Avodah Mailing List

Volume 38: Number 48

Wed, 17 Jun 2020

• 1. Re: Just walk away (Jay F. Shachter)
• 2. Re: The Special Authority Of The Shulxan `Arukh (Jay F. Shachter)
• 3. Re: free public transport on Shabbos/Yomtov (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: Just walk away (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: free public transport on Shabbos/Yomtov (Zev Sero)
• 6. Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process (Chana Luntz)
• 7. Re: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: Just walk away (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Just walk away (Zev Sero)
• 10. Psak Process (Rich, Joel)

> 
> A Jew is being forced to violate a mitzvah by an idol worshiper, not
> for the sake of his own pleasure   There are 10 Jews there and so it
> would be bfarhesia( public in nature)  is there an obligation or a
> praiseworthy action for one of them to walk away?
>

What kind of question is that?  Yes, I think you have an obligation to
save a Jew's life, by depriving him of the obligation to die.  I know
I would thank you for it.  Do you think you are doing a Jew a favor by
requiring him to martyr himself?  Let him live and do other mitzvoth.

(Incidentally, the only minyan mid'oraitha counts men and women
equally.  I'm just sayin'.)

Also, you should not have written "idol worshiper" above, because this
is not a din `aku"m.  Our printed texts have been censored by the
goyim, because there are some places where we say uncomplimentary
things about them, and the censors insisted on globally changing
nokhri to `aku"m, because they did not consider themselves to be
idolators so now the uncomplimentary things are not about them.  The
result is that many uneducated Jews now do not know when something is
a din nokhri and when it is a din `aku"m.  Many perform a
hypercorrection and take what is a din `aku"m and apply it to all
non-Jews -- e.g., they keep extra change when a non-Jewish merchant
mistakenly hands it to them -- and this often leads to mamash xillul
haShem.  The yeshivoth and seminaries should educate Jews better than
that, but they don't.

                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 North Whipple Street
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784   landline
                                (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

> 
> ... as who decided the SA has special authority if not consensus?
> 

It was written in the land of Israel, by someone who had smikha, the
only law code that was.  It's not just consensus, it's consensus based
on a darned good reason.

                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 North Whipple Street
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784   landline
                                (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

RZS writes:

<<But in the case of the light, if 51% of the people in the room are nochrim
then the Jews are allowed to use it.  Since the majority of passengers on
pretty much any bus line in chu"l are nochrim, it shouldn't matter if the
line passes through some areas where there are a lot of Jews. Indeed it
shouldn't even matter if it passes through some areas where the majority of
potential passengers are Jews, since they're still a minority of the total
population along the line.>>

That is not Rav Uzziel's analysis though.  He says as follows:

???? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ?? - ??????,
???????? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ??????, ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????
??? ??? ????? ?? - ??????, ????? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??????,
??? ????? ????? ?????, ??????? ?? ?? ?? - ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????
??? ???? ???? ???, ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?????,
???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?"? (??"? ??' ??"? ???? ?"?) ??? ?????? ??"? ????
?? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?"? ???? ????? ?? ???"? ??? ??? ??? ?????
?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????"? ?? ??? ?????,

That is:

? But these things are said when the wagons that are driven by non-Jews, and
are in streets where the majority of dwellers are non-Jews, that the essence
of the going out and travelling of the wagons are only for the non-Jews, and
similar to the gangplank [Shabbat 122a] that the non-Jew made for himself or
for others like him.  But in a place where the majority are Jews, that there
are found in it also a minority of non-Jews, it is forbidden for a Jew to
ride on them on Shabbat and Yom Tov, since the matter is obvious that the
driver is driving these wagons on Shabbat because of the Jews, and it is
like that which Maran rules (Orech Chaim siman 226 si?if 13) that a city of
Jews and non-Jews live in it, and there is a bathhouse to wash on Shabbat,
if the majority are non-Jews it is permitted to wash in it immediately on
motzei Shabbat, and if the majority are Jews or even half and half, it is
forbidden on motzei Shabbat until it would be heated.  

If part of the route of the bus *are in streets* which have a majority of
Jews living in them, then he says it is forbidden.  

The point being that if a bus runs down a particular street, such as Golders
Green road (assuming that the majority living there are Jews) then that bus
route was designed with Jews in mind, and the fact that there are a minority
of non-Jews who also live on Golders Green Road is irrelevant. 

And the truth is, if nobody lived on Golders Green road at all, then the bus
would be routed differently, and would stop differently.  Once there are 51%
Jews, it is as if all the inhabitants are Jews (rubo k'kulo), in the same
way as with the bathhouse, even though the bath house owners may have been
happy enough to heat up the bath house just for the 49% of non-Jews in the
city.

That is Rav Uzziel's position, that we look wider than the actual bus at the
actual time.

