Avodah Mailing List

Volume 43: Number 9

Sat, 08 Feb 2025

• 1. The impracticality of Torah criminal law (Marty Bluke)
• 2. Re: hagba (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: belief (Micha Berger)
• 4. Dovid Hamelech had 400 children from yefas toars (Marty Bluke)
• 5. one breath? (Joel Rich)

After learning the first 45+ dapim of Sanhedrin it is patently clear that
it?s absolutely impossible to convict anyone of a crime in a Beis din. The
rules of evidence and the need for hasraah toch kdei dibbur make it
virtually impossible to convict anyone. The Ran in derasha 11 famously
writes that there was a parallel justice system run by the king which was
more practical. This raises a few questions.
1. The parallel justice system is not described anywhere, not in the
written Torah and not in the oral Torah. Why not? Do we have any idea what
the rules were?
2. The ran writes that the kings justice system was to fill in the gaps.
However, in truth it seems to me that it would have to have been the main
system as the Torah system could never punish anyone. Why would the Torah
create a justice system that is never used?
3. Does everyone agree with the Ran? I would be very surprised if they did.
What other approaches are there?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20250202/4543bf13/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 01:22:45PM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> Any historical sources concerning when (and why) the change in how the
> torah scroll was housed (what most people would call ashkenazi vs sfardi)
> and how and when hagba/glila was done?

Hagbah and Gelilah are described in Mes' Soferim 14:13-14
<https://www.sefaria.org/Tractate_Soferim.14.13-14>

It is worth seeing in context. In the previous mishnayos (or is
that "mishnayos" with scare quotes?), Maftir comes with interesting
tefillos including parts of Shema and a Qaddish of an unfamiliar
nusach. Tzidqasekha is said while the Torah is out, and not just for
Shabbos Minchah.

The magihah unwinds the seifer Torah for three columns lekhol ha'anahm
*vehanashim* (emphasis added) so that they can see the text inside. This
implies a more Ashkenazi seifer, as well. It's hard to picture how one
unwinds more or less text with a Safaradi solid case. And if one did, how
much more viewable the text would be when unwound more. And the
language is "golel", not "open the case as wide as possible". I think
the amora or gaon who wrote this really assumed no case.

I was intentionally vague with "for three columns". We have "ad", which
means up to three. The AhS has "al". Still, the Behag and Machzor Vitri
both make 3 columns the upper limit.


While hagbah and gelilah are described after Maftir. which would seem
Ashkenazi too, the Gra reaches the opposite conclusion citing this
mishnah. See OC 134, "vehanagu".

Meanwhile, the Kaf HaChaim makes it more a Golah vs EY thing, with
Ashkenazim in EY also doing Hagbah before leining.

As often happens, once I started writing this post, I found that R
Ari Zifitofsky's column had everything I found and then some
https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats-truth-much-open-torah-hagbah/

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
Author: Widen Your Tent      Kippur with that intent.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 05:55:22AM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> If I understand correctly, R'EW in the Kovetz Maamarim makes the watchmaker
> argument to prove God's existence. He then goes on to say that this is so
> obvious that anybody who denies it is doing so because of his wish to
> willfully throw off the yoke of Heaven. How does this square with your
> experience?

My own belief is that
    The mind is a powerful instrument
    for justifying conclusions
    the heart already reached.

I think REW's dictum is true of many people who don't realize it about
themselves.

But with a caveat: I don't believe REW meant that there was a human
being capable of changing his life simply because the argument happens
to be true. There is a true argument for G-d, but it simply doesn't
matter because everything rests in one's ability to see the proof. Not
in the proof existing.

Whether one finds a question an interesting problem for later or an
"upshlug" depends on whether the belief system is satisfying your Search
For Meaning (intentional Victor Frankl reference) or not.

If Shemiras Shabbos works for you, then you are inclined to accept the
givens and the arguments built upon them that explain why that would be.
Or if you repeatedly see in Torah learning all the elegance mathemeticians
see in a good math proof.

Not the aesthetic judgment, the step before the aesthetic judgment. That
something that is only partially describably that would cause
mathemiticians to see beauty in a proof. Not an appeal to the beauty,
but to that which triggers that judgment.

