and Pharoh and the 10 plagues
all revolve about monotheism versus polytheism

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170526/25ab0932/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer,
: and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying
: observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes
: when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ...
: [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is
: outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be
: factionalized like that.
....
: help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha,
: despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it
: is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to
: the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply
: to tefillin on Chol Hamoed.

: I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4
: consistent with 493:8?

Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag,
as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't
going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town
has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple
batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin
on ch"m either.

It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the
imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the
local court(s) or inherited.

Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag
side of the AhS's chiluq.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

There is a popular theory that the positive description of the gov't found
repeatedly found in the AhS is self-censorship and an attempt to make sure
his works make it through the government censorship and approval process.

But there are times he goes far beyond this, complimenting them in ways
no censor would have expected, never mind demanded.

For example EhE 42:51, the discussion of marrying in front of witnesses
\who are pesulei eidus deOraisa -- eg converts away from Judaism. Rashi
has a case of an anoos who got married with other anoosim, and they
all returned. Rashi ruled that she needs a gett, because maybe they had
hirhurei teshuvah and at that moment were valid eidim.

Then he adds
    Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu
    shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed.
    They would never force someone to convert.

Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he
continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's
converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah,
we don't have to be chosheish for it.

So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he
suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO
obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up
to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus?

In terms of timing, the first booklets of EhE started coming out in
1905. (After YD, which came out 1897-1905.) He stopped sometime during
or before 1908, his petirah; but he could have written this well before
1905 -- I only know the publishing date. 1905 was the year the empire
survived the Russian Refolution, which was over this very issue of
Russification of minorities, among other things. Which then led to a new
Russioan Constitution, a multi-party system, the Imperial Duma... and
11 years later, the Soviets.

So, it's hard to believe he meant it, but it's hard to believe he would
risk empty flattery with those stakes!


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

On 25/05/17 22:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Then he adds
>      Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu
>      shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed.
>      They would never force someone to convert.

He goes on far longer than that.  So long that no reader could possibly 
miss his meaning.


> Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he
> continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's
> converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah,
> we don't have to be chosheish for it.
> 
> So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he
> suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO
> obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up
> to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus?

This was a period when some publishers of siddurim felt it necessary to 
print "avinu malkeinu ein lanu melech bashamayim ela ata".  He may very 
well have feared that including a practical psak about anoosim would 
arouse the censor's ire, especially since the censors were themselves 
mostly meshumodim.


> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which
> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other
> things.
Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see it as 
bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which the censor 
could raise no official objection, even though it would have been 
obvious to him too.

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

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
:> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which
:> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other
:> things.

: Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see
: it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which
: the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would
: have been obvious to him too.

I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in
his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation
audience.

Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining
qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting
them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his
contemporary readers.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On 26/05/17 10:57, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which
> :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other
> :> things.
> 
> : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see
> : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which
> : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would
> : have been obvious to him too.
> 
> I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in
> his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation
> audience.

candlesticks?  I think you meant gelecther.   But there's no false psak, 
just a false description of the metzius, which is so over the top that 
nobody could miss it.


> Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining
> qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting
> them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his
> contemporary readers.

How could he possibly know what future conditions might be?  Any 
reference in any sefer to "our times" has to be understood as about the 
author's times, not the reader's.


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

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
: If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly
: accused of being agenda driven.
: 
: Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK.

I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat
believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their
halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response.

Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda
to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have
a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality.

Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means
of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a
non-halachic agenda by making it look holy.

(My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about
fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only"
a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos
that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov,
etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or
resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and
general feel that emerges from halakhah say?)



On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:57:32AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post
: modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all
: agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid)

But there are limits to eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. When in a
halachic debate, one should be limiting oneself to the various answers
that are objectively right. Thus presuming there is an objectively right,
while still not being absolutist about it. And if we assimilated too
much postmodernism to be able to see where eilu va'eilu ends (tapers off),
we should be leaning on posqim who can.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

From the web site of R' Asher Weiss's pesaqim
<http://en.tvunah.org/2017/05/22/st-petersberg-white-night-zmanim>.
I was told that they had a similar problem in the summer in Telzh.
Motza"sh was havdalah, melaveh malkah, night seder, shacharis kevasikin,
sleep.

