Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 124

Monday, March 22 2004

• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• RE: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• FW: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• Re: why chabad is eruvless
• Re: why chabad is eruvless
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• RE: What is the problem with cologne and packing peanuts on Pesach?
• What is the problem with cologne and packing peanuts on Pesach?
• Re: The Zebu Controversy
• shkia
• Re: Targum Sheni - 'sheeyeh peeyeh'
• Re: Reading the Ketubah

From: "Seth Mandel" <sm@aishdas.org>
> Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Leiman's shiur this past shabbos was on the subject of
> the book by what he termed "my good friend, Marc Shapiro."

> In terms of the entire book, he said that the main problem was that
> Dr. Shapiro documents how many rishonim disagreed with one of the 13
> Principles or another, but does not make the point that those who disagree
> with one generally agree with the others. Although one can find a rishon
> who disagrees with any specific principle, we have an overwheleming
> majority of rishonim who agree with the 13 Principles as they are; we
> find no rishon at all who claims that there are no principles or that the
> Rambam's 13 are completely untrue; and some even claim that the error
> of the Rambam is that he omitted additional important ones. Therefore,
> it is not only modern Orthodoxy that considers the 13 normative, it is
> the consensus of the rishonim.

I thought the first half of this (that the Rishonim cited generally
agreed with most of the ikkarim) came out clearly in the book. That
doesn't solve our problem. If you read the Ikkarim as a litmus test for
kefirah, does this mean that if you agree with 90% of them you're not a
kofer? Any 90%? How do you measure 90%? What RMS documents is that many
of the details of many of the Ikkarim were disputed by reputable sources.
That leaves them hard to use as a litmus test.

BTW when I knew RSL he was meticulous in his use of language.
Was "consensus" his word or yours? Normally it implies unanimity.

David Riceman

Meir Shinnar wrote:
>This was not the reaction to the rav yehuda hachasid -
>no one said well, it was ok for rav yehuda hachasid to
>hold by this position, but the halachic consensus has
>rejected it so it is now kfira - rather, it was quite clearly
>felt that the only options were 1) manuscript is a fraud
>2) position was held by RYH and therefore is not kfira
>3) position was held by RYH, which therefore changes
>our assessment of RYH's place in the mesora.

Actually, I don't think that this is entirely correct. The beis din in
Yerushalayim led by RSZA ruled that the sefer may be published absent the
"offending" passages. This implied that they disagreed with RM Feinstein
that the sefer was a forgery but that they still found the passages
to be so "offensive" as to be unpublishable. I would argue that this
beis din's reaction is precisely what someone who holds by my position
would do. If RYH were deemed to be a kofer then the entire book should
be withheld. If his positions were deemed entirely acceptable then the
entire book should be published. But if his positions are considered
acceptable in his time but not in our, then the book should be published
without the controversial passages.

Another interesting reaction was that of R' Menashe Klein who
reinterpreted the passages so that they are consistent with his views.

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

RGS
> Actually, I don't think that this is entirely correct. The beis din in
> Yerushalayim led by RSZA ruled that the sefer may be published absent the
> "offending" passages. This implied that they disagreed with RM Feinstein
> that the sefer was a forgery but that they still found the passages
> to be so "offensive" as to be unpublishable. I would argue that this
> beis din's reaction is precisely what someone who holds by my position
> would do. If RYH were deemed to be a kofer then the entire book should
> be withheld. If his positions were deemed entirely acceptable then the
> entire book should be published. But if his positions are considered
> acceptable in his time but not in our, then the book should be published
> without the controversial passages.