The problem is, I would take that idea of Negi'os and unconscious biases
so far, I would say the same about accepting the Watchmaker or any other
argument as well.

IOW, an argument that works for the one who goes OTD should work for the
BT or geir as well.

People simply aren't all that rational. The more an idea requires
changing a lifestyle or something else we are emotionally invested in,
leass proofs sway until we give them permission to sway.

And thefore your closing question about "my experience" is moot. I
am arguing that for mussary and psychological reasons, we aren't aware
of how we are really experiencing such things. We make these decisions
before our conscience is engaged.

But in general, I find this is true. Few is any BTs I've met, or OTD
people I met (or raised) hit a problem that they couldn't resolve and
that was the entire cause for their changing belief systems. Ideology
with no lifestyle issues involved.


As this point I would post links to relevent posts on my blog, but
ein ladavar sof -- I touched related topics literally dozens of times.



On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 08:47:19PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> My experience is that there are two sorts of "proofs". For lack of a better
> term, let's call them "objective" and "subjective" proofs. (If more formal
> descriptors exist among those of you who have studied these things, please
> share.)

> Mathematics is a good example of objective proof. I have two apples, and
> then I take another apple, and now I have three apples. I have objectively
> proven that two plus one equals three. It is inescapable, as far as I can
> tell. This is what people usually mean when they use the word "proof".

Or, Kuzari sec 1, who uses the Mesorah to make a Reliabilist argument
for the truth of Torah
vs
The Moreh sec. 2, which starts with axioms and builds a Euclidian proof
from them of a Creator.

While I don't think a Reliabilist argument can be made nowadays from
what's left of the Mesorah. But for the broader issue that RAM is
raising, I am on Rihal's side.

I have often quoted the following two paragraphs from the Kuzari:
   1:13 The Chaver: What you are describing is religion based on
   speculation and system, the research of thought, but open to many
   doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and you'll find that they do not
   agree on one course or 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.

(Also par 63 is on my favorite quote list, but that's the core of his
Reliabilism argument.)

Partly for the reason I gave above -- we are really blind to the question
of the quality of a philosophical proof.

Partly because I feel that Rihal makes a strong argument from the Aseres
haDiberos that HQBH expected as much:

   1:25. The Chaver: ... In the same strain Moshe spoke to Par'oh,
   when he told him: 'Elokei haIvrim shelachani eileikhem' i.e. Elokei
   ABraham, Yitzchaq and Yaaqov. ... In the same way when Hashem opened
   His speech to the assembled people of Israel: 'Anokhi Hahsem Elokekha
   asher hotzeisikha meiEretz Miztrayim,' He did not say: 'Ani Borei
   haOlam uManhigchem'..."

We believe because of our experiences. That's what shapes those preconscious
decisions. Not because of abstract if more objective concepts. And even He
expects as much.

And mostly because since the debate over Kalam / Scholasticism that Rihal
and the Rambam examplify, we had Kant, Freud, and many other philosophers
who doubt that there are objectively solid proofs for these areas of
philosophy and psychologists who douvt our ability to be as objective
as we think we're being.

R Avram Elya Kaplan in the title essay of BeIqvos haYir'ah highlights
something we say every day in the preamble before As Yazhir. "Vayar
Yisrael es ha-'Yad haGedolah'... Vayir'u ha'am es H', vayaaminu BaH'
uvMoshe avdo." Rei'iyah, Yir'ah and Emunah, in that order -- experience,
motional reaction and only then reason.

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

Today?s daf Sanhedrin 49 states that Dovid had 400 sons from yefas toars
who led his armies to intimidate his enemies. The heter of yefas toar is lo
dibra Torah ela kneged yetzer hara. So how do we understand that Dovid had
400 children from yefas toars!  Did he have such a great yetzer hara that
he couldn?t control?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20250204/29db5170/attachment-0001.htm>

In discussing the practice of the congregation of saying the names of
Haman?s sons out loud (in the book ?Jewish customs?) , Rabbi Doctor Zvi Ron
states that Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch writes that the congregation should
follow the Rogatchover Gaon (saying the names in one breath,) it does not
appear that anyone is actually careful to say it in one breath.
I was always taught to say them one breath and I was wondering what most
folks do?
bsorot tovot
joel rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20250205/bb18388b/attachment-0001.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.)