Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 58

Thu, 10 May 2018

• 1. Re: The Torah Attitude Toward Gentiles, Animals, and Vegetation (Zev Sero)
• 2. quick parshas Behar question (Sholom Simon)
• 3. Re: quick parshas Behar question (Micha Berger)
• 4. minhagim (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Rashbi (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: melucha (David Riceman)
• 7. Re: melucha (Micha Berger)
• 8. ?normal practice? (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Rashbi (Zev Sero)
• 10. Minhagim (Prof. Levine)
• 11. The Wild Wild State of Kashrus (Professor L. Levine)

On 09/05/18 15:54, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> 
> I have posted letter 11 of RSRH's 19 Letters [...] > [...]
> In light of the above I simply cannot understand how some Torah sources 
> can express a [contrary view]
How about because they are Torah sources, and are therefore not required 
to agree with your favorite 19th-century writer.  On the contrary, you 
should ask how he could contradict Torah sources.

(The answer being that he found some contrary sources which appealed 
more to him, so he adopted their view; that was his right, but nobody 
else is required to do the same.)


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

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: multipart/alternative
Size: 332 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180509/20654e7b/attachment-0001.bin>

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 11:15:51AM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote:
: We know Rashi's famous question and answer: that shmita eitzel har sinai
: here is to show us that this, too, and all the details, were also given at
: har sinai.

See my vertl at <http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/behar.pdf>.

That's the Sifra that Rashi is quoting.

: My question, however, is: why davka _this_ mitzvah (shmita/yovel)?  Other
: mitzvos could have been used to demonstrate the point that Rashi mentions.

Rashi mentions that shemittah isn't taught in Devarim.

The Malbim explains that this is unexpected, since shemittah didn't
apply until entering EY, and such mitzvos tend to be the ones introduced
in Devarim.

: Thoughts?

I ran with it... Suggesting that the whole point is that the reductionist
approach doesn't work to understanding Torah. This was brought to light
bedavqa with a mitzvah that isn't needed to be known yet for its own
sake. But the whole picture was given at Sinai, even shemittah, so that
we can understand any of the picture.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 39th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          reliable person?

> I suggest reading an article by Brown
> https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/hillel/1633fd7c1ed2a4a7
> (4th on the list)

Linking to gmail isn't helpful unless the article is already in ones
gmail account (assuming one even has one).  Even then it's unlikely to
be fourth on everyone's list.   Do you have a link to somewhere on the web?
 >>


My apologies. See
https://www.academia.edu/36530833/A_translated_chapter_from_The_Hazon_Ish_Halakhist_Believer_and_Leader_of_the_Haredi_Revolution_The_Gaon_of_Vilna_the_Hatam_Sofer_and_the_Hazon_Ish_-_Minhag_and_the_Crisis_of_Modernity_English_?auto=download&;campaign=weekly_digest


which has several articles besides the one by Brown,
Alternatively, send an email to elitur...@gmail.com and I can send the
article
-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180510/18520a51/attachment-0001.html>

<< > OTOH there is the gemara?that when there was the dispute in Yavneh
> between Rabban Gamliel and R. Yehoshua it was Rashbi that was involved.

I've looked at all three disputes, in Rosh Hashana 25a, Bechoros 36a,
and Berachos 27b, and I could not find any mention of R Shimon.


Look on Berachos 28a at the end of the sugya 3rd line in the widest lines
near the bottom
and the student that originally asked the question was R Shimon Ban Yochai


Rabbi Akiva was involved in the Bar Kochba revolt and so died about 130-135
CE.
Rabban Gamliel is assumed to have died about 20 years earlier (see eg
wikipedia on Gamliel II)
It is difficult to believe that the students of R Akiva died before the
story in Yavne when
R Yeshoshua, R Tarfon, R Gamliel etc were all alive.
So the assumption is that the students of R Akiva died about the time of
the Bar Kocba revolt whether in battle or from disease is irrelevant

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180510/235e9eec/attachment-0001.html>

Me:
>> 
>> Are there other examples of "rosh" meaning subordinate? It's a surprising usage.

RZS:

> 
> Certainly in more recent usage it's not at all surprising; in every 
> Jewish community the Rosh Hakahal was the layman who did the work, not 
> the rav who guided him.

No.  The kehilla had the authority, not the rav.  The rav was an expert
on halacha and (in smaller kehillot) the town judge, but the kehilla voted
on policy, with each household having some share of the vote.

>  Ditto for the Resh Galuta, who (if he were a 
> yerei shamayim) would be expected to defer to the chachamim.

