Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 113

Mon, 18 Sep 2017

• 1. Re: Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis (hankman)
• 2. Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B?av (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B?av (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Mitzvot bnai noach (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Kellogg's Products containing gelatin & interesting story (Zev Sero)
• 7. The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle (Professor L. Levine)
• 8. Re: Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Re: Tuition Breaks and Tzedaka (Micha Berger)
• 13. Is the Customer Always Right? (Prof. Levine)

R. Zvi Lampel wrote:

?(All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance
to help??

CM responds:
Yup, I imagine that would  be the concordance in his head!

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20170913/7bb231d5/attachment.html>

Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B?av even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan?
KVCT
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/20170914/26649c6f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 01:28:03PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: Is it a common practice to say Kiddush Levana on Motzai Tisha B'av
: even though one is still fasting in order to be sure to have a minyan?

Wasn't sure if this was for Avodah or Areivim, but...

Last year my minyan did Maariv, Havdalah, OJ and cake, then Qiddush Levanah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 06:18:52PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: The Minchat Chinuch discusses from time to time whether a mitzvah is
: applicable to Bnai Noach or not. If it is not one of the classic seven,
: might it be subsumed under dinim (laws)?..

I think the intent is that they're subsumed under one of the 7. R/Dr
Aharon Lichtenstein in his book "The Seven Laws of Noah" (RJJ press, 1981)
count out a subdivision of the 7MBN into 52 lavin and 14 mitzvos asei.
So, for example, RAL writes that geneivah includes lo sachmod.

While the MC (#414-415) says that the mitzvos describing the proper
functioning of beis din apply to their courts too, that may just be
because that's the appropriate mitzvah of the 7 for these tolados (to
borrow a term). And IMHO he too holds that all 7 mitzvah has such
"tolados".

:           Does the Bnai Noach king have unlimited power to make his own
: law as long as it doesn't contradict the seven?

I believe so. Discussions of dina demalkhusa dina disagree over the
source of that authority, but they take for granted that some kind of
authority is granted.

There is a related question that you come close to... What's the role of
a Noachide court under dinim:

The Ramban says (Bereshis 34:14) it is to keep an orderly society.
This would be the civil gov't's source of authority to legislate; once
we figure out how halakhah decides what is a real government -- who is a
king and who is an illegal pretender to the throne. The Rama (shu"t #10)
and the Chasam Sofer (CM 91) hold that where meaningful, that law should
be made consistent with halakhah (the 613). In contrast the AhS haAsid
(Malekhim 79:14), RIESpektor (Nachals Yitzchaq CM 91), the CI (Melakhim
10:10) and ROY (Yechaveh Daat 4:65) hold that they "merely" need to be
fair and just. But all of these disputants are assuming that "dinim"
includes civil law, they are arguing over what the resulting civil law
needs to look like.

But it could also be that dinim is meant to be the means of enforcing the
other 6. This is shitas haRambam  (Melachim 10:14). The Rambam, in shu"t
Chakhmei Provance (#48) has nafqa minos between the laws they pass in
relation to the Noachide laws and other laws of the land.

See https://www.jlaw.com/Articles/noach2.html

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:48:18AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote:
: I have heard poskim say that the issur of chalav/basar etc haneelam min
: ha'ayin only exists where there is a (financial) incentive for the exchanger
: (ie they c replace your kosher meat w a piece of cheaper trief meat)

Is there a "chalav ... etc"? I thought the taqanah of neelam min ha'ayin
was a meat thing in particular.

But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash
et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case
to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive.
Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held
like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just"
understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge,
not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the
brain.

(* et al: meaning, a large number of acharonim who aren't as much
staples of halachic discussion as is the CS. RMF assumes that they're
the consensus, by sheer number.)

If the need for CY were only when financial insentive to go treif, there
is no need for a taqanah -- it would be a regular kashrus problem, and
one would need full supervision without the taqanah. RMF wouldn't have
had to invoke the USFDA; he could have simply noted that cow's milk is
the cheapest milk in the US, and there is no reason to fear adulteration.

It's like the issue of ein be'edro tamei. Some are meiqil, or at least
include as a senif lehaqeil (Melameid leHo'il 2:33) when there is the
disinsentive to adulterate the milk of not the dairy needing effort
to obtain the treif milk.

