Avodah Mailing List

Volume 41: Number 20

Fri, 17 Mar 2023

• 1. Re: taker but not giver (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: taker but not giver (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Yayin Nesech - Definition (Zev Sero)
• 4. The Sacred Shekel (Cantor Wolberg)
• 5. Re: The Sacred Shekel (Zev Sero)
• 6. Stam Yayin - Definition (Prof. L. Levine)
• 7. Re: taker but not giver (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: taker but not giver (Zev Sero)
• 9. parent/child relationships (Joel Rich)
• 10. "Reward" For Learning (Joel Rich)

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:02:06AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> > What are the grounds for saying that mishum eivah ever means "because
> > otherwise they may come to hate us enoug to kill us"? In other contexts
> > it means "because it fosters hatred, and hatred is bad."
> 
> Because there is no basis for permitting chilul shabbos simply to avoid
> "hatred".  The only heter we are given is pikuach nefesh, so we have to be
> able to relate it to that.

This is simply presuming your conclusion, isn't it?

> And also because any explanation we come up with has to explain why before
> 1800 it was *completely forbidden* to do this, and all the poskim insisted
> we should *not* be concerned about eiva...

This is true either way. Under the Romans, grounds for slaughter were
pretty arbitrary, and all the more so for subjugated peoples who had a
long history of rebellion. How could anything be permitted in the 1800s
that weren't permitted in your perception of Chazal's Israel?

I simply think you're mistaken, and the error is so entranched because
it is what we were taught as kids, that your defense is based on the
very assumptions you're defending.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 I always give much away,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
Author: Widen Your Tent              -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On 13/3/23 15:13, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:02:06AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
>>> What are the grounds for saying that mishum eivah ever means "because
>>> otherwise they may come to hate us enoug to kill us"? In other contexts
>>> it means "because it fosters hatred, and hatred is bad."

>> Because there is no basis for permitting chilul shabbos simply to avoid
>> "hatred".  The only heter we are given is pikuach nefesh, so we have to be
>> able to relate it to that.

> This is simply presuming your conclusion, isn't it?

No, it's basic halacha, that everyone knows.  Where do you find a heter 
for chilul shabbos, other than pikuach nefesh?  The heter for healing a 
Yisrael is "vachai bahem", or "mutav shetischalel shabbos achas".  Where 
do you find any other heter?


>> And also because any explanation we come up with has to explain why before
>> 1800 it was *completely forbidden* to do this, and all the poskim insisted
>> we should *not* be concerned about eiva...

> This is true either way. Under the Romans, grounds for slaughter were
> pretty arbitrary, and all the more so for subjugated peoples who had a
> long history of rebellion. How could anything be permitted in the 1800s
> that weren't permitted in your perception of Chazal's Israel?

What do you mean, my perception?   Are you seriously asserting that 
breaking shabbos to heal nochrim *was* permitted before 1800?!  Every 
single posek before that date explicitly says it is forbidden!   I can 
explain what changed, but you can't ignore that it *did* change!  You 
can't pretend that this is an old halacha.   And what authority did the 
poskim of the Enlightenment have to permit what Chazal and all the 
Rishonim and Acharonim forbade, if *not* because they determined that it 
was pikuach nefesh, so the long-standing heter for that applied?


-- 
Zev Sero            ?Were we directed from Washington when to sow
z...@sero.name       and when to reap, we should soon want bread.?
                    ?Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

> QUESTION: What is ?yayin nesech?? Do the rules of bitul (nullification) 
> apply to it?
> 
> 
> ANSWER: Yayin nesech is wine that was poured as a libation in the 
> service of idolatry.
> 

Not *that* was poured, but *from which* was poured.  As I understand it 
the issur applies not just to the libation but to all the wine that is 
left in the container.

But this is misleading, since the nations among whom we live do not 
practice libation, as the Greeks and Romans did, and I'm not aware of 
any other nations that do so, so real nesech no longer exists. (Catholic 
communion wine is not nesech, but even worse: it is ne`evad, so its 
status is not tikroves `akum but `akum itself. However it is pretty much 
impossible for such wine ever to come into a Jew's possession, so it's 
irrelevant.)

