Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 20

Tue, 23 Oct 2007

• 1. Re: May Kohanim visit the Rebbe's Ohel by means of a (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: An-im Zemiros (A & C Walters)
• 4. Re: Religion and Falsifiability (David Riceman)
• 5. Re: Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos (Richard Wolpoe)
• 6. Re: Religion and Falsifiability (Richard Wolpoe)
• 7. Re: May Kohanim visit the Rebbe's Ohel by means of a box (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Religion and Falsifiability (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 9. Rav Schachter on Kiddushei Ta'us; and a hypothesis re: Annulment (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Impact of Judgmental Statements Was Religion and Falsifiability (Richard Wolpoe)
• 11. Re: Rav Schachter on Kiddushei Ta'us; and a hypothesis re: Annulment (Elazar M. Teitz)

On 10/21/07, Chana Luntz <chana@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
>
> RRW writes:
>
> > Rav Sachter's article seems to imply to me that one may NOT
> > exploit certain heteirim when those heiteirim lack a
> > tradition for doing so. That avoiding exploiting a certain
> > heter is proof that one SHOULD not exploit that heter.
>
> Actually, to be fair to RHS, I think this may be slightly overstating
> his case.  Rather RHS really seems to be arguing that where there is a
> masorah not to use a certain heter, one should not use it, rather than
> that their needs to necessarily be a tradition to use the heter (a
> subtle difference but significant difference).  The real target of RHS's
> article is the giving of aliyot to women.
> Regards
>
> Chana
>

See YD 1:1 BY and Schach
Not exploiting a textual heter is by no means a slam dunk in either
direction.
The levuch posits the reaons women were excluded for Shechita was due to
faintin?

Based upon this levuch would you exclue NOWADAYS a fmale doctor or nurse who
is  completely desentized to  seeing BLOOD?

I would answer, Assuming this Levush to be correct, then this minhag has an
inherent loop-hole that was only NOT exploited due to societal and NOT
halachic considerations.

To me it is analogous to reading on Friday night to an electric lamp as
opposed to the oil lamp of the Talmud.


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071022/6be27d88/attachment-0001.htm 

On Monday, 22. October 2007 18.01:14 Rich, Joel wrote:
> OK try this one - 1 shoel has an issue. ?If he takes it to R' X ?he gets
> one response based on R' X's struggle. ?If he takes it to R' 2X he gets
> a different response based on R' 2x's struggle. ?Is it your contention
> that either result is the most fully appropriate dvar hashem for the
> shoel (implication - HKB"H really doesn't have an opinion on the
> eventual act, just the process)

No. It is my contention that it is inappropriate to go shopping, particularly 
after having asked R' X. By going around from posseq to posseq, the shoel 
might be failing to fulfill his duty. When he approached the first posseq, he 
was in effect in the process G"d wants him to go through (assuming the posseq 
isn't obviously wrong). Furthermore, assuming the likely situation whereby 
one posseq knows the shoel better than the other one, for example, the shoel 
will, by shopping around, possibly fail to get the pessaq appropriate for 
him.

Somehow, the more I look into this, the more that I become convinced of how 
grave the lack of a rebbi talmid relationship is.

BTW, I do not know how important it is to ask what HKBH's opinion is. He 
already taught us in His Torah lo bashamayim hi, and in the case of tanur 
shel achnai we learn that there may be a difference kaveyakhol, between 
earthly halakhah pessuqah and G"d's "intent".
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

There are two shitas - at least by the chasidishe; that of the Divrei Chaim (that is should be recited every shabbos) and that of the Shinove' Rov, who holds that one should not (only on Yomim Toyvim).

Unusually, Sanz and Klausenburg follow, in this case, the Shinve', and Satmar follow the DC (normally it's fakhert).

I think the svoro of the ShinRov is that due to the kedusha, it should not be said too much

A Y Walters
R. Beis Shemesh B
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: RallisW@aol.com 
  Newsgroups: gmane.culture.religion.jewish.avodah
  To: avodah@lists.aishdas.org 
  Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 3:26 PM
  Subject: An-im Zemiros


  Is one permitted to recite An-im Zemiros on Shabbos or Yom Tov as a majority of Ashkenazic shuls do? Is one allowed to recite it at the end of davening? Should one recite the concluding section of "Lcho HaShem HaGeduloh...." which is of later origin?





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.