R' Elyahu Baqshi-Doron (Techumin vol 23) explains that one of the reason
the Chief Rabbinate requires CY supervision is because camel milk is
available in Israel. EVEN though it's pricier.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What you get by achieving your goals
mi...@aishdas.org        is not as important as
http://www.aishdas.org   what you become by achieving your goals.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Henry David Thoreau

On 14/09/17 14:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> But in any case, if we hold that CY is a taqanah (ie like the Peri Chadash
> et al (*) over the Chasam Sofer and CI), then there is a strong case
> to prohibit chalav hacompanies even when there is no financial motive.
> Some earlier 20th cent CE posqim permitted USFDA milk because they held
> like the CS. But RMF's famous teshuvos are based on the PC, he "just"
> understands the re'iyah the taqanah requires to be acquiring knowledge,
> not necessarily via photons, eyes, and visual perception regions in the
> brain.

You have the PC and CS reversed.

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

Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost
anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. After Shacharis, most of
those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the
day's main Mitzvah - the Blowing of the Shofar. But isn't it prohibited to
eat before Tekiyas Shofar?

To find out click here: Insights Into Halacha: The Performing Kiddush Prior
to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle<http://sable.madmimi.com/c/10500?id=145085.782.1.1150fbda2602
44ae5d01c94075f16c36>.
"Insights Into Halacha<http://sable.madmimi.com/c/10500?id=145085.783.1.b1e37bde48d8
45fef01ba70cf3d98042>" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha
articles for Ohr Somayach.






<https://madmimi.com/?>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170914/d436162b/attachment-0001.htm>

First, let me get the easier stuff out of the way. So I am replying to
R Akiva Miller's second post first.

On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 6:38am EDT, RAM wrote:
: As I see it, the only "problem" with a brand-new oil wick it that
: takes some time for the fire to "catch". I don't see this as a real
: halachic problem with constituting a hefsek between the bracha and the
: lighting; it is more of a practical problem of the bother and effort,
: but mostly the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation, and that
: does not apply to Chanukah.

I though the point was that unlike neir Chanukah, neir Shabbos (or YT)
is about creating shalom bayis. Therefore, pushing to make their neiros
more of a collaborative effort between both spouses enancese the function
of neis Shabbos.

IOW, it is not about "the time delay in a close-to-Shabbos situation"
as much as about the wife's stress in that situation and letting her
feel less that she is shouldering the list alone.


Now, jumping back to Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:43pm EDT, when RAM wrote:
: Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3.
: The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was
: "awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a
: level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why
: this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this,
: because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs
: of the home."

Actually, you missed a word that would make the case stronger. "HaNashim
muzharos YOSEIR, mipenei shemetzuyos babayis..."

But in terms of halakhah, the Bach, the MA (s"q 6) and the Be'er Heiteiv
s"q 5 says that even if the husband wants to light himself, the woman
gets priority. Unless she's in labor or gave birth that week... (In
their respective next s"q, both the MA and the BH meantion the Chavah
kavsah neiro shel olam connection.)

The MB too...

So, it is given to them, even if that's not the point of the SA the OU
cites, "only" the nesei keilim.


: In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting
: the lights is part of that!

Well, maybe not. Could be, "Since we would prefer an ideal world where
women can consistently be homemakers..."

The mishnah in Bemeh Madliqin seems to imply that women don't just happen
to be the ones ending up dealing with niddah, hafrashas challah and neir
Shabbos, but that they have some special metaphysical connection. Being
insufficiently zehiros can cause death in a particular female way.

BTW, note that both the mishnah and the SA talk about "zehirus". Don't
know what to make of that.

Is halachic reflecting reality, or trying to push us toward a particular
social state?


This is actually one of the topics of an interesting exchange on R/Dr
Alan Brill's blog. RDAB interviewed R Ethan Tucker about his new book
"Gender Equality & Prayer in Jewish Law"
https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/interview-with-rabbi-etha
n-tucker
And then posted some responses. In the OP, RETucker argues that most of
halakhah relating to women, in particular when they are lumped together
with avodim and qetanim, allegedly has to do with their social standing,
and therefore subject to new pesaqim as that social standing changes.

One paragraph:

   Until recent decades, it was self-evident that those with XX
   chromosomes, as a class, were subordinate in all kinds of ways.
   The category shift argument--proffered already several years ago
   by Rabbi Yoel bin Nun and developed further by me in [31]a recent
   essay--suggests that the Sages' original intent in these halakhot
   that speak about women, slaves and minors was never about biological
   sex per se, it was about class and power. Now that those variables
   have shifted dramatically in our society, women shift from exempt
   to obligated. The halakhah stays the same: those with power must
   subordinate themselves to serve God. And this is the key point:
   according to the category shift argument, maintaining an exemption
   from mitzvot for contemporary women because of their biology actually
   risks failing to direct them to fulfill their Biblical obligations
   in a range of mitzvot!