Again the Reish Galusa determined public policy, the hachamim determined halacha.

>   But at 
> any rate there can't be any doubt that R Akiva is referring to the 
> full-time administrators, because his whole point is that if they're to 
> do their job properly they can't be learning all day.

The claim that ?da'as Torah? is derived from din melech is precisely the
claim that learning Torah all day does produce authoritative expertise in other fields.  Incidentally,
it also raises a question: why is there a melech at all, shouldn?t the leader of the Sanhedrin
be more qualified for his role?


David Riceman

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:51:16AM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote:
: The claim that "da'as Torah" is derived from din melech is precisely the
: claim that learning Torah all day does produce authoritative expertise
: in other fields...

That's NOT the way I understood R' Dovid [haLevi] Cohen at all.

We want a melekh, separate from the beis din hagadol. Although one person
can be in both roles, like when Chazal refer to "Shelomo uveis dino."
However, ba'avoseinu harabbim we lost the melukhah. The obligation of
obeying the melekh devolved into obeyind the Sanhedrin. (This would have
to have been some time between Gedaliah and Ezra, inclusive.)

Obeying the melekh wasn't based on the melekh's comptenecy, but the
need for order in running a society. (And, I guess some reason(s) why
HQBH advised monarchy in particular as the means of getting that order,
except according to some readings of RAYK. But RAYK didn't hold of the
shitah we're looking at, so ein kan hamaqom leha'rikh.)

Then, we lost the Sanhedrin. Today's rabbanim fill in -- either as their
shelichim, or <pick your favorite model here>.

The claim of this version of DT is that just as today's rabbanim took
over WRT pesaq, they also inherited the role of filling in for melekh.

And just as the melekh might not be the expert across all of society,
the Sanhedrin or today's rabbanim might not be.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 40th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Yesod: When does
Fax: (270) 514-1507      reliability/self-control mean submitting to others?

I was bothered by the gemara-Megilla 26a where it says Jerusalem apartment
?owners? took ?gifts? by force as ?rental? from olei regal. The Beit
Mordechai (2:16), who lived in the early 20th century, raises the same
question and says since the normal practice in Israel was for renters to
leave something for the innkeeper in addition to the rental payment, so
innkeepers in Jerusalem would take it by force since they could not charge
rent. He admits that it?s possible that this would be considered stealing
but because of this ?normal practice? of leaving something, it?s almost
like they had a legal claim and therefore they felt they could take the
items.

Interesting that I couldn?t find earlier authorities bothered by this but maybe I missed something.  Any thoughts appreciated.

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/20180510/1b3af5ef/attachment-0001.html>

On 10/05/18 05:43, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> << > OTOH there is the gemara?that when there was the dispute in Yavneh
>> between Rabban Gamliel and R. Yehoshua it wasRashbithat was involved.
> 
> I've looked at all three disputes, in Rosh Hashana 25a, Bechoros 36a,
> and Berachos 27b, and I could not find any mention of R Shimon.
> 
> 
> Look on Berachos 28a at the end of the sugya?3rd line in the widest 
> lines near the bottom
> and the student that originally asked the question was R Shimon Ban Yochai

Thank you.


> Rabbi Akiva was involved in the Bar Kochba revolt and so died about 
> 130-135 CE.

Why do you suppose he was killed around that time rather than much 
later?  If he was killed then, then he would have been born around 10-15 
CE, have started learning Torah around 15-20 years before the churban, 
and have come back home with all those talmidim 4-9 years after it.

Doesn't it seem more likely that his Torah learning started after the 
churban, and after Kalba Savua had resettled somewhere and reestablished 
himself, which would mean his death was also several decades after Bar 
Kochva?


> Rabban Gamliel is assumed to have died?about 20 years earlier (see eg 
> wikipedia?on Gamliel II)
 >
> It is difficult to believe that the students of R Akiva died before the 
> story in Yavne when  R Yeshoshua, R Tarfon, R Gamliel etc were all alive.

Why is this at all difficult to believe?  What makes it difficult?


> So the assumption is that the students of R Akiva died about the time of 
> the Bar Kocba revolt whether in battle or from disease is irrelevant

If you assume both that the students died then and that he himself died 
then, then when did he have time to teach his five new students?


