Avodah Mailing List

Volume 21: Number 15

Wed, 29 Nov 2006

• 1. Where do we fit in? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Eilu v'Eilu and Machlokes l'Shem Shamayim (Micha Berger)
• 3. Yichud and fostering (Dov Kay)
• 4. Re: Yichud and fostering (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Throwing a Drop (Gershon Dubin)
• 6. Yaakov kissing Rachel (Marty Bluke)
• 7. Re: Yaakov kissing Rachel (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: Yaakov kissing Rachel (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Astrology (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Throwing a Drop (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Lo tasur (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: establishing mamzerut (Micha Berger)

RYGB tried to send the following to Avodah, but as moderator I drove him
sufficiently nuts that he gave up. I think it would be an interesting
discussion, and since I think I know what the moderator would consider
appropriate for Avodah, I'm giving it a shot.

The Wall Street Journal carried a front page story of an interview with Robert
Spaemann, a philosopher who has known the current pope for many years. It's
abvailable at <http://tinyurl.com/y653oy> to subscribers, but RYGB also
pointed to an excerpt on a blog at <http://tinyurl.com/y4rbdg>.

In part:
> For Benedict, the modern age is defined by growing secularism in the West and
> the rise of religious fanaticism most everywhere else. In order to fulfill
> its mission, he believes, the Church needs to shun both forces.

The latter part drove the pope's comments that raised such an uproar in the
Moslem world last September.

Also from the article:
> Father Fessio (Head of Ignatius Press) described Benedict's position on Islam
> in this way: "He's saying that if your view of God...is that he's so
> transcendent that he transcends all human categories, including rationality,
> well then you can justify the irrational, including violence, to spread
> religion, including terrorism."

This is an issue we too have to discuss. Where do we stand on rationality vs
transcendence? Is the answer to that question different for adherents of
different derakhim? How do those of us who more stress transcendence avoid the
problems with Islam being raised by the Catholic church? Where is the line?
And that line has to include mechiyas zeicher Amaleiq.

As I see it, the discussion involves at least two topics I played with on
Aspaqlaria:

1- The Rambam vs the Ramchal (and presumably the Ramchal's meqoros) on whether
HQBH transcends logic
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/07/hashem-and-logic.shtml>

2- The role of natural morality, whether there is a morality beyond and
underlying halakhah
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/07/rest-is-commentary.shtml> and
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/11/ethics-and-morality.shtml>.

I also raised the distinction between Islam and Christianity, as each focusing
on only part of the Jewish concept of Deity (and thus of personal redemption
and teshuvah): <http://tinyurl.com/y2vqby>

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R' Alan Krinsky <adkrinsky@netzero.net> wrote (the post came through to the
digest as an attachment, so I'm including it in its entirety):

: Are the two notions of Eilu v'Eilu and a Machlokes l'Shem Shamayim
: essentially identical, two ways of expressing the same idea? Or, do they
: refer to two different ideas? If different, how do the two overlap? Is one
: a more general category, encompassing the other one? Or, is it like a Venn
: diagram where they overlap but both maintain areas beyond the overlap?

: I had assumed that they were identical, that any positions considered part
: of a Machlokes l'Shem Shamayim would be also be considered as positions
: falling with the realm of Eilu v'Eilu, and that likewise, if two (or
: more) positions could be appropriately defined as Eilu v'Eilu, then the
: dispute they concerned would also be a Machlokes l'Shem Shamayim. Yet,
: perhaps I was mistaken in this assumption?

: I suppose my broader concern is the boundaries of Orthodoxy, and what
: happens when one sizable group considers the positions of another sizable
: group to be beyond the pale. How do we define such disputes in terms of
: Eilu v'Eilu and Machlokes l'Shem Shamayim?

: Let me provide two cases that might help explicate this:

: 1. The institutionalization of girls' Gemara. By this I mean the formal
: teaching of Gemara to girls in a day school setting, as is done in
: Brookline's Maimonides School and elsewhere. As I understand it, many
: rabbinic authorities would hold that although individual girls or women
: could on their own initiative request to study Gemara, that it should not
: be taught, even on an optional basis, in a formalized classroom setting.
: And not only that it should not be done so, but that it is wrong or even
: forbidden to do so, that there is not even a valid halakhic debate here,
: that the position in favor of the practice is really beyond the pale,
: and that we do not have a Machlokes l'Shem Shamayim or a case of Eilu
: v'Eilu here.