Therefore when we refer to "nesech" we don't mean actual nesech, we mean 
wine that *could potentially* be nesech, because a nochri caused it to 
move, and he *could* have had in mind to pour a libation even though we 
know he didn't.   This issur is derabanan, and the rules for bitul are 
more lenient.

-- 
Zev Sero            ?Were we directed from Washington when to sow
z...@sero.name       and when to reap, we should soon want bread.?
                    ?Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

Money that is to be given to tzedakah must be earned
in a kosher manner. Bankruptcy is not kosher.?

It is perfectly legal.
??????? ????????????? ???????
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230313/ad1ca60b/attachment-0001.htm>

On 13/3/23 20:40, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote:
>> Money that is to be given to tzedakah must be earned
>> in a kosher manner. Bankruptcy is not kosher.?

> It is perfectly legal.
> *??????? ????????????? ???????*

I agree. This is precisely the sort of thing that Dina Demalchusa Dina 
*does* apply to; anyone who lends money does so in the knowledge and on 
the assumption that there is always the risk that the borrower will go 
bankrupt.

This is especially so when the loan is made to a limited liability 
corporation, with no personal guarantee by the proprietor; every lender 
knows, or ought to know, that the entire purpose of a corporation is to 
limit the proprietor's liability in case things go wrong ch"v.

The only exception would be if the lender and borrower are both frum 
Jews and they were both operating under the assumption that the loan 
would be subject only to Torah law and not to Dina Demalchusa.  I think 
a beis din would rule that without an explicit agreement otherwise DDM 
still applies, but if the borrower knows in his heart that this was the 
assumption then midinei shomayim he would be required to repay it when 
he can.

-- 
Zev Sero            ?Were we directed from Washington when to sow
z...@sero.name       and when to reap, we should soon want bread.?
                    ?Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis


QUESTION: What is ?stam yayin?? Do the rules of bitul (nullification) apply to it?


ANSWER: Yayin nesech is wine which was libated in the service of idolatry,
while stam yayin is non-mevushal (uncooked) wine that was poured by a
nochri, even if there is no evidence of idolatrous intent. (Cooked wine
will be discussed in the next Halacha Yomis.) Furthermore, Chazal
considered any non-mevushal kosher wine which was left in the presence of a
nochri without supervision as potentially having been touched or poured and
thus it becomes stam yayin as well. Unsupervised wine and grape juice that
are made by a nochri fall under this category, since it is possible the
product was moved by a nochri. According to Rav Yosef Cairo (Shulchan Aruch
(YD 123:1<https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh,_Yoreh_De'ah.123.1?lang=he-en&;utm_source=outorah.org&utm_medium=sefaria_linker>),
the stringencies of ?yayin nesech? (wine that was definitely poured for
idolatry) apply to stam yayin as well. Thus, it is forbidden to drink or
derive any benefit from stam yayin. Even if a drop of stam yayin
  fell into a large vat of kosher wine, all the wine becomes forbidden.
  Sefardim follow this ruling. However, the Rema disagrees on two points.
  According to Rema, in cases of financial loss, one may derive benefit
  from stam yayin, and some are lenient even in cases without loss. Also,
  Rema writes that stam yayin is nullified in kosher wine in sixty parts.
  Ashkenazim follow this ruling.


Professor Yitzchok Levine

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230314/a4718775/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 07:23:49PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> > This is simply presuming your conclusion, isn't it?
> 
> No, it's basic halacha, that everyone knows.  Where do you find a heter for
> chilul shabbos, other than pikuach nefesh?  The heter for healing a Yisrael
> is "vachai bahem", or "mutav shetischalel shabbos achas".  Where do you find
> any other heter?

Since in general mishum eivah does not refer to murderous rage, allowing
chilul Shabbos for mishum eivah would itself be the very case.

In other words, your argument boils down to the quite circular: This
isn't chillul Shabbos for the sake of anything but piquach nefesh and
I can prove it because there aren't any such cases of chillul Shabbos
for the sake of anything but piquach nefesh.