And certainly it would seem to me that if at any given time the majority of
passengers on the bus were Jewish, then you are back to the Chatam Sofer's
reference to the train driver stoking or not stoking the coals for the Jews.
If the majority at any given time on the bus were Jewish, then the driver
would be putting his foot down on the accelerator for those passengers, even
if it only while he is going down Golders Green road. And this would seem
clearly like the candle case.   If there was a fluctuating population of
Jews and non-Jews in the room at various times,  I don't see how anybody
could say that a Jew could use a candle lit by a non-Jew at the time there
was a majority number of Jews in the room, even if that was subject to a
change of population earlier and later.

<<I mean, once the bus is running along that route it has to have stops
every so often, because that's what bus lines do.  It would be odd for the
bus to go an excessive time without a stop just because it's passing through
a Jewish area.  And those non-Jewish passengers who want to get off there
would complain pretty loudly about it and call it racism.>>

I think the understanding is that the bus route itself is considered
designed with Jews in mind, if it  services an area of majority Jews, even
though the minority of non-Jews also live there, just as the bath house in a
city where the majority are Jews is considered to service the Jewish
population, even though not a single Jew will have used it over Shabbat, and
it will have been heated over Shabbat to service those non-Jews.

Regards

Chana

On 15/6/20 9:57 am, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote:
> What kind of question is that?  Yes, I think you have an obligation to
> save a Jew's life, by depriving him of the obligation to die.  I know
> I would thank you for it.  Do you think you are doing a Jew a favor by
> requiring him to martyr himself?  Let him live and do other mitzvoth.

What gives you the right to deprive him of this rare mitzvah, for which 
Rabbi Akiva longed all his life, and which the Bet Yosef was promised 
and then for some reason was deprived of?

It seems to me that you should leave only if it appears that the person 
is going to fail the test, or if he explicitly asks you to.

-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

On 15/6/20 3:42 pm, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
 > RZS writes:
 >
>> But in the case of the light, if 51% of the people in the room
>> are nochrim then the Jews are allowed to use it.  Since the
>> majority of passengers on pretty much any bus line in chu"l are
>> nochrim, it shouldn't matter if the line passes through some areas
>> where there are a lot of Jews. Indeed it shouldn't even matter if
>> it passes through some areas where the majority of potential
>> passengers are Jews, since they're still a minority of the total 
>> population along the line.
> That is not Rav Uzziel's analysis though.  He says as follows:
> 
> ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ?? - ??????, 
> ???????? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ??????, ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ??
> ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?? - ??????, ????? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ??
> ?????? ??????, ??? ????? ????? ?????, ??????? ?? ?? ?? - ??????
> ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???, ????? ????? ???? ?????
> ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?????, ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?"?
> (??"? ??' ??"? ???? ?"?) ??? ?????? ??"? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?????
> ???? ?? ??? ?"? ???? ????? ?? ???"? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????
> ?? ???? ???? ????"? ?? ??? ?????, >
> That is:
> 
> ? But these things are said when the wagons that are driven by
> non-Jews, and are in streets where the majority of dwellers are
> non-Jews, that the essence of the going out and travelling of the
> wagons are only for the non-Jews, and similar to the gangplank
> [Shabbat 122a] that the non-Jew made for himself or for others like
> him.  But in a place where the majority are Jews, that there are
> found in it also a minority of non-Jews, it is forbidden for a Jew
> to ride on them on Shabbat and Yom Tov, since the matter is obvious
> that the driver is driving these wagons on Shabbat because of the
> Jews, and it is like that which Maran rules (Orech Chaim siman 226
> si?if 13) that a city of Jews and non-Jews live in it, and there is a
> bathhouse to wash on Shabbat, if the majority are non-Jews it is
> permitted to wash in it immediately on motzei Shabbat, and if the
> majority are Jews or even half and half, it is forbidden on motzei
> Shabbat until it would be heated.
> 
> If part of the route of the bus *are in streets* which have a
> majority of Jews living in them, then he says it is forbidden.
Having seen his words I don't think you are interpreting them correctly. 
  He doesn't say that it's forbidden just because the line goes through 
some areas where the majority are Jews.  He's talking about the whole 
line, and in fact the whole area in which the line operates.  If the 
line exists to serve Jews (as it would in EY), then the fact that there 
happen also to be nochrim living along it doesn't save it (unless the 
circumstances show that it really and truly is designed primarily to 
serve that nochri minority).  But I doubt that metziut exists anywhere 
in chu"l, and I doubt R Uziel had chu"l in mind.




> And the truth is, if nobody lived on Golders Green road at all, then
> the bus would be routed differently, and would stop differently.
I doubt it.  It's still the main road, and if you want to get between 
Hendon and Hampstead you have to go through there.  Of course if it were 
an uninhabited swamp or forest the bus wouldn't stop there, since nobody 
would want to get on or off anywhere along that stretch, but if all the 
Jewish inhabitants were to vanish and only the non-Jewish ones remained 
the bus would still stop.

