Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 028

Thursday, June 2 2005

• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• Innocents Dying
• Gezel Shemi'ah
• RE: Gezel Shemi'ah
• Re: Gezel Shemi'ah
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• RE: Gezel Shemi'ah
• RE: Gezel Shemi'ah
• Re: Gezel Shemi'ah
• RE: kofrim who say tehillim
• RE: SheLo Asani Isha
• RE: Gezel Shemi'ah
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• RE: SheLo Asani Isha
• RE: SheLo Asani Isha
• The Yeshiva Curriculum
• FW: kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: Reality of the Universe
• Shelo asani aved
• RE: Early Shabbat in EY
• Dalet Amos shel Halachah
• Learning Halachos from Agadah
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: When does the availes end on Lag B'Omer?
• Re: Dalet Amos shel Halachah
• Re: Dalet Amos shel Halachah
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: hashkafa and psak
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
>> The reason I included the phrase "developed theory" was precisely because
>> there are traditional sources which can be understood to say that
>> transactional zechuyoth are effective.  What I don't know is how they can be
>> effective.  Certainly the Rambam would reject them, since he has a well
>> developed theory which leaves no room for them.

> How can the Rambam's theory reject zchus avos for instance? It is openly
> stated in the Torah. Perhaps your understanding of his developed theory
> requires further refinement but I just can't see the Rambam's rejection
> of lachash as an unconditional rejection of all transactional zechuyos.

I clearly left myself open to misunderstanding by coining the phrase
"transactional zechuyos" without defining it. What I meant was A
transferring a zechuth to B without B having done some action to merit it.

Zechuth Avoth is a red herring. The Avoth started a grand labor, and
we are their heirs and partners, and, by virtue of that, we have done
something to deserve to inherit their zechuyoth (afilu reshaim b'yisrael
m'lei'im mitzvoth k'rimon).

I gave one example of transactional zechuyoth - someone klopping in shul
so that we should all say tehillim for someone ill whom most of us don't
even know. Here's a second: once many years ago someone asked me to
dedicate that day's learning to the merit of someone recently deceased.
I showed him the Rambam in H. Yesodei HaTorah which says that one's
portion in Olam HaBa depends on one's knowledge of God, and asked how
my learning could help this recently deceased person.

David Riceman 

> Don't we have a rule that a person only dies for his own sins?

A later example that rejects such a rule can be found in the Or HaChaim on
Bereishis 37:21, where he writes that because human beings are endowed with
bechira, they are capable of killing innocents.

On Areivim, Chana Luntz <chana@KolSassoon.org.uk> wrote:
> We ended up having a long discussion about 
> whether Hillel was justified in listening into the shiurim from the roof 
> when he could not pay or whether that too was deceptive and a form of 
> gnaiva.  The story is certainly told as a shvach to Hillel, but I did 
> wonder why that was the case.

Sound cannot be stolen, which is why one can be yotzei by hearing a
stolen shofar (OC 586). Hence, if a concert hall neglected to make
its walls soundproof, there is nothing wrong with standing outside and
listening to performances for free.

In any case, since the purpose of the entrance fee was to ensure that
the audience would be composed only of those who valued Torah enough
to pay for it, Hillel did pay a similar price by willingly enduring the
discomfort of climbing up and listening from the roof.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

> Sound cannot be stolen, which is why one can be yotzei by hearing a
> stolen shofar (OC 586).

Would this point have any bearing on the whole downloading music issue?

Avi Burstein

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 10:52:30AM +0200, Avi Burstein wrote:
:> Sound cannot be stolen, which is why one can be yotzei by hearing a
:> stolen shofar (OC 586).

: Would this point have any bearing on the whole downloading music issue?

See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n058.shtml#13> which gives
a list of problems with copying copyrighted music. One was previously
listed in <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n058.shtml#04>.

The post was based on notes by a lunchtime shi'ur by R' Zev Reichman
(who at the time was in REITS's Kollel Elyon) at the height of the
contraversy over Napster.

To answer your question, geneivah itself (as opposed to the other factors)
may not be a problem if
1- Dina demalchusa is taken in the minimal sense and does not assign new
kinds of ba'alus, and
2- One does not hold by the Sho'el uMeishiv's chiddush that any form
of morality beyond that required by din recognized by your host society
must be followed.

