Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 17

Fri, 02 Feb 2018

• 1. Re: Shehechiyanu on esrog jam (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Shehechiyanu on esrog jam (Zev Sero)
• 3. Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem (Akiva Miller)
• 4. Finger esrogim (Ari Z. Zivotofsky)
• 5. Re: Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem (Micha Berger)
• 6. More Common Kiddush Questions: Kiddush B'Makom Seudah (Professor L. Levine)
• 7. In the #MeToo era, these synagogues are banning Shlomo Carlebach songs (Micha Berger)
• 8. Existential Chazakot (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Existential Chazakot (Micha Berger)
• 10. Aneinu (Ben Waxman)
• 11. Offenders must repent before they are forgiven (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: Offenders must repent before they are forgiven (Micha Berger)

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 02:29:26PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis
:> A. The Mishna Berura (225:16) writes that one does not recite
:> Shehechiyanu on an esrog, since the fruit does not have a season...
:>                                        [F]or another reason they too
:> conclude that one should not say Shehechiyanu. As was alluded to in
:> a previous Halacha Yomis, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was instituted
:> primarily to be said when seeing a new fruit...
:> in this case, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was already recited on the
:> esrog when we shook it with the lulav on Sukkos...

I think esrog jam is not necessarily a good idea for more balebatishe
reasons. Today's esrog grown for the mitzvah has a LOT of pesticides
on it.

The local maqolet has "buddah's hand" citrons, the same species as
an esrog, but with several smaller migdalot so that it looks like
someone's hands with their fingers bunched up pointing upward (if
you have enough imagination). Wikipedia
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha%27s_hand>.

According to the MB, one can't use them either. But according to other
shitos... It is covered by esrog? (Can you use a fingered citron for the
mitzvah on Sukkos?)

Next, no one would be eating these things, or many of the other fruit
in the stor,e, if it weren't for Tu biShvat. We've gone quite a ways
from the grower excited about the new crops growing on his nachalah.
We're now using weird fruit that we didn't miss from the last time
they were in season. Nowadays, many fruit down't even seem seasonal.
Apples just cost a little more part for the year. How do we justify
making shehechiyanu at all, now that it's not about the excitement of
something new? Maybe only people who like the chance to experiment with
new taste who should make them?

And if you are trying a new front for the shehechiyanu, shouldn't both
the berakhah and the shehechiyanu wait until after the first taste, so
you know you like it?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
mi...@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

On 31/01/18 11:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> According to the MB, one can't use them either. But according to other
> shitos... It is covered by esrog? (Can you use a fingered citron for the
> mitzvah on Sukkos?)

AIUI, yes, these are kosher esrogim, because this is their natural form, 
so they have the din of "Esrog Hakushi", which if it grows on a normal 
tree is possul, but if it grows on a tree which naturally produces such 
esrogim it's kosher.  According to R Ari Zivitofski this is the psak 
received by the Jews who settled on the Malabar Coast in the late 15th 
century and found these esrogim growing there.


> Nowadays, many fruit down't even seem seasonal.
> Apples just cost a little more part for the year. How do we justify
> making shehechiyanu at all,

Indeed, if one can't tell whether it's from the new season one cannot 
say shehecheyanu.  This is why we don't say it for potatoes, carrots, 
etc., which are commonly stored in root cellars and available all year. 
The same is nowadays true for apples and oranges.

With other summer fruit there are still noticeable seasons, since in the 
winter the price goes up dramatically, so high that most people don't 
buy them.  This is the equivalent of a situation the poskim discuss, 
that rich people preserve a fruit but poor people don't, and the psak is 
that the rich people are batla da'tam and one says shehecheyanu when the 
new season's fruit comes in.  If the price of Chilean fruit in winter 
comes down to the point that everyone thinks nothing of buying them, 
then indeed the shehecheyanu for those species will disappear.

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

Interesting article from R' Gidon Rothstein. He didn't phrase it quite this
blatantly, but I sense a suggestion that Creation *doesn't* obligate us to
obey Hashem, and that bothers me. So I'd like to propose an idea, and y'all
can weigh in on whether it is compatible with RDR and his sources.

As I see it, the Law of Lo Tignov is just as obligatory as the Law of
Gravity; it's just that the effects of one are more immediate and obvious
than the other. Phrased differently, we are all obligated to obey these
laws, and this obligation exists even if we don't accept it, and even if we
don't even recognize it. These laws apply to all of G-d's creations.