: 2. The issue of whether or not Daas Torah extends beyond halakhic
: matters. Do we (are we obligated to) turn to the Gedolei HaDor for correct
: views on such non-halakhic matters as politics and science? Again, my
: impression is that although many Orthodox Jews reject such an expansive
: notion of Daas Torah, many others consider this rejection itself as
: beyond the pale, and that we likewise do not have a Machlokes l'Shem
: Shamayim or a case of Eilu v'Eilu.

: I suppose the two examples could be elements of a single, larger one, as a
: core part of the argument against something like institutionalized girls'
: Gemara is that--regardless of the halakhic merits or issues--it has not
: been embraced by the Gedolei HaDor. One might consider the debate over
: banning Rabbi Slifkin's books as another example. Was that a Machlokes
: l'Shem Shamayim and/or a case of Eilu v'Eilu? What happens when there
: is disagreement within Orthodox circles about how to characterize such
: a dispute? And, finally, as I have read or at least inferred recently
: in writings by Rabbi Nathan Lopes-Cardozo and Rabbi Benjamin Hecht,
: what value are these concepts if one includes only positions with which
: one agrees or at most refers only to differences of nusach or chumrah
: observance? Are not these concepts only meaningful when they encompass
: vehemently argued opposing positions, where one believes strongly that the
: opposing view is incorrect, but retains a certain respect nonetheless? And
: if so, where do we draw the line (because obviously there are limits,
: and we would not want to say anything goes, to include for example a
: debate over whether or not a person can drive on Shabbos)? In a way,
: then, I am asking what the boundaries of an Orthodox pluralism would
: be, and how and who defines those boundaries?  And my worry is that,
: increasingly, the boundaries are being narrowed so severely, that the
: Orthodox community itself is moving further and further away from any
: hope of Jewish unity...

Whether or not it paid to raise the ban...

Compare IM OCh 4:25, where Rav Moshe discusses the notion of Eilu va'eilu as
being limited to machloqes lesheim Shamayim, and his haqdamah to IM, where RMF
is clear that only one shitah is actually truth. In OCh III (pg 303, I forgot
the teshuvah number) RMF similarly writes there is only one emes-dik havarah,
although one should follow one's mesorah of that that is rather than attempt
to recreate it. I have a number of questions on this latter teshuvah, a
different topic for a different post. To get back to our point...

Personally, I find the Maharal's and Rav Tzadoq's models of machloqes more
convincing (and they are NOT identical), and thus drift toward belief that
eilu va'eilu is actually speaking of a pluralistic attitude toward truth.
Still, Rav Moshe makes a distinction between the concepts, and thus I would
not assume they are identical either. Someone can argue lesheim Shamayim and
still exclude my deeply cherished beliefs as one of the "eilu". And, by RMF's
shitah, the qedushah comes from the honest pursuit of amito shel Torah, not
correctness.

So I would answer no, they are not identical.

(See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/03/eilu-vaeilu-part-i.shtml> and
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/03/eilu-vaeilu-part-ii.shtml> for
RMHalbertal, RMRosensweig, and FWIW my opinions on the nature of machloqesin.
Such as what are the Maharal's and Rav Tzadoq's models...)


Any pluralism must be finite, there must be some barrier beyond which I no
longer consider that Orthodox, and doesn't conform to eilu va'eilu. That
barrier itself is the subject of machloqes, and thus to eilu va'eilu, which
leads to a paradox: Can I say "he's also right" when part of his position is
that mine isn't among the right ones?

That paradox is inherent in plurality and not specific to nidon didan. But
then, plurality presumes that conflicting ideas can be true; paradox already
went out the window.

There are objective reasons to say that "Torah and" hashkafos are beyond one's
red line, whether we're speaking of TIDE (as anything but a hora'as sha'ah) or
anyone's definition of TuM. I recognize that even though I adhere to a variant
on that theme (or 4 or 5 variants, depending on mood). IMHO, for this to be a
milkhamta shel Torah, a machloqes lesheim Shamayim, we must distinguish our
knowledge of their position and the basis for it in our mesorah from our
opinion of them as people or a community. The value of a derekh is whether it
increases AYH, one's ability to perform Torah, Avodah and Gemillus Chasadim,
and whether they actually are doing their best to follow the Torah, not
whether or not they applaud my derekh.

The decision of the nature of the machloqes really resides in the people whose
position is in dispute, in choosing our response (as Rabbi Hecht puts it at
<http://www.nishma.org/articles/commentary/slifkinrevisited3.html>).

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

My wife and I know a young unmarried lady in town who fosters children.

A case recently arose of a 10 year old boy from a frum home who, for reasons 
unknown to me, needed to be fostered.  There is only one frum family in town 
registered to foster, but they cannot take him for another month.  Our 
friend wanted to help, as the alternative was for the boy to be fostered 
with a non-Jewish family, but she was concerned about yichud, as she lives 
alone.