One can still ask about hasagas gevul (for Jewish music), hezeq, or
chilul Hashem. WRT sefarim, there's also a cheirem specifically about
copying them.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 37th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507               require one to be strict with another?

Micha Berger wrote:
> R David Riceman wrote:
>>those gaboim who have expectant fathers handle hotzoas Saifer Torah or
>>any similar group of Jews have any intent to manipulate as much as they
>>have intent to follow b'derech avosaihem and pray that hQbH will accept
>>the unspoken prayers directed at Him which are given form via the actions
>>they are taking.

> Whereas I assumed they were thinking "taking out the Torah helps the
> delivery" <full stop>. No thought of G-d, just a causal connection.
> Which is why I called it mechanistic.

To add a data point: I think reality may be in between. Several years
ago, when a friend's wife was expecting, someone pointed out to me that
there was such a segulah, and I, as gabbi, gave him p'sicha on several
occasions. It certainly occured to me that the basis of this segulah is
that one "taking out" should effect positively another "taking out."
I certainly did not think of it as some sort of mechanical process.
I don't know that I was quite so philisophical as RDR, but basically I
figured, well if that's a known segulah, why shouldn't I give it to him?

So like RDR, but less fully/conciously thought out.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
<israel@email.arizona.edu>
Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering

[R' Zev Sero:]
> In any case, since the purpose of the entrance fee was to ensure that
> the audience would be composed only of those who valued Torah enough to
> pay for it,

Source?

KT
Joel Rich

[Micha:]
> 2- One does not hold by the Sho'el uMeishiv's chiddush that any form
> of morality beyond that required by din recognized by your host society
> must be followed.

So lfnim mshurat hadin is decided by reference to what sources?

KT
Joel Rich

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:10:56AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: So lfnim mshurat hadin is decided by reference to what sources?

As I wrote when we first discussed this teshuvah, he doesn't see this
as lifnim mishuras hadin, neveilus birshus haTorah, terms. Rather,
miqal vachomer, assur misevara -- and therefore as a de'Oraisa!

The qal -- they see it as immoral.

-mi

[R Daniel M. Israel:]
> I don't know that I was quite so philisophical as RDR, but basically I
> figured, well if that's a known segulah, why shouldn't I give it to him?

Sounds like the placebo effect - If I believe it will work, it will.
But if one is self-aware (as moderns are to an extent and certainly
Briskers) it's hard to just say , do it, don't think about how it works.

KT
Joel Rich

>>1) Yes, men have a higher status than women in the Torah's hierarchy.

> That's interesting. You accept being a second class citizen.

Hmmm. One could also say "men have a lower status in Torah hierarchy, and
must do all of the dirty work while women get the better job of working
with the neshamas that they have created." It just depends on what you
see as "better" and "second-class" But it doesn't matter. No one anywhere
ever could convince me that women are second class at anything. Remember,
one woman davening brings the shechina by herself whereas her husband is
only a tenth of the number needed. Every woman knows that she is really
much better than any man, and a cursory reading of Bereishis proves it:

After Adam and Chava's cheit, when Hashem was passing out punishments,
he told Chava that her "craving will be for her husband and he will rule
over you" If Chava were really inferior in any way, then that would have
been a favor to her -- instead, since she really had higher potential
and spirituality it was a punishment that she would always have to have
this guy who thought he was better than she was running the household and
bungling everything that she could actually do better. Ask any woman....

 --Rena

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:10:56AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: So lfnim mshurat hadin is decided by reference to what sources?

[Micha:]
> As I wrote when we first discussed this teshuvah, he doesn't see this as
> lifnim mishuras hadin, neveilus birshus haTorah, terms. Rather, miqal
> vachomer, assur misevara -- and therefore as a de'Oraisa!
> The qal -- they see it as immoral.

Interesting, so we see that our standard of morality is impacted by the
outside (non-torah) world.

KT
Joel Rich

In Avodah V15 #25, Micha responded to RDR:
>> ...knowledge of ikkarei hadas [not roots of myrtles!].

> First, interesting pun. There may be a kavanah in there for next sukkos.

