Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 119

Mon, 09 Oct 2017

• 1. RE Expensive etrog inter alia (Herbert Basser)
• 2. Re: RE Expensive etrog inter alia (Zev Sero)
• 3. going to the amud (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: going to the amud (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: going to the amud (Harry Maryles)
• 6. Re: going to the amud (Ben Waxman)
• 7. Re: RE Expensive etrog inter alia (Herbert Basser)
• 8. Re: going to the amud (Micha Berger)
• 9. Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? (Akiva Miller)
• 10. Re: Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women (Micha Berger)

There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but
bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog in
the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without really
checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources (time) on
petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible beauty for him.


also see shmos rabba 30:9 for hashem's observance of halacha (I have a discussion of the inyan on reseachrgate.net)


Hag Sameach!



zvi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20171004/c515aff4/attachment.html>

On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote:
> There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but 
> bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog 
> in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without 
> really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources 
> (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible 
> beauty for him.

Where in that halacha is this?    I couldn't find it, and also searched 
the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist 
(though "lulav" appears twice).

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

I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has multiple
minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there is often
not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time that it takes to
start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to influence someone to
start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is often sent for
mincha/maariv.
I'm not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid the
amud, but I'm struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and wonder how
this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why the practice of
sending youngsters up developed given the S"A's psak concerning the
priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts?

GT
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/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20171008/6fa8f0e6/attachment.html>

On 07/10/17 22:10, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
> I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has 
> multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there 
> is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. [...]  Thoughts?

My first thought is to be happy that this shul doesn't have enough 
avelim to make the issue moot.

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

On Oct 8, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has
> multiple minyanim

You must be talking about Maasas Mordechai. That is where I've been
Davening since I got here just before Yom Kippur. During Chol Hamoed,
I will be davening shachris at the Vasiken minyan (6:10am). My son Davens
there. If you are at that minyan, come on over and say hello.

>                    At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there
> is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time
> that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to
> influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is
> often sent for mincha/maariv.

> I'm not sure what the community thinking is...

To answer your question, I just asked my son about it. He said it's just
a practical matter. Most boys are more willing to go to the Amud. All
of the married men that are there just shake off the requests to be the
Shaliach Tzibur for some reason.

HM

I saw similar practices during Shacharit when I used to go to Sadigora 
in Jerusalem. However, often the teen would quit right before starting 
chazarat hashaz. That always got interesting.

Ben
On 10/8/2017 4:10 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
> I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has 
> multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, 
> there is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. The amount of 
> time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other 
> trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah 
> boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv.
> I?m not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid 
> the amud, but I?m struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and 
> wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why 
> the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak 
> concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts?

You're right-- I thought it was y peah. But obviously not. A number of
years ago I tired to discover when the first mention of looking at many
esrogim  was. I remember looking at the yerushalmi and its commentaries and
thought it was there --obviously not.  Now I have no idea--

________________________________
: Zev Sero <zev.s...@gmail.com> on behalf of Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Sent: October 7, 2017 9:11 PM
To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group
Cc: Herbert Basser
Subject: Re: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia

On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote:
> There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but
> bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog
> in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without
> really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources
> (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible
> beauty for him.

Where in that halacha is this?    I couldn't find it, and also searched
the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist
(though "lulav" appears twice).

--
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20171008/883fc21c/attachment.html>

On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 02:10:14AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
:                    At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there
: is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time
: that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying
: to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy,
: he is often sent for mincha/maariv.

Going backwards (who ever said I am a chakham bound to answer al rishon
rishon?)...

The kid is not as likely to declien the gabbai, because an adult carries
more authority in the kid's eyes. Besides, it's good practice.

As for the adults declining... Two possiblities, and I would bet that
in most cases, they both come into play.

1- The more positive issue is that there is actually a din to decline
the amud, accepting only on the third request. I have no idea how this
was expected to be implemented in a minyan where people are expected to
know the din. A rachmanus on the gabbaim!

Still, we see an ethic of tzenius, and halevai people internalize it!

2- The following is Ashkenazocentric. The way we teach davening, it's
really a personal affair. A person is encouraged to go as slowly as
he needs, having his own kavvanos. The notion of tefillah betzibbur is
layered on top of that, but not in a way that explains what that means
about how I daven. That means that being shatz becomes a tircha, a call
to say the words in a manner that robs me of any chance of getting value
out of tefillah in the ways I was taught how.

So of course men (who aren't cowed by being asked by a grown-up) choose
to decline!


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

My wife and I have recently discovered that among our friends, it is
invariably the husband who makes the Eruv Tavshilin. This surprises us, and
we are wondering what other families do, and if there are any sources for
one preference or the other.