Further, my recollection is that very few people live on that road 
anyway; it's all shops, and the bus stops are to serve not only the Jews 
who live in the surrounding streets but also all the people who live 
elsewhere on the route and are using the shops, which means even those 
stops are servicing mostly nochrim.

But in any case I don't see how it matters for whom the stop is 
designed; the bus *actually* stops only for the first passenger who 
signalled that he wants to get off, or for the passengers who are 
waiting at the stop to board.   Even if the location had been designated 
for the benefit of all the thousands of *potential* Jewish passengers, 
the bus isn't stopping for them.  And the bus is running in the first 
place for all the passengers who use it anywhere along the line, or who 
might one day want to use it, the majority of whom are nochrim.

In fact GG is proof, since as I understand it the Jews who live in that 
area don't use the bus on Shabbos, and yet they still run, and still 
stop in the same places as they do during the week.  That shows that 
they're running for the nochrim. And if so, it should be permitted for 
an individual Jew to ride along, so long as he doesn't cause the driver 
to stop and start again for him.




-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper




-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

RMB writes:

>Two observations were made by members of the AhS Yomi group on Facebook.

> When did this idea (there is a common, widespread custom and no one
> should change it) begin?

Look at the gemora in Pesachim 50b-51a.  They give various examples of
customs in particular towns which the various rabbis chose to abide by,
rather than come out against (as well as one where they came out against it
- taking chala from rice), and some of which, when the people involved
wanted to change, they are not allowed to.  It is not a far step to suggest
that if it spread wider, then it would become binding on all.  And see also
the Meseches Sofrim (see below).

> Did anyone ever indicate in a sefer that the opposite (there is a
> common, widespread custom but if people want to change it or do something
> different, that's OK) could be allowed?

In contrast look at the Yerushalmi Pesachim perek 4 halacha 1 which has a
whole list of things that people were doing, and it goes through going
"custom" "not a custom", "custom", "not a custom".  For example " Women that
were accustomed not to work all Saturday night is not a custom, until they
finish the order of prayer [on Saturday night] is a custom.  [Not to work]
on Monday and Thursday is not a custom, until they finish the prayers for
the fast is a custom....."  Clearly there were some women not working all
Saturday night, for example, but still this is considered "not a custom".

Then have a look at Sefer Magen Avot l'Meiri inyan 20.  That book was
apparently written in response to an influx of students into Southern France
(where the Meiri lived) after the death of the Ramban, and their challenges
to the local customs, with the Meiri defending the local minhagim.  

It seems to me from that essay and some of the other rishonim that you end
up with a topology of minhagim that is threefold:

a)      A minhag chashuv - an important custom; 

b)      A minhag [garua] - a [lesser] custom; and

c)      A minhag taus - a mistaken custom, which is sometimes called, even
more strongly, a minhag shtus 

A minhag chashuv seems to be a minhag of a particular place, following the
rulings of their particular mara d'asra - even if other equivalently weighty
talmidei chachamim disagree (including rulings such as milk and chicken in
the place of Rabbi Yosi etc).  

The minhag [garua] is the one we are discussing here - one that appears in a
certain place, or spreads from it and various scholars give it more or less
weight.  For example the Shach in Yoreh Deah hilchot Nedarim siman 214 Si'if
2 is quite dismissive, saying a minhag garua is just people are behaving
this way (with the distinction that a scholar not from the locale does not
need to follow such a minhag except publically).

But as one might expect, the Meiri is more positive and holds that it is a
valid custom even if the majority of the world do not hold by it, but only
the people of a certain place, if it appears to have been made with some of
link to the Torah or regulation of a mitzvah, eg from concern that they
should not come to prohibition or where they are adding from chol to kodesh
more than is obligated.  By clear implication, if it does then spread to the
majority of the world, it becomes completely binding.

On the other hand a minhag taus is one where either there is no link to
genuine Torah, or alternatively (and interestingly) it amounts to
excessively piety (eg the custom of women in the Yerushalmi not to work all
Saturday night, which the Meiri explains as being forbidden because it is
overly pious).

And so the Shulchan Aruch writes:
Yoreh Deah hilchot Nedarim siman 214 Si'if 2 is as follows:
The acceptance by the multitude creates an obligation on them and on their
children, and even with matters that the people of the city did not accept
on them by agreement but they [merely]  conducted themselves to do as a
fence and boundary for the Torah, and so one who comes from outside the city
to live there, behold they are like the people of the city, and are
obligated to act in accordance with their enactments, and even with things
that are prohibited in their [original] city because of their customs, and
the custom of the city that he comes to live in is not to prohibit, they are
permitted in them if their intention is not to return.