What's the relationship between samech and tav that you could explore
before Chag HaSukkos? AFAIK, L'shon haQodesh punning works with
similarities between roots (see Prof. Clark's RSRH dictionary), not
sounds (and not branches, either ;-)); L'shon Chachomim punning works
with homographs (charus/chairus, banayich/bonayich, etc.), not homophones.

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

Mishpachat Freedenberg <free@actcom.co.il> wrote:
>> That's interesting. You accept being a second class citizen.

> Hmmm. One could also say "men have a lower status in Torah hierarchy, and
> must do all of the dirty work while women get the better job of working
> with the neshamas that they have created." It just depends on what you
> see as "better" and "second-class" But it doesn't matter. No one anywhere
> ever could convince me that women are second class at anything. Remember,
> one woman davening brings the shechina by herself whereas her husband is
> only a tenth of the number needed. Every woman knows that she is really
> much better than any man...

You may be speaking tounge in cheek, never-the-less, you reinforce my
question. Exactly... why should men be thankful that they are not women?

The problem with many of the arguments here-to-fore is that either one
answers that women are in some sense better which re-inforces my question
of why SheLo Asani Isha, ...or that men are better which explains the
question but gives rise to the question of how is it just that God
created one sex superior to the other. Answering one leaves the other.

HM

> You may be speaking tounge in cheek, never-the-less, you 
> reinforce my question. Exactly... why should men be 
> thankful that they are not women? 

> The problem with many of the arguments here-to-fore is that 
> either one answers that women are in some sense better 
> which re-inforces my question of why SheLo Asani Isha, 
> ...or that men are better which explains the question but 
> gives rise to the question of how is it just that God 
> created one sex superior to the other. Answering one leaves 
> the other.

One explanation that we learned [loosely based on Kol HaTor IIRC] is that
Adam and Chava were originally meant to be equal and complementary, [as in
the story of the moon and the sun -- Hashem diminished the moon but at the
end of days it will become equal to the sun again], and supposedly after
Moshiach's arrival woman will have finished the tikkun for Chava's sin and
will again rise to her rightful place neged Adam. Now, this does not imply
that she will ever become exactly like Adam; instead, she will return to her
rightful place and to her rightful tafkid in the world and will not be
punished by being ruled by Adam any longer. 

 --Rena

Yesterday I attended an interesting shiur given by Rav Yisroel Belsky, a
Rosh Yeshiva in Torah Vodaath. He dealt with a number of questions related
to the summer. The audience consisted primarily of yeshiva educated
people. One of Rav Belsky's topics was Shinui Makom and Brochos. At
one point Rav Belsky stressed the importance of knowing these Halochos
and urged his audience to review them. He said something to the effect,
"Rabbosai, you cannot eat without knowing these Halachos."

Thinking about what he said has led me to wonder why this and similar
topics are not an integral part of the yeshiva curriculum in every
yeshiva. My feeling is that the "standard" yeshiva curriculum is not
geared to producing Baalei Batim, yet the vast majority of yeshiva
products end up (eventually) as Baalei Batim. Furthermore, the emphasis
today for Baalei Batim is increasingly on learning Daf Yomi. Often this
is all that a person finds time to learn. Taking what Rav Belsky said
seriously would seem to lead to the conclusion that some aspects of
yeshiva education and the thrust of the learning done by those not in
yeshiva need to be refocused.

Yitzchok Levine

On May 29, 2005, I wrote regarding the Rambam's restriction against
using divrei Torah to heal a makah:
"Either [the Rambam means] that they don't work as a refuas haguf or
that they are only supposed to be *used* as a refuas haguf."

This is a typo. The word "only" should be substituted with the word
"not" as follows:

"Either that they don't work as a refuas haguf or that they are not
supposed to be *used* as a refuas haguf."

Sorry for the error.

Simcha Coffer 

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 04:35:13PM -0700, Daniel Israel wrote:
>:> Contrast this to Rn Gila Atwood's (a member way back) signature line:
>:>> We are pixels in Gd's imagination.

>:> I do not believe the Rambam would agree with this sentiment. RZL's
>:> understanding of the Rambam allows for this kind of idea.

>: I still think you're chasing a squirrel around a tree. My imagination is
>: real. It's really my imagination....

> But an imagined person isn't as real as you are, even if you really
> imagine him in your real imagination.