She asked her Rav for a hetter, who said he could not find one but 
encouraged her to ask someone else.  She eventually contacted a dayan in 
London who permitted the boy to live with our friend for a month until a 
permanent foster family could be found.

I cried tears of joy when I heard this p'sak, but it still puzzles me. Can 
anyone explain how the dayan might have reached his conclusion?  I am not 
aware that anyone else has a key to the lady's apartment.

Kol tuv
Dov Kay

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free! 
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb

Dov Kay wrote:

> She asked her Rav for a hetter, who said he could not find one but 
> encouraged her to ask someone else.  She eventually contacted a dayan in 
> London who permitted the boy to live with our friend for a month until a 
> permanent foster family could be found.
> 
> I cried tears of joy when I heard this p'sak, but it still puzzles me. 
> Can anyone explain how the dayan might have reached his conclusion?  I 
> am not aware that anyone else has a key to the lady's apartment.

Sounds like a case of "eis laasos", and of someone with "breite pleitzes".

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Rabbosai, it was NOT for cleaning, it was for tevila.  IIRC, the Gaon
doesn't say it HAD to be 300, only that despite 300 being, usually, a
guzma, this is perfectly reasonable (has to do with how many hands
could fit onto the paroches to hold it);  same cheshbon for other
guzmaos in the Gemara.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

When Yaakov first meets Rachel the first thing he does is kiss her and then
he cries. What is the significance of this kiss? How was Yaakov allowed to
do that?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061129/4a2b495c/attachment.htm

 

	When Yaakov first meets Rachel the first thing he does is kiss
her and then he cries. What is the significance of this kiss? How was
Yaakov allowed to do that?  
	==============================
	see  http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v35/index.html#VRC
	 
	Yaakov kissing Rochel (2)      (75)
<http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v35/mj_v35i75.html#CAAD>  (80)
<http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v35/mj_v35i80.html#CABN>  (85)
<http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v35/mj_v35i85.html#CADE>  
	 
	KT
	Joel Rich 
	 
	PS- I never got an answer that resonated

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/20061129/ecd2c84c/attachment-0001.html

On Wed, November 29, 2006 9:37 am, Marty Bluke wrote:
: When Yaakov first meets Rachel the first thing he does is kiss her and then
: he cries. What is the significance of this kiss? How was Yaakov allowed to
: do that?

As soon as Yitzchaq saw her, he saw his mother's ability to raise the Jewish
people in her. Thus the kiss and the tears.

As for the permissaiblity... If we take the medrash literally that she turned
3 (rather than 15) on her wedding day, Rivqah wasn't necessarily 3 yet when he
kissed her (unless they were wed on the day they met).

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

On Sat, November 25, 2006 1:46 pm, Yisrael Medad quoted Jim Steward in a
letter to the London Review Bookshop about astrology:
:                         In ancient Israel astrology was an offence, and was
: rejected as a source of knowledge, as were all other kinds of divination,
: magic generally, and consultation of the dead. Ancient Israelites believed
: (according to Genesis) that the sun, moon and stars were merely 'lights'.

1- This is historically untrue.

2- Also, astrology was a big thing much much later, among the philosophically
inclined rishonim (and their non-Jewish contemporaries), all of whom had quite
developed theologies (including those contemporaries). It's not like Jewish
theology rules out astrology. And for many authetically Jewish theologies,
quite the reverse.

2- Bereishis says "limemsheles". Not merely lights.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, November 26, 2006 3:59 am, R Akiva Blum wrote:
:>1. What is your source that the mizbeach hazahav was so far away from the
:>paroches?  I'm not arguing, just asking.  My mental picture is that  the
:>mizbeach hazahav was close to the paroches.

: Yoma 33b.
: Please note that the avodah for yom kippur was directly in front of the
: paroches.

As a little mizbei'ach hazahav was a front (east) of center, with 11 menoros
(the "real" one plus 10 for "zeh Keili ve'anveihu") in the back left, and the
shulchan in the back right. They in turn were 2-1/2 amos from the wall.
Picturing things, the menoros must have been a significant percentage of the
room. Since there had to be a line of sight from there to the shulchan, the
mizbei'ach may have been significantly closer to the front than center.

In any case, the gemara says that it's more than half the heichal away, and
therefore more than 20 amos.

:>2. Another subject, only tangentially related to what you asked, but
:>something I've always wondered:  did they clean the paroches (and the
:> bigdei kehuna) periodically, and if so, how? I have trouble picturing
:> beautiful, elegant clothing and curtains being esthetically pleasing once
:> they have blood stains all over them.
...
: Bigdei kehuna: The gemorah states, Pesochim 65b, that soiled bigdei kehuna are
: possul.