Note the reference "conducted themselves to do as a fence and a boundary for
the Torah" - which I suspect is reflecting the idea that something that has
to have a certain kind of Torah look and feel to be a valid minhag, even if
it is a minhag garua, to distinguish from a minhag chashuv.

<<I suggested something which no one challenged there. So, I am reposting
here to check my theory:

This isn't about "custom". This is about halakhah. Would repeating
the birkhos hashachar because one is chazan be a berakhah levatalah,
or should it be done? Different use of the word "minhag". This is the
mimetic tradition thing you hear so much about. RYME does this a lot.>>

I am not so sure.  The question is, if the opposite minhag had spread
amongst the people - ie that the Shatz should say the blessings twice for
those people who didn't know how, then would the Aruch HaShulchan not have
been arguing for the other side, supporting it as a genuine minhag, because
it has a genuine Torah look and feel to it?  I suspect he would have.  So
the first key aspect for him was that in fact, although there were some who
did this, the minhag, being the weight of the people, was on his side. That
is, in the words of Mesechet Sofrim perek 14 halacha 16: ".  And the people
are so accustomed, that the halacha is not established until there is a
custom, and this is what they say that custom nullifies halacha, an ancient
custom, but a custom that does not have a proof from the Torah, this is
nothing but a mistake in the weighing of opinion."

Once he had established that the minhag was the way he thought the halacha
should be, then he could justifiably get stuck into the alternative as
invalid.  But because it had something of a Torah justification, if the
alternative had been the one the people had picked, he would have defended
the alternative view.  Isn't that what he is telling you here?

-Micha

Regards

Chana

Where does "not a custom" as in:

In contrast look at the Yerushalmi Pesachim perek 4 halacha 1 which has a
whole list of things that people were doing, and it goes through going
"custom" "not a custom", "custom", "not a custom

Fit into:

It seems to me from that essay and some of the other rishonim that you end
up with a topology of minhagim that is threefold:

a)      A minhag chashuv - an important custom;

b)      A minhag [garua] - a [lesser] custom; and

c)      A minhag taus - a mistaken custom, which is sometimes called, even
more strongly, a minhag shtus

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.

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 06:07:38PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> What gives you the right to deprive him of this rare mitzvah, for which
> Rabbi Akiva longed all his life, and which the Bet Yosef was promised and
> then for some reason was deprived of?

A person's priorities are my soul and his stomach.

I heard that from R Shaul Margolis z"l, the rav of the shteibl of my
youth, who was a chassidishe rebbe pre-war. (His family and most of
his chassidim did not survive; the wife and daught I knew was his 2nd
family. Sorry for this detour but the rebbetzin's qevurah was just days
ago, so they're on my mind.) Getting back to the point...

Since I first heard the idiom from a chassidishe ruv, I am pretty sure
it's exclusively a Mussarnik saying.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 16/6/20 8:33 am, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 06:07:38PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
>> What gives you the right to deprive him of this rare mitzvah, for which
>> Rabbi Akiva longed all his life, and which the Bet Yosef was promised and
>> then for some reason was deprived of?

> A person's priorities are my soul and his stomach.

True, but that doesn't apply here, where you're depriving him of 
something he may very well want and treasure.


> Since I first heard the idiom from a chassidishe ruv, I am pretty sure
> it's exclusively a Mussarnik saying.

I heard it as "the other person's gashmius is my ruchnius".   But here 
you're putting your ruchnius above his ruchnius.   Stealing a bracha is 
worth 10 gold coins; how much is stealing a (literally) once in a 
lifetime mitzvah?



-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

In his Piskei Corona on triage, R Schachter excludes the Horiyot priorities, partially based on a R' Moshe tshuva.


I have no halachic weight and certainly rely on R'HS. ISTM this tshuva is in the mode of R'YBS on chaplains' draft in C-C-C

.R' Blidstein summarizes: Once again, the Rav began his response with a
methodological pronouncement, this time longer and more detailed; it
included a two-fold statement of reservations about the "objective" model
of halakhic decision-making. First, every intellectual activity (including
even aspects of natural science) combines formal components and
human/intuitive components; in our case, he declared, his intuitive
inclination was to approve the project (24-25).
11
Second, one must distinguish between (but ultimately combine) "pure
halakhic formalism which . . . places the problem on an ahistorical
conceptual level . . .[and] applied Halakhah which transposes abstractions
into central realities, theory into facts. . . . Under this aspect I gave
thought not only to halakhic speculation but also to [the] concrete
situation" (25).
12
It is likely -though not certain-that the intuitive component of the
process pertained primarily to the practical decision. In any event, it is
clear that The Rav was not about to adopt the "mathematical" model of the
halakhic process so admired within certain segments of Modern Orthodoxy-a
model envisioned as automatically spitting out halakhic solutions solely on
the basis of objective expertise.

Thoughts?
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/20200617/8c98f0bb/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.)