Essentially, the Eruv Tavshilin means that in this particular instance, the
Shabbos cooking cannot wait for Friday, but must be done on Erev Yom Tov
too. With such an intimate connection to the Shabbos cooking, it was
intuitively obvious to both my wife and myself that this is NOT similar to
other mitzvos (mezuza is a good example) which might be done by the husband
for gender-role reasons. Rather, it is the beginning of the cooking, and
should therefore be done by whoever does the cooking. In our family, that's
the wife.

Eruv Tavshilin was not assigned to each and every individual, like kiddush
was. It is a reminder. Granted that the rishonim have varying explanations
of this mitzvah, but it seems that to all of these explanations, the object
of this reminding is the person who does the cooking.

So my question to the chevra is: In your family, who makes the eruv, and
why? And do any sources discuss this?

Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written
above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was
made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not the
best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed on one
who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid *at*
*all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help me? What
sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never understood this, nor
have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions that it does work. Any
help in this area would be appreciated.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20171009/ca700c80/attachment.html>

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 03:17:36PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote:
: JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the
: topic of leadership/ordination for women....

Speaking of the full essay
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6dL9J7DLHeobDJOZFFaTll1VVU/view>.

Your article has proven to be a slow read for me. I keep on being
pulled into "polemic mode" (apologies for talking like a programmer,
but...) and when I do, I stop, put it down, and wait until I could give
it a fairer read, to actually hear what you're trying to say rather than
just listening for points to refute.

Here are my first set of reactions. Of course, they're all points of
disagreement; trying to take the time to understand what you were writing
before objecting doesn't mean I stopped objecting. <grin>


1- You open with
    Earlier this year, 7 highly respected rabbis authored a position
    paper on the ordination of women and on the possibility of women
    serving as clergy. [1] Individually and collectively, they represent
    great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership. It would
    seem presumptuous for someone who will never achieve anything near
    their learning or stature to comment or critique. However, no one
    person or group has a monopoly on facts and logic. And, as will
    be demonstrated, Torah learning sometimes is not the sole or even
    dominant factor in a person's opinion on these issues.

There appears to be an underlyuing assumption that halachic arguments,
even meta-halachic ones, are entirely formal, rather than containing
a strong element of ineffible art. (See #2, below) If halakhah deals
with determinations like that of which poetic forms "sound right"
then their "great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership"
provide experience at the art of pesaq that your response simply lacks.

The gemara requires shimush before one attempts to pasqen. A poseiq
needs not only the abstract facts and logic, but also the skill he
can only pick up with experience.

Recently, my Arukh haShulachan Yomi schedule brought me to EhE 145:6.
The topic is whether a shechiv-meira who gives a gett "meihayom im
meisi" made the gett as-of the moment of giving, a colloquial use
of "today", or if we cannot assume the gett is chal before the end
of the day (R' Tam in Tosafos 72b). R' Elchanan (Tos' ad loc) says
"nachon lehachmir". The AhS's assessment of the "facts and logic"
leads him to conclude "vehagam chumerah yeseirah hi". And yet he
continues to close the se'if with "mikol maqom chalalilah lehaqeil
bedavar sheR' Tam nistapeiq bo".

RYME knew that a decision of a more skilled artisan is too likely
correct even in the face of his own reasoning.

And there are other factors that go into halachic decisions other than
the merits of the argument -- both those we can articulate and those
someone could only feel by practice. Things like acharei rabim lehatos.
I am not saying defer to the OU's panel because they outnumber you. I
am just pointing out that logical argument isn't the only source of
legal authority.

Another, more relevant, is nispasheit bechol yisrael (see #8, below).

The notion that your paper is of value beyond lehalakhah velo lemaaseh
is an example of the American valuation of autonomy that can itself
be at odds with ancient AND mesoretic values. (See #7, about not
framing the discussion in terms of rights or privileges.)


2- You offer your own translation of Mesorah, which is only valid if you
can show that's how the authors of the paper intended the term.

From your pg 4:
> We can broadly define it as the content of our tradition that is
> passed from one generation to another. That tradition contains Mitzvot
> and opinion on the value of Mitzvot. Frequently a situation occurs
> where one must choose between emphasizing one mitzvah or a different
> mitzvah. Our Mesorah therefore contains not only the Mitzvot, but also
> attitudes or values that help us choose between Mitzvot when they come
> into conflict. One could cogently argue that the values are in fact
> Mitzvot in and of themselves, but for the purpose of this discussion that
> is a distinction without a difference. Ultimately what this analysis
> is concerned with is how, within the confines of our legal tradition,
> are values embraced or shunted to the side.