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


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


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally - A spam blocker that actually works.
http://www.bluebottle.com/tag/4

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071022/4e19ac46/attachment-0001.html 

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> At that point I changed tactics, and decided that the behavior of a 
> religion's adherents has no bearing on the truth of that religion 
> itself. The truth of the religion can be judged only on evidence such 
> as the types of revelation which are claimed, and the internal 
> contradictions which it might have. Judge the religion by its beliefs, 
> not by its believers.
The Rambam says that the function of divine law (=religion) is to induce 
moral and intellectual perfection.  You may well argue, as Rabbi Dessler 
does in a similar context, that perfection for the few is incompatible 
with competence for the many.  If, however, a religion has no effect on 
its adherents, then of what value is it?

David Riceman

On 10/22/07, Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Somehow, the more I look into this, the more that I become convinced of
> how
> grave the lack of a rebbi talmid relationship is.
>
> --
> Arie Folger
> http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com
> _______________________________________________
>


AISI once seforim started being printed texts replaced TSBP.
Example a young Yekke goes tot yeshiva and he notes that the Mishna Brura
pasken lehisateif betzitzis with a sheva.  But the minhag at KAJ/Breuer's
is  with a patach.

So his position is: why doesn't Breuer's conform with the MB?

Several hundred years ago the converse probably would have happened.  A
talmid steeped in mimetics would have asked, how come this Sefer is knegged
our firm Minhag.  I guess this returns us to issues of Rupture and
Reconstruction.

The other tangent is, so if Yeshiva X can follow the GRA and yeshiva Y can
follow the MB why can't simply one follow the Rema? or Kitzur? &c.

So why can't one take [e.g.] The Magen Avraham as his poseik and ask
she'eilos ONLY in ares not covered?  [FWIW SA harav defaults to Magen
Avraham.

And according to Wikipedia, the Taz was ratified by the va'ad of 4 lands..
 --
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071022/f56e5808/attachment.htm 

On 10/22/07, David Riceman <driceman@att.net> wrote:
>
> kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
>
> The Rambam says that the function of divine law (=religion) is to induce
> moral and intellectual perfection.  You may well argue, as Rabbi Dessler
> does in a similar context, that perfection for the few is incompatible
> with competence for the many.  If, however, a religion has no effect on
> its adherents, then of what value is it?
>
> David Riceman
>
>
If you take the Exodus as axiomatic then I can posit that we follow Hashem's
commandments because he acquired us from Par'oh.; IOW the religion is now
about serving God as a salve serves his master.

I would posit that hashem's over-arching agenda - the preamble to our
constitution so to speak - is taht we be mamleches Kohanim v'goy Kaddosh.
[iirc Dayan Grunfeld says this in his intro to Horeb]


The Torah is not about SELF-PERFECTION but creating SOCIETAL
perfection, i.ea mamlehces kohanim

Ergo if an individual Gentile seeks self-perfection he can become [for
example] a Zen Monk.

However, if a Gentile wants to join a HOLY NATION he must become a Jew.
[note how monks in MANY traditions are celibate that it is therefore
impossible for them to create a perpetuating community - they must recruit
outsiders.]
-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071022/c27dbad5/attachment.html 

M Cohen wrote:
> ..as per your explanation, I assume the user is makpid to keep the 
> mechitzos/box within 3 tefachim of the ground
> (you didn't mention this detail)

I don't know whether "gedayim bok'im bo" disqualifies the mechitzot
of a grave, as it does the mechitzot of shabbat.  One would think so,
but the Shulchan Aruch (YD 371) doesn't give a lot of detail, and nor
does the gemara (Sotah 44a) on which it's based.


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

R' David Riceman conjectured about an imaginary
> survey showing that observant Jews were evil in that way
> more than <picture your favorite control group here>. Would
> that affect you?

I responded:
> ... the behavior of a religion's adherents has no bearing on
> the truth of that religion itself. ... Judge the religion by
> its beliefs, not by its believers.

RDR wrote back:
> The Rambam says that the function of divine law (=religion)
> is to induce moral and intellectual perfection. ...
> If, however, a religion has no effect on its adherents, then
> of what value is it?

Of course a religion does have an effect on its adherents. But other things affect them too!

Therefore, regardless of whether you see a person acting nicely or wrongly, you can't presume that he's acting that way because his religion taught him to. He might be acting that way *despite* what his religion teaches.

This can even be true in cases where the person explicitly says, "I am acting this way because my religion says so." Unfortunately, I myself have been in situations where an otherwise-frum Jew rationalized his behavior by explaining to me how the Torah justified it.