An imagined person is not a a real person. But it is a real imagined
person. (As opposed to an imagined imagined person.)

I'm not just trying to play rhetorical tricks here. My point is that
we can't actually have this discussion without defining real. And once
we admit Berkley as at least a possible position, we can define "real"
in such a way as to make either position true.

IOW, the truth value of "we are less real than God" is entirely
dependent on how "real" is definied, and I fail to see any obvious
natural definition, even if we restrict ourselves to Torah approaches.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
<israel@email.arizona.edu>
Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering

I don't know if this will shed any light on the "isha" issue, but I
realized I don't actually have p'shat in "shelo asani aved." I was
thinking about this thread and a discussion with a ger about whether
gerim say "shelo asani goy" (IIRC a machlokes per the MB). In the "goy"
and "isha" brachos "asani" is understood as "created." But now I have
a problem with "eved."

If we mean eved Canaani, then why say this in addition to "shelo asani
goy"? Why not also "mitzri" or "amalaki"? (It also would raise the
interesting question of what a eved Canaani would say if he was freed.) 
OTOH, if it means (as I always assumed) eved Ivri, then why "asani", if
we understand "asani" to mean "created"? HaShem doesn't create someone
as an eved ivri.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
<israel@email.arizona.edu>
Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering

R' Danny Schoemann asked
> On a practical note. Besides for having to start eating .5 hour before
> shkia (I assume), are there other halochos one has to keep in mind?

No, not shkia. Tzeis. And even that is a problem only if you don't have
someone to remind you to say Shma, *and* you're not planning on going
to your minyan kavua.

If your minhag is to sit for all of Kiddush, this time you should stand
for eidus at Vayechulu. (L'fi the MB who says that normally we can sit
for all of Kiddush because you already stood for Vayechulu in shul,
which you didn't do in this case.)

I also recall something about being careful to eat at least a kezayis
of bread after tzeis. That's going to be difficult to do without making
another hamotzi after maariv. Another idea might be to have daas to
continue the seudah after maariv, and then you'll only have to bench
once. Another idea is to consider that this is not really a requirement,
so perhaps one can rely on an early version of tzeis.

Akiva Miller

"Ein haShechinah sheruyah elah be'arba amos shel halachah."

And yet, among the reasons given for the churban was that no one went
*lifnim* mishuras hadin (Yuma 9b). So, while people were keeping the 4
amos of halakhah, they caused galus haShechinah.

What happened to "sheruyah"?

-mi

I know there is a machklos the Noda B'yehudah Yoreh Deah II: 161
VS. R.Akiva Eiger in Berachos, Perek 5 if you can learn Halachos from
the Agados in the Gemara.the Noda B'yehudah the writes that we cannot
learn any Halachos from Agadah, even when there is no contradiction from
another Gemara since there only there to teach Musar and concepts of
Torah, not halacha.On the other hand we find R.Akiva Eiger who says we
can rely on agadah to learn halacha if it was not discussed in the Gemara.

So I want to know if there are any examples of a real Halacha (rather
then a minhag) that's learned from agadah.

Nosson Sternbach

On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 02:17:31PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
:> Each has their maalos. Revel in them!

: We should. I do. So why do I make the Bracha SheLo Asani Isha?
: Precisely. So, the reason for the Bracha...?

We know the author's reason -- more mitzvos. It's part of a progression,
being happy we're not in a class with the fewest mitzvos (nachriim)
through to the class of people who have the most mitzvos short of
our count.

As I wrote, we each should revel in our own strengths. Being happy we
have more mitzvos has nothing to do with women being happy and making
a berakhah for being kiRtzono. Different ma'alos, each a berakhah.

An aside: Why is this still being called "Rashi's reason", as though
it's a rishon's sevarah post-facto. We have a statement from the beis
medrash that coined the berakhah. The only question is why is having
more mitzvos the reason for a berakhah -- is it the mitzvos themselves,
some consequence of them, and if the latter, which consequence?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 38th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507           promote harmony in life and relationships?

On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 11:35:57PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: It turns out that I once posted (to Mail Jewish) a chart of ten distinct
: ways of counting these days.
...
: This chart was posted in Mail Jewish 19:39, and can be found at
: http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v19/mj_v19i39.html

I once posted an ammended version of your chart, as I understood the
sources at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n043.shtml#15>.
(I don't think you were on Avodah yet.)