No, this means something else - a desire to shield our generation from
such objectionable passages -and we know that current censorship and
attempts to shield are not just limited to kfira (MOAG is a prime example)
- they never said (and they easily could have said that to emphasize how
objectionable the ideas are) that the statements were kfira. No one is
arguing that cultural norms of what are acceptable ideas (and behaviors)
changes, and the haredi society is quite machmir about protecting their
cultural norms - the issue is whether people are willing to apply the
halachic category of kfira - and that just doesn't happen. (this issue
of editing older sefarim to eliminate apparently objectionable material
is quite widespread - IIRC, Prof Leiman had an article in Tradition
about the attempted censorship in (IIRC Mossad Harav Kook edition)
Tiferet Yisrael by Rav Maimon, as he tried to eliminate a story in
Tiferet Yisrael that he felt was disrespectful to moshe rabbenu - but
the historical development that you presuppose - that it was ok for them,
but kfira for us, doesn't appear - the closest is the notion that today
this idea might be misunderstood and lead to kfira)

Again, issues of kfira are treated differently than others.

On a related matter:
You had admitted to RMF that there are categories of "inadvertent
heretic" - essentially the radbaz's tshuva - which makes the whole
issue of changing definitions of heresy even more problematic - as
any position with support by a rishon can be viewed, at the least, as
"inadvertent heresy" to anyone who bases himself on such a rishon...

Meir Shinnar

RDE
> Ginas Veradim states that the halachic Sefer Torah is to be viewed as the one
> that was given at Sinai. He acknoweldges that the specific text can vary over
> time depending on the majority vote. Thus the Rambam's 8th principle
> seems to be understood as not literally true but halachicly true.

While the language is used that this is to be viewed as given at Sinai,
this reflects the respect due to the sefer torah - that we do not allow
the doubts that we have about the proper text to diminish our respect
for it - and there are poskim who disagree, holding that the doubts about
the text significantly change how we treat it (eg, why we are not makpid
on some errors, issues of bracha and mitzva of writing, etc)

However, this does not reflect the adoption of the rambam's eighth
ikkar emuna as mandatory for this sefer tora - because after all,
if one read from a sefer with a different text (based on the other,
rejected version), one is yotze - and the rambam's ikkar would require
that we view the other text as clearly wrong. The rambam's eigth ikkar
is not viewed as halachically true, because rejection of the "proper
mosaic text" is not viewed as halachically kfira.

Meir Shinnar

R' Zev Sero explained <<< What's Shlomo Hamelech got to do with it?
Shlomo Hamelech took an area where carrying was permitted (a shared
reshut hayachid), and banned carrying unless one performs a ritual
(eruv chatzerot). >>>

Good point, but I have two questions about the more colloquial eruv:

1) Who (or who's beis din) took an area where carrying was permitted
(a carmelis) and banned carrying there?

2) Who (or who's beis din) decided that an unwalled area surrounded
purely by a tzuras hepesach should count as a reshus hayachid?

Akiva Miller

On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 22:59, SimchaG wrote:
>> It is the nature of people that once they become accustomed to
>> carrying on Shabbos, announcements and/or notifications that the Eruv
>> is pasul will not be heeded and hence stop them from carrying. 

> so..are we trying to outsmart Shloimeh Hamelech?

I would extend this.  

Would one expect that someone who grows up in mea shearim and is only
exposed to kosher food, if they would end up in an area where there is
non kosher food that they would eat it?

What's the difference? In my opinion Hinuch.

We do a good job of Hinuch in regards to the laws of Kashrut (or somewhat
well at least), but do a horrible job in regards to the laws of Hotzaah.

Now, it could be that a community determines that the best way for them
to teach Hotzaah is by not having an eruv. However, in my layman's
opinion this seems like a cop-out.

In a message dated 03/19/2004 2:13:21 PM EST, Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu writes:
> RGS
>> Actually, I don't think that this is entirely correct. The beis din in
>> Yerushalayim led by RSZA ruled that the sefer may be published absent the
>> "offending" passages. This implied that they disagreed with RM Feinstein
>> that the sefer was a forgery but that they still found the passages
>> to be so "offensive" as to be unpublishable....

> No, this means something else - a desire to shield our generation from
> such objectionable passages -and we know that current censorship and
> attempts to shield are not just limited to kfira

I've heard that some of the response to R'MS book has been along these
lines :"You're right but the hamon am doesn't need to be exposed to this"

KT
Joel Rich

> First off, fragrances and colognes, even if made with chometz are
> not food.