However, RYBS and RHS both use the term mesorah to refer to the ineffible
side of the art of pesaq. I argue this with examples at
http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean
I therefore think it is likely the sense intended by the entire OU Panel.
Or at the very least (not that I want to fully concede this, but have
to admit it's plausible) heavily colored by this notion.

Skipping the somwhat longer quote from RYBS, here are quotes I had
found from RHS, one of the panel members:

Jewish Action, Fall 1910:

     Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a
     process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that
     reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it
     to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and
     so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the
     mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to
     the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes,
     through our teachers.

And a bit further in the article, "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?":

     Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master
     Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone
     with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of
     halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the
     spirit of the law, with a mastery of both the rules and the attitudes
     of the mesorah, can determine when a change is acceptable or even
     required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater
     the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only
     be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider
     new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah,
     removing external influences from the deliberation.

Rav Schachter then applies this topic to feminism itself in a teshuvah:

     Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that
     every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a
     Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask
     himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe
     would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have
     taken....

Still, most of your examples of how change was permitted despite mesorah
would be valid even if you were discussing the same topic I believe the
authors to whom you're responding are. I think, though, your response
would have been stronger if it reflected our discussions both my Torah
Musings post and here.


3- But you shift criteria for legitimate change in moral value.

Page 2:
    This paper will illustrate that 'modern values' are intrinsically
    neither 2 good nor bad, and that our Mesorah has always incorporated
    'modern values' that found resonance in the Mesorah. Furthermore,
    according to great and highly respected Modern Orthodox authorities,
    a hallmark of Modern Orthodoxy is the willingness to acknowledge
    some 'modern values' as previously under-recognized religious values.

I think you're again arguing against a point the OU paper isn't
making. They aren't saying there is a problem with appropriating
'modern values' in-and-of itself, but that there is a problem with
changing halakhah to fit 'modern values' simply because they are the
values living in the modern world means being immersed in.

What happened to checking for that "resonance in the Mesorah"?

This being another phrasing of my origin objection here on Avodah from
the days of the initial announcement of Yeshivat Maharat. I do not see
discussion of how we know that this is a change the values of the Torah
would imply are positive. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion,
can the change be legitimate without that procedural step?

Anyway, you tone down the need for resonance when you open the door
to assessing for yourself which values count. From the closing
paragraph of section I, on mesorah, pg 13:
    ... The major issue is distinguishing between timeless values and
    ancient values. As has been demonstrated, our Mesorah over time,
    consciously or unconsciously, has addressed the perceived conflict
    between ancient values and modern values. Certainly there are modern
    values that have been appropriately rejected. Frequently however,
    ancient values have been rejected or perhaps more accurately assigned
    a reduced role of importance. And the modern values have been the
    impetus for the re-evaluation.

At this point, I fear, the hunt for resonance goes out the window. IIUC,
you are making the case that resonance need only be between actual Torah
values, and not all ancient values actually qualify.

This is actually more problematic given your definition of Mesorah than
the one I think the OU's authors intended. After all, if mesorah is a
mimetic transmisison of values, than any ancient value is mesoretic.

But the problem I have with this statement is that it reads like
you're saying that (1) we need to assess which Torah values are real,
and therefore which do not bow to movern values; and (2) we use said
modern values to drive that assessment.

That can't be your intent. Please clarify.

Continuing the paragraph from where I left off:
                                   As discussed in the Part II, the
    Halakhic arguments, taken at face value, are in favor of ordination
    for women. The values of eliminating unnecessary restrictions,
    encouraging full expression of potential to serve the community,
    fairness, and others also point towards ordination. There are
    specific Halakhic restrictions in place governing the behavior
    of men and women. The question that needs to be answered is: What
    timeless principles (or values) are served by imposing restrictions
    on women that are not justified by a fair reading of the Halacha
    and the sources? Are they truly Timeless and justifiably dominant
    in our Mesorah, or just ancient? ...

If I were to use halakhah to make that determination, I would ask
whether those "specific Halakhic restrictions" that were historically
/ traditionally explained in terms of those ancient values can be
otherwise explained. Since they do appear to be of the same cloth,
this is a sizable burden of proof on your part.

This is the challenge in the OU paper you quote on pg 29:
    Gender differences have, historically, been particularly evident in
    the arena of public service. We believe that these distinctions are
    not merely a relic of times bygone; instead, they reflect a Torah
    ethos -- a /Mesorah/ -- of different avenues and emphases by which
    men and women are to achieve identical goals -- the service of G-d
    and the perpetuation of the Jewish people.