But there is another group of laws, those given to Bnei Yisrael. These are
the ones that we accepted at Yetzias Mitzrayim.

The outside world views the Ten Commandments as universal, and maybe that's
why we are surprised to the first one talking about the Exodus rather than
Creation. But if we view the Aseres Hadibros as speaking to Israel - and
especially if we view those ten as categories for the 613 - then it makes
sense for the first one to be explaining that, "I did for you, and this is
your side of the agreement."

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180131/5a6313e1/attachment-0001.html>

Attached are some sources that I have assembled.

[See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/fingerEsrogSources.pdf>
-micha]

And a nice picture of Rav Machpud examining a finger esrog:
[<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/fingerEsrogRavMachput.jpg>
-micha]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 08:42:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: Interesting article from R' Gidon Rothstein. He didn't phrase it quite this
: blatantly, but I sense a suggestion that Creation *doesn't* obligate us to
: obey Hashem, and that bothers me. So I'd like to propose an idea, and y'all
: can weigh in on whether it is compatible with RDR and his sources.

The post was based on the Ramban. We would have to distinguish between
what the Ramban said by any interpreation, and what is specifically RGS's.

"Experimentally", it seems the Creation could obligate the 7 Mitzvos.
After all, that's the duty of humanity.

Jews have a duty beyond that. What obligates that?

: As I see it, the Law of Lo Tignov is just as obligatory as the Law of
: Gravity; it's just that the effects of one are more immediate and obvious
: than the other. Phrased differently, we are all obligated to obey these
: laws, and this obligation exists even if we don't accept it, and even if we
: don't even recognize it. These laws apply to all of G-d's creations.

I don't know what you mean by the Law of Gravity being "obligatory".
Natural law is in the realm of "Is", halakhah and morality are in the
realm of "Ought". Gravity is a pattern about how things behave. There
is a tendency to reify (make a reality out of something abstract)
that pattern into a law they must obey, it's not an "obligation". It's
something they /do/ obey.

But since we're talking about the Ramban, maybe we shouldn't jump to that
reification so quickly. Doesn't he hold that "natural law" is just a term
for patterns in His Action, hiding what is really just as miraculous as
things we identify as "miracles"?

I might suggest that that there is a natural and/or metaphysical law behind
Lo Signov, but it wouldn't be "Thou Shalt Not Steal" (really: Kidnap, but
we'll ignore that for this discussion). Rather, it would be that bad things
happen when you steal. Therefore Hashem warns us away from it for our own
good. A notion of halakhah as Doctor's Orders more than General's Orders.

Otherwise, as I said, I fail to understand your meaning.

: But there is another group of laws, those given to Bnei Yisrael. These are
: the ones that we accepted at Yetzias Mitzrayim.

Which could also be Doctor's Orders. Just as a piano mover can only do his
job if he obeys more health rules than necessary for most lines of work.

: The outside world views the Ten Commandments as universal, and maybe that's
: why we are surprised to the first one talking about the Exodus rather than
: Creation...

Rihal has the Chaver give the Kuzari king an entirely different kind of
answer. Hashem opens with "asher hotzeisikha mei'Eretz Mitzrayim" not
because that's the reason for observance, but because those are the
grounds for our knowing He Exists.

    He then invited a Jewish Rabbi, and asked him about his belief.

    11. The Rabbi replied: I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and
    Israel, who led the children of Israel out of Egypt with signs and
    miracles; who fed them in the desert and gave them the land, after
    having made them traverse the sea and the Jordan in a miraculous way;
    who sent Moses with His law, and subsequently thousands of prophets,
    who confirmed His law by promises to the observant, and threats
    to the disobedient. Our belief is comprised in the Torah -- a very
    large domain.

    12. I had not intended to ask any Jew, because I am aware of their
    reduced condition and narrow-minded views, as their misery left them
    nothing commendable. Now shouldst thou, O Jew, not have said that
    thou believest in the Creator of the world, its Governor and Guide,
    and in Him who created and keeps thee, and such attributes which serve
    as evidence for every believer, and for the sake of which He pursues
    justice in order to resemble the Creator in His wisdom and justice?

    13. The Rabbi: That which thou dost express is religion based on
    speculation and system, the research of thought, but open to many
    doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and thou wilt find that they do
    not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can
    be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory,
    and still much less capable of being proved.