(It isn't even clear that piquach nefesh is a matir for chilul Shabbos.
It appears only a chance of further shemiras Shabbos is. The effect is
similar, but only for a subset of potential victims.)

...
> What do you mean, my perception?   Are you seriously asserting that breaking
> shabbos to heal nochrim *was* permitted before 1800?! ...

Are you seriously suggesting achronim in the 19th cent changed halakhah?
Obviously no matter what, we are assuming the metzi'us changed, not
the set of permitted activities.

I would suggest that at a time when people respected both national
identity and ritual more, not being mechalel Shabbos for the sake of an
outsider wouldn't cause eivah. Just as they wouldn't expect their own to
do so for others. (Or, to paraphrase RMMS about translating a particular
paragrpah of the Tanya to English: The only people who would take notice
and get angry about it are people who are already antisemitic.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Every second is a totally new world,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   and no moment is like any other.
Author: Widen Your Tent              - Rabbi Chaim Vital
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On 14/3/23 14:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Since in general mishum eivah does not refer to murderous rage, allowing
> chilul Shabbos for mishum eivah would itself be the very case.

But where do you find such a heter mishum eiva anywhere in halachos 
shabbos?  The poskim of the 19th century couldn't simply invent a new 
category of heter.  They had to be building on one that already existed. 
  Where do you find it, if not pikuach nefesh?


> In other words, your argument boils down to the quite circular: This
> isn't chillul Shabbos for the sake of anything but piquach nefesh and
> I can prove it because there aren't any such cases of chillul Shabbos
> for the sake of anything but piquach nefesh.

Find me another grounds for heter of chilul shabbos.  Avoda in the beis 
hamikdash is a second grounds, but it doesn't fit.  So if you want this 
not to be a subset of pikuach nefesh you need to find a third.


> (It isn't even clear that piquach nefesh is a matir for chilul Shabbos.
> It appears only a chance of further shemiras Shabbos is. The effect is
> similar, but only for a subset of potential victims.)

It is clear that its' a matir, because of Vachai Bahem.  Chilul shabbos 
is mutar even for a goses, where we know he will not ever be able to 
keep another shabbos.


> Are you seriously suggesting achronim in the 19th cent changed halakhah?
> Obviously no matter what, we are assuming the metzi'us changed, not
> the set of permitted activities.

Exactly.  Which is why, if you say that when they newly permitted 
something that had never been permitted before, they were fitting it not 
into the category of pikuach nefesh, which was already a 
long-established category of heter, but rather into some other category, 
then you must show how that category already existed before their heter. 
  And you must show that whatever prior use you think was made of that 
new category was in fact that, and not simply a subset of pikuach 
nefesh.  You are the one who is multiplying entities, to use Occam's 
language, so the onus of proof is on you.

-- 
Zev Sero            ?Were we directed from Washington when to sow
z...@sero.name       and when to reap, we should soon want bread.?
                    ?Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

I started to put together a list of halachot which depend on the halachic
status of the parent/child relationship (e.g birth mother or genetic
mother).  Additions appreciated.
KT

Pru urvu/shevet (fulfilled, what if already fulfilled?)

Religion

Tribe

Brit/pidyon

Kavod av

Teaching trade

Finding wife

Swimming

Talmud torah

Chinuch

Child support

Yichud

Yibum

Arayot

Hitting

Cursing

Ben sorer

Inheritance/Mourning

Testimony
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230317/67e82f50/attachment.htm>

To a maggid shiur:
Your recent class was on the topic of ?reward? for sponsoring a shiur is on
a topic that I find fascinating. In particular, it has always seemed to me
that the dedication of already scheduled learning is certainly a charitable
act to be encouraged. Of course, I am not God?s accountant, but it doesn?t
seem that the reward for learning Torah in that case would be transferable,
except perhaps to the extent that more people attend due to the dedication.
I have to wonder though do any local Rabbis point that out to sponsors?
Your thoughts?
KT
Joel Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230316/2876116f/attachment.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)