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

At 10:44 PM 5/9/2018, R Eli Turkel wrote:


>I suggest reading an article by Brown
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fmail%2Fu%2F0%2F%23search%2Fhillel%2F1633fd7c1ed2a4a7&;data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce7f2ed89c0b04a153b9008d5b61fe896%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C1%7C636615170523842613&sdata=KHDvBEGhAvUsiq8oxUjnwZDX%2Bt0hzpo7D25XR2o0CPA%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>It is an English translation from his book on the Chazon Ish
>
>Brown makes the argument that CI and much of litvishe gedolim in the recent
>past
>basically rejected minhagim as the practice of the masses. Only those
>practices that can be
>traced to the gemara or rishonim are acceptable. Even achronim except for a
>select few don't count.
>He further argues against the article by Haym Soloveitchik and claims that
>the attitude of CI was already present in Russia before WWII and even
>communities not affected by modernism. It was basically an attitude of
>elitism that only gedolim count.
>
>OTOH Hungarians led by Chasam Sofer strongly fought to preserve mighagim of
>the kehilla. This was even more stressed by the Chassidic community. In
>fact what distinguishes one chassidic group from the other ones is their
>unique set of minhagim most of them fairly recent (last 100-200 years at
>most)
>
>His conclusion is that both approaches have their pluses and minuses in
>terms of protecting their communities from modernism.
>I conclude that the debate over gebrochs mirrors the debate between
>litvaks and chassidim over the value of "recent" minhagim.

I believe you are referring to an article that recently appeared in 
Hakirah that is at 
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&;rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjyg6mKmfvaAhVCuVkKHeutBeYQFggtMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hakirah.org%2FVol24Shandelman.pdf&;usg=AOvVaw3XZQch0OGem-hvrLpivEHB

(I cannot access the link you give above, because I do not have a 
google account.)

I found this article most disappointing and sent the  email below to 
the Editors of Hakirah

Subject: The Gaon of Vilna, the Hatam Sofer, and the  Hazon Ish: 
Minhag  and the Crisis of Modernity

To the Editor:

I must admit that the title of this article truly attracted my 
attention.  However, after reading it I was sorely disappointed.

The author writes at the beginning of the article, "We have seen that 
from the 1930's to the 1950's at least, the position of the Hazon Ish 
remained consistent and unyielding: A minhag has no normative status 
of its own, and at best can only be adduced as evidence for an actual 
halakhic ruling, which in turn derives its authority strictly from 
corroboration by qualified halakhists."  He then goes on to point out 
that both the GRA and the Hazon Ish did not observe many minhagim 
that most people do observe.  However,  he does not give us a list of 
the minhagim they did not observe nor does he give us a list of the 
minhagim that they did observe.   Surely these should have been 
included in detail in this article.

Later in the article the author writes, "These two Orthodox groups 
[the Hungarian Orthodox and the latter-day hasidic]  turned minhag 
into an endless opportunity for the creation of new humrot. And this 
only goes to show that it is not always a broken connection with the 
'living tradition' that facilitates the creation of a dynamic of 
humrot.  Again,  I think that the article should have included a 
detailed list of these Chumras.

In my opinion,  this article contains a lot of "fluff" and not much 
substance.  What came to mind after reading it was "Much ado about nothing."

Dr. Yitzchok Levine





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180510/09239e5c/attachment-0001.html>

From https://goo.gl/2bPRtq


It was an innovative way of saving money. The municipality worked it out
that they would outsource the financial cost of the Department of Health
inspectors. From now on, it would be the restaurants themselves that would
hire the health inspectors. The restaurants would pay them, they would take
out the FICA taxes, the worker?s comp ?? the restaurant would handle it
all.

The move ?worked wonders? for the state of health in the restaurants.
Eateries that were previously designated with a C minus rating were now
rated A plus and health violation write ups were down too.

The astute reader will detect an obvious problem here. This is what is
called a classic conflict of interest. The upgraded rating and lowered
violations are probably due to the unique financial arrangement.

<Snip>


When an inspector is paid by the people he supervises there is a risk that
his judgment and actions will be unduly influenced. The safety of the
restaurant consumers has been placed at risk. Indeed, the general public
has also been placed in danger.


SAME FOR KASHRUS


The same should be true in the field of Kashrus. The mashgiach is there to
protect the public from eating non-kosher or questionable items just as the
health inspector is there to protect the public from anything that can
compromise their health and safety.


RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN ZT?L


Indeed, last generation?s Gadol haDor, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt?l, in his
Igros Moshe (YD Vol. IV #1:8) writes that the Mashgiach should not be paid
by the facility receiving the hashgacha, but rather should only be paid by
the Vaad HaKashrus itself. Indeed, he should have no direct monetary
business dealings with the company.


See the above URL for more.


Keep in mind that when it comes to private hashgachos the person giving the supervision is always paid by the person or organization being supervised.


YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180510/10139eab/attachment.html>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)