    14. Al Khazari: That which thou sayest now, O Jew, seems to be more
    to the point than the beginning, and I should like to hear more.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org        once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

From

https://goo.gl/q7pcDE


Have you ever wondered why after partaking of Kiddush in shul, many people
nonetheless make Kiddush again at the onset of their Shabbos Day Seudah? If
one already fulfilled their Kiddush obligation in shul, what could the
requirement possibly be for another at home? How many times must Kiddush be
recited? Additionally, if people generally make Kiddush on Mezonos on
Shabbos Day, why don't we do that on Friday night as well? Interestingly,
the answers to all of these questions are intertwined. But to gain a proper
understanding of the relevant issues, some background is order.


YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180201/7a706f37/attachment-0001.html>

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 04:08:26PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote:
: Please see
: https://goo.gl/TFxdHR
: 
: What other music should be banned, because the composer did not live a
: "sterling" life. Perhaps Strauss. From
: https://goo.gl/4GYgpY

For clarity, let's take it to an extreme:
How many of us listen to Wagner y"sh? And would you bring his frankly
Araynist music -- with the lauding of Teutonic pagan mythos -- into
shul davening?

So the question may not be if, but how much?

Do we chase down info that may pasl a source, or only deal with
accusations most people know of? This is related to the theoretical
question of motive:

Are we talking about the music we listen to, or about the music we
pray with?

Cantor Sherwood Goffin's guidelines for tunes for davening are:

1- Don't abandon "miSinai" tunes. There is value to a melody simply
because we know that if a contemporary of the Maharam miRutenburg would
walk in, they could still join in. The beauty of continuity.

2- In other contexts, select a tune that matches the three M-s:

    Mood - fit the tone of the words. In my experience, the most common
           violation is a chazan choosing to sing Keil Adon to depressing
           or plaintive music, rather than something more regal.

    Mode - this is a music term, describing the type of scale and the
           chords and note progressions it enables. Wikipeda lists some of
           the major modes of Ashkenazi nusach (and Klezmir, which borrows
           them) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_prayer_modes
           (The entry name shows Ashkocentism.)

           The melody's mode often makes one mood or another easier to
           express. Like the the way the minor scale makes it easier to
           express pathos than in a major scale.

    Min haQodesh - the music should have a holy source, it should have
                   been written for tefillah, for a kumzitz or otherwise
                   inspire.

If we want our tunes to be "min haqodesh", then what the tzibbur knows is
irrelevant. But then maybe you want to avoid Strauss simply because he
wrote his music for chol. Regardless of his qualities (or lack thereof)
as a person. We would similarly question singing Qedushah to "The Sound
of Silence" and the like.


But for me, I avoid Wagner because I can't enjoy his music. Knowing he
wrote it has me free associating to his antisemitism, racism, and his
believe in an "Aryan Master Race". (Google Arthur de Gobineau for the
origin of that one and Wagner's admitation of de Gobineau's thought.)

Similarly, our motive for cutting a songwriter or composer from the
repetoir of shul music could be because we are convinced of his guilt
and we want to simply avoid distraction from off-topic thoughts.

Or, as per the Temple in question, a shul too could desice they want
to be clear to any victims in the minyan to feel we side with them over
their attackers.

But in the case of these two rationalistic / psychological motives,
excluding a songwriter's music would depend on what people are likely
to know. And there is no reason to research into Strauss's personal life.


Of course, perhaps first is the pragmatic question of whether guilt has
really been established by criteria acceptable to halakhah, where we
have chezqas kashrus, dan lekaf zekhus, etc...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself.
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org            - George Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507

A perennial Avodah favorite:

R'H Schacter - 1985 Shiur (Me- R'YBS on Chazakot-What do you think)
"I remember after Khrushchev was in the United Nations . . . do you have
missiles in Cuba? . . . we don't have any missiles . . . so what happened
to the umdena of . . . milsa d'avidei l'igluyei? . . . so Rav Soloveitchik
said he doesn't think that umdnah applies any longer bzman hazeh . . . If
the psychology change, the din changes . . . tan du . . .. Rabbi
Soloveitchik . . . doesn't think the psychology changed . . . this point in
psychology cannot change . . . if it says something in Parshat Bereishit .
. . about the creation"

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/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180202/dd2d45a1/attachment-0001.html>