-mi

Wednesday, June 1, 2005, 11:09:54 PM, [Micha] wrote:
MB> "Ein haShechinah sheruyah elah be'arba amos shel halachah."
MB> And yet, among the reasons given for the churban was that no one went
MB> *lifnim* mishuras hadin (Yuma 9b).

It is really Bava Metziya 30b

MB>  So, while people were keeping the 4
MB> amos of halakhah, they caused galus haShechinah.
MB> What happened to "sheruyah"?

In Brochos 8a says that "_from the day that Beit Hamikdash was destroyed_
haKodosh Baruch Hu only has 4 amot of halachah in His world". I understand
it to mean that after the churban the only way for Hashem to make His
will known is through our learning of Torah, as we have no Temple and
no prophets.

-- 
Best regards,
 Nethanel                            mailto:subscriber@nethvil.com

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:16:30AM -0400, Nethanel Vilensky wrote:
: In Brochos 8a says that "_from the day that Beit Hamikdash was destroyed_
: haKodosh Baruch Hu only has 4 amot of halachah in His world". I understand
: it to mean that after the churban the only way for Hashem to make His
: will known is through our learning of Torah, as we have no Temple and
: no prophets.

My question was, if halakhah alone is sufficient to make a home for the
Shechinah, then why was keeping only halakhah without lifnim mishuras
hadin cause for galus haShechinah?

Yes, they refer to two different windows of time. But they seem to imply
contradictory things about observance and Immanence.

-mi

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> The only question is why is having
> more mitzvos the reason for a berakhah -- is it the mitzvos themselves,
> some consequence of them, and if the latter, which consequence?

You are repeating one part of the question I have been asking. To repeat
and expand on what you are asking: If it is better to have more Mitzvos,
there must be some superior consequence to having more Mitzvos (which I
Taynah there must be if men are making a Bracha thanking God about it
and is why I assume the latter in your above statement). That, in my
mind flies in the face of the concept of God's dispensation of equal
justice to 50% of His human creations.

HM

On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 10:35:04AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
:           RE is one of the gedoley hador. If he signed on the ban,
: it means that he felt that RNS's book has questionable material and
: thus should not be read. Period. Who cares if his opinion is pesak,
: aggadita or whatever? You're getting caught up in technicalities that
: misdirect the focus from where it needs to be.

The CI's sevarah about Hillel's lack of belief in a personal mashiach
only works because of the laws of pesaq. If it's aggadita, then RYSE's
opinion is no more binding than RSRH's, and yeish al mi lismokh even
for someone who consistently follows him in inyanei halakhah. Without
pesaq, there is no azlinan basar rubah, no need to follow one's poseiq
as opposed to a seifer, etc...

If it's pesaq, and it doesn't have implications about my wine or (U)
shechitah, then in what din is RYSE pasqening?

:            ... you are obviously experiencing feelings of cognitive
: dissonance reconciling your shita with one of the gedoley hador's
: categorical rejection of it...

Not realy. A number of the things about this ban simply convinced me
that these aren't the rabbanim I would choose to follow. I therefore
feel no more dissonance than I do when learning VaYoel Mosheh.

My real problem is that I ironically find that RYSE and R' Meir Shapiro
are apparently in agreement with the notion that we do not accept the
Rambam's ikkarim (or some derivative of them) as definitive pesaq for what
is kefirah. Mind you I have worked with batei din legeirus, and AFAIK
that is what's followed lemaaseh. I'm trying to understand different
shitos on the limits of what is O, and what is beyond eilu va'eilu.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@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?

In Avodah V15 #25, Micha replied:
> As for my difference of opinion with RMP, I realize that it's just that
> I'm not as proficient in dan lekaf zechus as he is....I assumed they were
> thinking "taking out the Torah helps the delivery" <full stop>. No thought
> of G-d, just a causal connection. Which is why I called it mechanistic.

There's usually more to minhagim like giving hotza-ah to an expectant
father than meets the eye. For an ancient example, see the last three
paragraphs of <http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/2187>.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

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


[ 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         ]