4- You cite and dismiss "nashim daatan kalos", but do not note that it's
part of a richer picture of gender differences alongside "binah yeseirah
nitenah lahen".

5- You quote RAL at the bottom of pg 8, an essay about using English
Literary sources to enhance and color values that we cannot find in our
own tradition:
    Nor should we be deterred by the illusion that we can find everything
    we need within our own tradition. As Arnold insisted, one must
    seek "the best that has been thought and said in the world," and if,
    in many areas, much of that best is of foreign origin, we should
    expand our horizons rather than exclude it.

He is talking about broadening the search in the case of silence; that
we can learn more from TIDE than Torah alone. A discussion of what
to do when we can't "find everything we need within in our Tradition"
has nothing to to with real or apparent conflicts when we do find an
answer -- ancient or traditional -- before looking elsewhere.

6- You wuote R/Dr Shalom Carmy, describing R Eliezer Berkovitz, that
his
    moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.dissatisfaction with
    mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures
    of contemporary egalitarianism, but in his judgment about biblical
    conceptions of justice,

While that may well be true of REB, it has to be actually be shown that
the same is true of Torah observant Jews who join an organization with
the word "feminism" in its name.

You write:
    The authors of the paper in fact state something quite egalitarian:
    The Torah affirms the absolute equal value of men and women
    as individuals and as ovdei Hashem. This is not the view of the
    Talmud. The Mishnah (Horiyot 13:1) states: "A man takes precedence
    over a woman, in matters concerning the saving of life... a Cohen
    takes precedence over a Levi...." Clearly the lives are not of equal
    value in the eyes of the Talmud.

Arguments about the validity of what you think the misnhah is "clearly"
saying aside...

You are treating equality of value as synonymous with egalitarianism.
The people you are responding to do not. They view is as more akin to
the implication of JOFA's talking about "feminism" -- seeking value in
the same sorts of roles and activities. A square can be equal in area
to a triangle without insisting the square and the triangle are congruent.

7- "Usena es harabbanus". Leadership isn't about my "desire for maximal
participation within Halacha", as you put it in a sentence shortly before
the previous quote (pg 10). It's about my duties toward the community.

Your entire phrasing of the discussion in terms of right or privileges,
people getting an opportunity, depriving of that opportunity being
unjust (as you present REB's position), is itself a HUGE drift from
how halakhah even discusses values; never mind the content of that
discussion.

Self-expression is like the tassles emerging from the windings of the
tzitzis. (RSRH's metaphor in CW vol 3.) It is how we express ourselves
within the framework of Torah; but not the windings themselves. What
makes me a fan of Bach's music is his ability to conform to the strict
structural rules of the music of his era. And yet he still produced
pieces that could express sublime religious passion or Majesty. (Until
Beethoven invented Conservative Judaism. <grin>)

Halakhah's role is to channel such expression constructively -- like the
windings of the tzitzis. As RSRH continues, there is a reason why
the free part of the tassle is ideally twice was long as the wound portion;
this metaphor isn't against expression.

The second you frame halakhah in terms of every getting their fair
opportunity, I hear an evaluation based on a framework very alien
to an internally resonant analysis.


9- Somewhat more tangentially, but it's the first case of something I
might raise other examples of in a future email. (Assuming I ever want
to go retail rather than stick to meta-issues.)

On pg 3, fn 3:
    There are other stated facts in the OU paper that require
    discussion but are beyond the scope of this paper. For example,
    one of the points emphasized in the OU paper is the issue of women
    as ritual slaughterers (shochtim). Some authorities such as R. Jacob
    Landau and R. Moshe Isserles wrote that since women did not do it,
    there was a custom for women not to do so. But that was factually
    erroneous. "Female ritual slaughterers were to be found in most of
    the Jewish Diasporas... In Renaissance Italy, the phenomenon of shohatot
    was very common. Another source also documents that female shochtim
    were found in areas of Italy where they adequately educated. See
    Grossman, Avraham...

I am willing to agree with the conclusion that the Agur and the Rama were
wrong on the historical facts, and simply didn't know what was going on
in other parts of the golah. Still...

You don't touch the point the OU paper cites it for -- that the Rama, a
halachic source we cannot simply ignore -- is one of a number of
sources that WERE willing to suggest that a practice being absent from
the mesorah can mean there is a mesorah that it ought to be absent.

That statement bothers me too. But because you dismissed the quote based
on a tangent, you don't address the central problem it raises!


Perhaps there'll be more after I really read section II onward.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
mi...@aishdas.org        "I am thought about, therefore I am -
http://www.aishdas.org   my existence depends upon the thought of a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch


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



_______________________________________________
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.)