    Tvunah in English
    Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion
    Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita

    White Night Zmanim

    Questions:
    1. During White Nights here in St. Petersburg we end Shabbat at
    midnight (2:00). This is also the time of alot ashahar. Accordingly,
    there is no opportunity to say a blessing on the candle and eat
    Seudat melawe malka. Question: Is it possible to rely on the opinion
    of rabbi Ovadiya Yoseph that alot ashahar is 72 dakot zmaniet before
    dawn, and accordingly there is a certain night after Chatzot for
    Bracha on the candle and melawe malka?

    2. Can we finish fasts of 17 of Tamuz and the 9th of Av after tzet
    kahovim according Gaon (0:03 and 23:03)?

    Answers:
    1. Since it is already the beginning of the light of the new day and
    hence Alot Hashachar, the bracha on the candle for havdala should not
    be said. However since it is still a few hours before Netz Hachama
    [sunrise] one could be lenient to eat Melave Malka. In fact, with
    regards to Melave Malka one could be lenient and eat before Chatzos,
    as long as 72 minutes have passed since shkiya [even though with
    regards to Melacha one should be machmir until Chatzos].

    2. With regards to ending Rabbinic Fasts, one could rely on the zman
    of Tzais Hakochavim according to Rabeinu Tam [according to the Pri
    Megadim that it is a set time in all places], waiting 72 minutes
    after shkiya.

    [Hebrew meqoros ubi'urim elided.]

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 45th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of
Fax: (270) 514-1507               unity (on all levels of relationship)?

On 5/26/2017 5:53 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
> : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly
> : accused of being agenda driven.
> :
> : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK.
>
> I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat
> believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their
> halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response.
>
> Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda
> to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have
> a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality.

People keep using that word, "feminist".  I don't think that's what 
feminism means.  This is egalitarianism, which may overlap with feminism 
in some areas, but is a different ideology.

And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to reality.  
That would imply that halakha comes first and responds to reality.  I 
think that in the vast majority of cases, and if you want, I'll give you 
ample examples from the writings of JOFA/YCT people, it is a sense that 
egalitarianism is a moral imperative. That the egalitarian worldview is 
quite simply the *only* moral worldview, and that to the extent that 
halakha comforms to that worldview, it is a moral system, and to the 
extent that it does not, it is not.

> Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means
> of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a
> non-halachic agenda by making it look holy.

It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as being 
mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality that predates 
this entire debate.  When the egalitarians want to try and read their 
ideology back into Jewish history, they often do so with things like 
Rashi's daughters laying tefillin, a fiction which is accepted as fact 
by Conservative and Reform Jews, but has absolutely no historical basis.

There is a legitimate argument to be made that those on the side of 
tradition are afraid of change.  But not that they are *only* afraid of 
change.  Casual change of halakhic norms has caused enormous damage in 
recent history, and wariness or even fear of such things is both 
rational and reasonable.

Again, there may even be something admirable about trying to equalize 
the two sides the way you're doing here, but it doesn't match the 
reality.  One has only to listen to the types of arguments that are used 
by the two sides to see that they are operating on the basis of vastly 
different paradigms, where one *starts* with the Torah and one *starts* 
with egalitarianism.

> (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about
> fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only"
> a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos
> that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov,
> etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or
> resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and
> general feel that emerges from halakhah say?)

It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of 
Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.  The words of 
the Ramchal and Rabbenu Bachya are not as rigorously chosen as those in 
the halakhic areas of the Torah, and are far more easily "adapted" to 
foreign ideologies.  I don't say that they are unimportant, but let's 
not let the tail wag the dog here.