Since we *rub them into the skin* halacha says we treat them the same as
food.

Akiva

> What is the problem with cologne and packing peanuts on Pesach?
> First off, fragrances and colognes, even if made with chometz are
> not food.
> Packing peanuts, are also not food.
> So why are we concerned with them?

I can't say anything about packing peanuts, but as far as cologne and
related items IIRC Rav Moshe said that since the alcohol they contain
can be distilled from them they are assur for Pesach.  

---Rena 

Two more points to consider (I have just posted an essay on this topic at
www.zootorah.com) [<http://www.zootorah.com/essays/zebu.html> to be exact.
-mi] -

It is by no means clear that the Chazon Ish, if he was alive today,
would prohibit zebu. The Chazon Ish wrote about this topic in response
to Rabbi Herzog's position that zebu was permitted because no mesorah
is required for animals. The Chazon Ish writes that Rabbi Herzog has
not discussed the grounds by which the zebu can at all be rated as
"a new type of animal," but given his position that it is indeed a new
type of animal, the Chazon Ish disagrees with his view that no mesorah
is required. The clear implication is that if the zebu is proven not to
be a new type of animal, then even the Chazon Ish would permit it. By
this token, even according to the Chazon Ish, it would seem that zebu
should be permitted, since the zebu is basically a cow, and it is fully
interfertile with ordinary cattle.

A further point to consider is that at this point, many Jews have already
been eating zebu for many years. This itself provides cause not to
prohibit its consumption - or to realize the implications of prohibiting
it. After all, there is no mesorah whatsoever for turkey, which was
unknown to Jews before discovered in America. For reasons that are not
entirely clear, Jews began to eat turkey. If turkey were discovered today
for the first time, nobody would permit its consumption. But now that Jews
have been eating it for many years, nobody will now declare it forbidden
and thereby indict the many people who already ate it (especially since
it is certainly not actually a non-kosher bird). By the same token,
we should not begin to prohibit zebu, an animal that many people have
been eating for a long time. It is certainly not clear to me that,
given the current reality, the Chazon Ish would prohibit its consumption.

Nosson Slifkin
www.zootorah.com

RZS (twice)
>See YD 266:9, and Shach 266:11. The Mechaber very clearly rules that
>bein hashmashot starts immediately after sunset, not nearly an hour
>later, as he ruled in hilchot Shabbat. This is not a subtle difference,
>it's a complete reversal of his earlier psak. And it is this reversal
>that RShZ cites in _Seder Hachnasat Shabbat_ as authority for his own
>similar reversal.

I must object with your "very clearly". It is NOT clear that the Shach
understands the Mechaber to be like the Maharam Alshaker he quotes.
i alwys understood it as arguing. Also, the Mechaber is merely quoting
the Baal haItur concerning a machlokes amorai. It is not clearly
discussing the derfinition of the key term "mishetishka chama". Also,
if it is a stira in Mechaber, please note that this is an exact quote
of the Beis Yosef. So the Mechaber is soser himself 3 times (4 times?).
A bit hard to believe.

Shlomo Goldstein

> I am trying to work out the correct pronunciation [if there is one] - is it
> 'sheeyeh peeyeh' or 'shay pay'?   I have heard both versions.

Why should there be a correct pronunciation of an acronym? it is just a
"rashei teivot" not a vocalized word!

Dov A Bloom
dovb@netvision.net.il

Some pronunciations  in the ktuba to check out:
ze-hav with a shva or zahav with a komatz (I think the former, Aramaic
vocalization and not Hebrew even though the zayin looks Hebrew and not
an Aramaic Dalet)
havei li le-intu or havi li le-intu   (I believe the former) 
shtarei ktubot or shitrai ketubot    ( I believe the latter) 
d'kasher le-me-kkanya bei as opposed to dekasher le-mikna (I believe
the former)
( as opposed to de-atid le- miknei, earlier in the ktuba, which is future
tense, at the end of the ktuba is it: a kli than you can be kone with ,
or a kli that you can transfer kinyan with)

**********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]