And in Sukkah we learn that old bigdei kehunah were turned into wicks for
Simchas Beis haSho'eivah.

But the question of blood stains on the paroches is answerable based on the
first issue. How much blood reached the paroches? The kohein is flinging a
drop with his finger a distance of 30-40 ft. I doubt it was "all over".

But in bayis shelishi, would it be proper to scotch-guard (TM) the paroches?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, November 26, 2006 3:12 pm, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: R' Micha Berger answered:
:> If I agreed with your understanding of the Chinukh, how
:> about Ravina veRav Ashi and the geonim?

: In what way would "Ravina veRav Ashi and the geonim" constitute ONE
: authority?

Ravina and Rav Ashi's shas constituted one beis din-like authority.

And the majority of the geonic era had a single gaon in authority at a time.
This became a major issue WRT the calendar in R Saadia Gaon's day, as
discussed in an article RYGB developed (largely from discussions he had here,
IIRC). But that was bedavka WRT the calendar, where being absent from Israel
was arguably a point against RSG's authority.

: And if RMB would amend that answer to simply "Ravina veRav Ashi",
: i.e., Talmud Bavli, then I'd ask, "Aren't there cases where we pasken
: like the Yerushalmi against the Bavli?" (not that I can think of any
: offhand, but I'm pretty sure I've heard of the phenomenon)

Search the list archives for Agus, Ta-Shma, and the theory that Ashkenaz is a
product of a mix of immigrants of Bavel and EY whereas Sepharad reflects a
dominance of Bavliim. They give examples of where Ashkenaz rules like the Y-mi
or medrashei halakhah and Sepharad like the gemara.

It doesn't bear through the language used for diqduq, where (e.g.) Rashi
speaks of a segol as a patach qatan, reflecting Bavli rather than Tiveri
niqud. (Bavli niqud uses the same symbol for patach and segol. See
<http://www.lashonkodesh.org/bavelpro.pdf> for a unicode proposal for those
symbols.)

But back to the story, those texts are centuries apart. It's like counting the
geonim as multiple authorities.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, November 26, 2006 9:59 am, R Arie Folger wrote:
:> So besach hakol we're in reality talking about only two different sorts of
:> evidence:
:> 1- A match between the agunah's husband and the niftar (#1, above); and
:> 2- a paternity match between the husband and the child (#3).
:> I presume that #3 is far lower in accuracy... And, we need a lower
:> confidence level lehatir, ie a lower error rate on a false match, potential
:> mamzeirim anyway.

:> So, why would accepting the evidence for agunos necessitate accepting DNA
:> testing for mamzeirim?

: First of all, yasher koach for introducing Bayesian statistics in laymen's
: terms.

Actually, the comments I made would work for any logic system that uses
continous values from certainly false to certainly true. I am not actually
sure halakhah uses Bayesian statistics. Mi'ut bemaqom safeiq lo amrinan.
However, a mi'ut above a .5 certainly level would be a majority.

This could be explained by invoking granularity. Perhaps halakhah is quantized
Baysian. Meaning, it works statistically, but rounding to one of 5 values --
vadai asur, mi'ut, safeiq, rov, vadai heter. In which case, mi'ut bemaqom
safeiq becomes a rounding issue.

Alternatively, it could be taken to imply that doubt is not resolved
statistically. I'll do everyone a favor of not returning to "ta'am and taste"
theories, and possible justification for that theory on psychological grounds.
Unless someone actually asks.

...
: Of course, that speaker's argument my not be about the accuracy of DNA testing
: in each of the above cases, but about the likelihood of DNA testing being
: used in certain kinds of cases. Biological mamzerim are probably more common
: than 'agunot that can only be freed through the acceptance of DNA testing.
: Hence, said speaker worries more about the more common potential problem.

That is discussing bedi'eved, should we accept it as evidence once we're told
of test results. OTOH, we have a choice -- why do they need to ever have the
child tested? The meis who may be an agunah's husband ought to be tested, the
possible mamzeir and the mother's husband ought not. Thus, wouldn't the number
of agunos freed well outweigh the number of mamzeirim identified?

: At any rate, I wouldn't be surprised if solid paternity testing based on DNA
: is, while much less reliable than a match against the person's own tissue,
: still sufficiently accurate to be hard to ignore in a case of alledged
: mamzerut.

To return to one of my earlier points: I thought that in the case of
mamzeirus, we do ignore the "hard to ignore" until we're forced to pay
attention to them.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter



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


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 4, Issue 15
*************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

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..."