Lisa

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

To quickly review an old question: If Rus and Orpah converted at the
*beginning* of the story, then how could Naami send Orpah back to her
people? But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without
Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews?

Some answer this question suggesting that there was a sort of
"conditional" conversion at the beginning, and while Rus later
affirmed her conversion to be sincere, it was revealed that Orpah's
was never valid to begin with. I have never understood this answer,
because of the ten years that elapsed from the supposed conversion
until it was retroactively nullified. (By analogy, suppose (chalila)
that Jared and Ivanka would split up, and Ivanka would claim that she
was only putting on a show all along. Who would believe her? Those who
currently accept her geirus as valid, would anyone accept such a bitul
of it?)

Today I came across a different approach to the question. Like any
other area of halacha, hilchos geirus has its share of halachic
disputes. For example, which parts of the process require a beis din;
perhaps a beis din is needed only l'chatchila, or is it me'akev? Or:
If the conversion candidate admits that he/she has mixed motivations
(such as being interested in a Jewish spouse, but also sincerely
l'shem Shamayim), is this acceptable or is it posul even b'dieved?

Pick either of those questions, or make up another one of your own.
Let's say that both Orpah and Rus converted at the beginning of the
story. Let's also say that everyone was up-front and sincere about
whatever they claimed their motivations to be, such that no one was
surprised ten years later. In other words, there was no disagreement
about the facts of the situation. But there WAS a machlokes among the
poskim of the time, about the halacha to apply to that situation.
Machlon, Kilyon, Rus and Boaz all held like the poskim who said that
the conversion was a valid one, at least b'dieved. But Naami held like
the poskim who ruled it to be invalid, even b'dieved.

Thus, Machlon and Kilyon were able to marry these women in good
conscience. For ten years Naami held Orpah and Rus to be non-Jewish,
but there wasn't much she could do about it, because their husbands
held that they *were* Jewish. When the husbands died, Naami finally
had the opportunity to express the view of her poskim. Orpah accepted
Naami's advice (for whatever reason), but Rus was committed to
continuing her new religion (for whatever reason). At this point,
perhaps Rus had a second geirus to keep her mother-in-law happy, or
maybe not. Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was
valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to
speak of.

A possible hole in my suggestion appears in pasuk 2:20, where Naami
explicitly admits that Boaz is one of "OUR" relatives, and one of
"OUR" redeemers. This would not make sense if Naami rejected the
validity of the original conversion. However, this occurs AFTER pasuk
2:11, in which Boaz tells Rus (I am paraphrasing): "I know your whole
story. Don't worry. I hold your geirus to be valid, and I hold you you
be a relative." In the final analysis, Naami goes along. Maybe she
decides to accept Boaz's shitah l'halacha, or maybe she merely goes
along as a practical matter, given the fait accompli that both Boaz
and Rus hold that way.

Have I left any loose ends here? Previous approaches have focused on
uncertainties of intention. This approach says that everything that
happened in Moav was clear, and the only gray part was a machlokes
haposkim, but we know which shitah was followed by each character of
the story.

I invite all comments.
advTHANKSance

Akiva Miller

On 27/05/17 23:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was
> valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to
> speak of.

There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the mitzvah of 
redeeming her husband's land.  What is the point of this mitzvah?  It's 
to pay off his obligations and redeem his good name; Ruth -- whether 
Jewish or not -- was also his obligation, and had to be redeemed.  Thus 
Boaz need not have believed that the initial conversion -- if there was 
one -- had been valid.

But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than being willing 
to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why put it in hilchos gerus, 
and not more directly on whether it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? 
Perhaps they held it only applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took 
the pasuk literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging 
such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves.


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

I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their very names 
show that the two men were problematic personalities. Rut converted when 
Naomi tried to send her back, while Oprah chose not to convert.

Ben

On 5/28/2017 5:44 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
 > But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without
 > Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews?

From  last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day


Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros?


According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section
of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and
important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres
Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that
these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should
always follow the local custom.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20170528/942f246a/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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)