On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 03:21:30AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: R'H Schacter -- 1985 Shiur (Me -- R'YBS on Chazakot-What do you think)
:> "I remember after Khrushchev was in the United Nations... do you
:> have missiles in Cuba?... we don't have any missiles... so what
:> happened to the umdena of... milsa d'avidei l'igluyei?... so Rav
:> Soloveitchik said he doesn't think that umdnah applies any longer bzman
:> hazeh... If the psychology change, the din changes... tan du.... Rabbi
:> Soloveitchik... doesn't think the psychology changed ... this point
:> in psychology cannot change... if it says something in Parshat
:> Bereishit... about the creation"

Again, the problem is that is very much NOT what RYBS said when speaking
out against R' Rakman's BD. RYBS held tan du to be an example, not an
exception. RAK posted a transcript at
http://arikahn.blogspot.com/2013/03/rabbi-soloveitchik-talmud-torah-and.html

To quote where RYBS literally says the opposite:
    ... Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos
    but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are
    indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos,
    but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal
    spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns,
    but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth
    of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality,
    which is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example
    the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan du
    mil'meisiv armalo ...

I think in all these conversations all we've established is what
RYBS's opinion wavered or evolved (away from it being a general aspect
of chazaqos), and we haven't gotten anything on what anyone else
holds. Except, by implication, R' Rackman.

And if RYBS's final opinion is that there are two kinds of chazaqah
(3 really, but we're not discussing chazaqah demei'iqara altogether),
which if any other chazaqos did he hold were based on Torah statements
about unchanging aspects of human nature (or nature nature)? Or on
aspects of human nature that are unchanging without scriptural proof of
the fact?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507

The rabbinate this week ruled that because of last week's rains the 
shaliach tzibbur should no longer say Aneinu in his repetition.

I am having trouble understanding the decision. The country has a 
massive rain deficit. We could have a wet year and we would still be in 
the red so to speak. From a machshava POV (and that is why I am asking 
about it in Avodah) what difference does a couple of days of rain make 
in terms of Aneinu? Does continuing to say Aneinu mean that we are 
ungrateful for the rain?

Ben

Please see the article at

https://goo.gl/yARGe3


In light of the fact  that what Levy did is a Chilul HaShem,  then 
based on  Rav Schwab's article

Chillul 
Hashem<http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chillul_hashem_r_schwab.pdf>


it seems to me that Levy cannot fully repent until his death.


There he writes

Every form of Chillul Hashem lowers the awareness of
the Divine Presence in the world. But if the desecrator
happens to be a professed Torah observer or, even worse, a
so-called scholar of the Torah, then the Chillul Hashem not
only weakens the respect for Torah on one hand, but
strengthens on the other hand the defiance of the nonobserver
and adds fuel to the scoffers, fanning the fires of
religious insurrection all around. Chillul Hashem is
responsible, directly or indirectly, for the increase of frivolity,
heresy and licentiousness in the world. Therefore, we should
not be surprised reading the harsh words of condemnation
we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul
Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot
fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)."

So even though Levy has served his time it does not mean that 
according to Judaism he is completely innocent.


YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180202/a3ec1720/attachment-0001.html>

On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:55:39AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: In light of the fact  that what ... did is a Chilul HaShem,  then
: based on  Rav Schwab's article
...
: it seems to me that ... cannot fully repent until his death.

Assuming he did it. I deleted the name because the person was
investigated, cleared by police and Child Protected Services. There is no
reason to presume guilt, which actually means it's assur for me to do so.

But, treated the case as a hypothetical:

Why quote R Schwab when what you're saying is straight from the gemara R
Schwab quoted:
:>         we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul
:> Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot
:> fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)."

HOWEVER, I would be clear that he CAN fully repent. Notice "teshuvah"
in the gemara's list. What he cannot achieve is full kaparah.

In terms of us as a society.... The recidivism rate is high, but it's
wrong to pretend it's 100%. If the man did teshuvah, we shouldn't be
invoking uvi'arta hara'ah beqirbekha. That Hashem didn't grant him full
kapparah is between the offender and HQBH.

And in terms of keeping our society safe, there are psychometric tests
used by the penal system to assess a person's risk baasher hu sham. We
can get the risk of who we trust down to the same ballpark as people
whose history give us no cause to even ask the question (ie the unknowns
who make of the rest of the community).

:-)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


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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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.)