Then RDAB collected replies (there may still be more coming, I don't
know):
    Rn Malka Z Smikovich: http://j.mp/2wZh5Tb
    R Yoav Sorek (of the Tikvah Fund): http://j.mp/2eYO2Vd
    R Ysoscher Katz (of YCT): http://j.mp/2xnxsZM

RnMZS objects to the Historical-School style implication that halakhos
were motivated by the usual political forces of class and power. I'm not
sure that was RET's intent, that she's taking a line from the paragraph
I quoted out of context. But I'm undermotivated to spend time defending
his thesis. Rather, she says, it's about preserving a particular ideal
family unit.

RYSorek's position is closer to RET's. For example, he writes, "My
personal tendency is to count women for minyan, and I think this will
become natural; but I am not sure." Anyway, he still objects to the
thesis:

    Tucker is so captured in his egalitarian approach, that he does
    not really consider its own biases. For Tucker, there are only two
    possible explanations to excluding women from the minyan: ... [see
    quote above]. I believe that Tucker is right and that many of the
    halakhic rulings towards women are a function of their legal and
    economic status in ancient times; but I believe that this is not the
    full picture. Halakha thinks that men and women are not identical,
    and sees them as having different roles in a way that is essential
    for family and society. God could have created humanity as a single
    sex. He did not do so.
    ...
    Take just one application: a minyan is not just an instrument to allow
    certain rituals; it is the core of a Jewish community, or edah in
    halakhic discourse. While we were counting only adult men, we needed
    ten Jewish household to create a community. If we will count the women
    also, then we can be satisfied by five. This is a huge change, which
    is far from being technical. By counting two adults in every family,
    we reconstruct the meaning of a Jewish family or household. If until
    now the family was treated up to now as an organic unit, it is now
    closer to be an umbrella of two adults who share some kids.

So this objection (and it's not his whole argument) is that RET is
ignoring the possibility that he is tampering with halachically endorsed
social structure.

RYKatck also objects. He, like RnZSmikovich, reads RET as talking about
class and power as political motivators. And like the other two reviewers,
among his objections is the idea that halakhah doesn't only help us
decide how to respond in a given social context, it pushes particular
kinds of social structure over others.

    ... I think the rabbis were more concerned with preserving a stable
    social organism that depended on a traditional family structure with
    a husband and wife at the core.
    ...
    Much of halakha regards family law and is based on, or hopes for,
    community units that comprise family units which comprise individual
    units. When the family unit is threatened, the halakhic system is
    threatened. Demanding that both husband and wife participate equally
    in ritual law, therefore, may have been regarded as threatening
    to the family unit. I am not arguing that the concept of a stable
    family unit needs to remain static throughout the centuries, but
    noting that the ideal of familial stability motivated the rabbis.

A final person note: I come from a world sufficiently far to the right
of the men in this discussion that at times I fail to see how there is
so much to say about it.

Just to remind you after all that quoting how I got this far afield:
Perhaps the mechaber is saying that women are muzharos because they are --
and we would prefer if they could be -- the ones at home more and busier
with the needs of the home. And so we create a social context in which
that is not only accomodated, but comes more naturally.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 4:51pm +0300, R Marty Bluke wrote:
: There are 2 obvious questions on the Rambam (and really the Gemara):
: 1. The Beis Din Hagadol was in existence throughout the period of the
: Tannaim...

According to the Rambam, and that of the amora'im.

According to the She'iltos (and my impression, the majority opinion)
it ends one generation before the end of the amoraim, under Rav Hillel
II -- the BD that established the current calendar (+/- an argument over
a dechuyah rule).

So you might as well ask the same question about the Tosefta and
both talmuds.

: 2. Why didn't the Beis Din Hagadol resolve the disputes between Hillel and
: Shammai and their students and in fact all of the disputes in the Mishna?

To sum up:

1- I think the existence of a machloqes in the mishnah doesn't mean it
was still unresolved in th days of the mishnah.

: Why did they let Machlokes fester? ...

2- Still, we have evidence of cases where a multiplicity of norms
coexisted. And therefore I think the Rambam's position that every
machloqes was brought to sanhedrin and resolved either cannot be accepted,
or cannot be taken at face value.

a- There is strong indication (see RZL's post) that the machloqesin
Batei Hillel veShammai exploded in number after the self-expulsion from
the lishkas hagazis.

Which could be an instance of RETurkel's post:
b- The Rambam only meant a well-functioning Sanhedrin would resolve the
machloqesin that arose. And not every Sanhedrin ran as it should.

And I suggested:
c- Not every multiplicity of norms is a machloqes. There had to be
some social pressure making the variety of positions feel like multiple
Toros, rather than the halakhah not specifying the level of detail that
distinguishes between them.


And on Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:44pm +0300, the other RMB wrote:
: > They *did* resolve the BH/BS disputes.   Every time they voted BH won
: > whatever was the subject of that vote, except the day BS had the majority
: > and passed their 18 gezeros.

: That does not sound like the Sanhedrin voted.  The Sanhedrin had a fixed
: group of 71 members, it did not matter how many talmidim someone had. It
: sounds like they had a vote of the Chachamim not the Sanhedrin.

When we speak of a beis din gadol mimenu bechokhmah uvminyan, we either
mean 
- number of Talmidim (see Bartenurah Edios 1:5)
- number of chakhamei hador who agreed and accepted the ruling (Tosefos YT
  sham)

So if authority comes from the number of heads beyond the 71, then that
would explain why they too got counted.

But more likely, they tried getting 71 people into the loft to vote, and
the mix of who voted was dependent on the population of who could get
there. Why such an informal beis din hagadol? I don't know. Why would
Sanhedrin meet in someone's loft to begin with? Maybe this was a time
when the Rome-sanctioned "Sanhedrin" was Sadducee controlled.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
mi...@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

From Tvunah, a web site maintained by talmidim of R' Asher Weiss
<https://en.tvunah.org/2017/09/15/tuition-breaks-tzedaka/>:

   Question:
   If one send his children to a yeshiva where they charge a very high
   tuition for attending but are are very lenient with breaks to those
   who need if one takes a tuition brake is it permitted for him to give
   any charity to other places because if charity is only given on net
   profit technically he has no net profit if he cant afford the full
   tuition bill and therefore perhaps he must give any charity to the
   yeshivah to help pay off the balance that he didn't pay in tuition.

   Answer:
   He may still give tzedaka, but it should only be minimal, not like
   an average person, and certainly not Maaser.

If RAW would say this WRT Americans on scholarship and if it were
generally followed (Kant's Categorical Imperative -- the moral choice
is what would work best if everyone did it), a lot more money would go
to schools and a lot less to poor people, the chevrah qadishah, biqur
cholim, miqvah, shuls...

I think that year one, these other social structures would suffer. One or
two might collapse or even get close to it. In year 3 or 4, the published
tuition might go down, as more parents share more of the burden. And
then maybe the infrastrucure would recover. Since none of this impacts
the gevir money, "just" the many smaller donations from 1/3 - 1/2 of
the rest of the community.

Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since
published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that
differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described --
because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser
money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes?

I know both of the local day schools quote posqim who say one may use
maaser money to pay the differential. I am wondering if promoting that
pesaq might not backfire among parents who are currently paying part
of the differential based on the above reasoning.

(I looked for the Hebrew original, because an English adaptation with
no sources if often based on a teshuvah that had them. But I couldn't
find it. If someone who knows Modern Ivrit better than I is willing to
help, I would appreciate it.)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Which raises the obvious question, back on-topic for Avodah: Since
published tuition is more money than my own kid costs, is that
differential in money owed the school in the manner RAW described --
because that's what the market price is? Or is the differential maaser
money that can therefore be given to other urgent causes?
---------------------
From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope - cost accounting is a  subjective art. Who will make that determination?

KVCT

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.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:15:40PM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote:
: From a practical standpoint " my own kid costs," is a slippery slope -
: cost accounting is a subjective art. Who will make that determination?

As implied by the scenario I gave: In Passaic, the two larger local schools
(and perhaps the third too, I don't know) will tell you how much of your
tuition can come off your maaser money. So, presumably whomever told them
that the differential above your own kids' share of the expenses necessary
to cover the exenses not paid for by parents on tighter budgets, also gave
them some guidelines for defining what that is.

But since these numbers are available, I personally hadn't thought of the
complexity of their definition.

And does the school itself giving you that number change your hischayvus
for the differential above that to full tuition even if it isn't how /your/
poseiq would tell you to compute your share?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Education is not the filling of a bucket,
mi...@aishdas.org        but the lighting of a fire.
http://www.aishdas.org                - W.B. Yeats
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Please see the video at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8

YL

Please see the video at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMd6NDT5Z8

YL



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



_______________________________________________
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.)