Somewhere, I've forgotten where, someone defines the idea of Kiddush HaShem along these lines: "You should act in such a way that when people see how you act, they will say, 'Blessed be the G-d of the Jews for teaching His people to act that way!'" This definition does NOT contradict the rest of this posting, and I'll tell you why:

What I have written in this thread has been addressed to the Avodah membership, who have shown themselves to be serious, thinking people. They don't jump to conclusions, but carefully weigh the evidence. They are an exceptional bunch, and I'm proud to be among them. But the masses, regrettably, are not so thoughtful.

The masses *are* easily influenced. And so the above definition of Kiddush Hashem is indeed valid. A typical person in the street (let's call him ABC) meets someone (let's call him XYZ), and forms an opinion about him. Regardless of whether ABC admires XYZ or is disgusted by him, the odds - unfortunately - are pretty high that ABC will not only feel this way about XYZ personally, but he'll probably presume that other people from XYZ's community are similar. (This will apply regardless of how ABC chooses to define XYZ's "community" - by ethnicity, race, salary, age, or whatever.)

The ironic result is that I must try to be on my best behavior whenever someone might tend to extrapolate from my behavior to that of other Jews -- even though I think that his doing so is an unwarranted generalization.

Akiva Miller

See Rav Schachter on Kiddushei Ta'us

http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2001/rsch_nissuin.html

In this posting I essentially concur with  Rav Schachter.

RRW's Hypothesis [caveta: this is probably based upon one of the Rishonim
but I am not sure]:
Hazal only use afk'inhu in the presence of a Defective Get. However, in the
total absence of a Get, they do not use annulment.

I don't enough of shas to confirm this, but in the cases I DO know if seems
to hold true.  That Hazal use annulment in get on a t'nai or in other
conditions which the Get is flawed somehow.

If my hypothesis is true, then we need no fancy rationalizations to counter
flimsy annulments; rather annulments are self-limited anyway.

Can anyone help me verify if this hypotheis is true of at least 99% true?



-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071022/334542da/attachment.htm 

On 10/22/07, kennethgmiller@juno.com <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> What I have written in this thread has been addressed to the Avodah
> membership, who have shown themselves to be serious, thinking people. They
> don't jump to conclusions, but carefully weigh the evidence. They are an
> exceptional bunch, and I'm proud to be among them. But the masses,
> regrettably, are not so thoughtful.
>
> The masses *are* easily influenced. And so the above definition of Kiddush
> Hashem is indeed valid. A typical person in the street (let's call him ABC)
> meets someone (let's call him XYZ), and forms an opinion about him.
> Regardless of whether ABC admires XYZ or is disgusted by him, the odds -
> unfortunately - are pretty high that ABC will not only feel this way about
> XYZ personally, but he'll probably presume that other people from XYZ's
> community are similar. (This will apply regardless of how ABC chooses to
> define XYZ's "community" - by ethnicity, race, salary, age, or whatever.)
>
> The ironic result is that I must try to be on my best behavior whenever
> someone might tend to extrapolate from my behavior to that of other Jews --
> even though I think that his doing so is an unwarranted generalization.
>
> Akiva Miller
>

I am a bit disturbed by a mild but nevertheless serious "rant". A Sephardic
friend of mine was quoting the Ibn Ezra's critique of  Kallir.   As a
faithful Ashkenazi -  I get very up-tight about these things, but beyond
that - I found the attack gratuitous.  Nevertheless, the man WAS after all
quoting Ibn Ezra! So how does one DEAL with these realities!   If "gedolim"
themselfes have made attacks on their peers, how can I stop others from
quoting those attacks?

I guess I could have retorted with quotes by OTHER Gedolim who in turn
attack ibn Ezra, but that would have been hypocriitcal of me - d'alach sni -
lechacvrach lo ta'avid!  IOW  If I resented HIS attacks on Kallir, why would
TWO wrongs make a right?

How can we respond in these situations - besides stoic silence?

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071022/10d845f4/attachment.html 

<RRW's Hypothesis [caveat: this is probably based upon one of the Rishonim but I am not sure]:
Hazal only use afk'inhu in the presence of a Defective Get. However, in the total absence of a Get, they do not use annulment.>

     Afk'inhu is found in the g'mara in five cases: 

       1. When a get was given al t'nai, and an oness prevented the condition from being fulfilled (K'subos 3a)

       2. When a get was sent by shaliach, and the husband nullified the shaliach, not in his presence (Gittin 33a)

       3. When a sh'chiv meira gave his wife a get and then recovered, in which case midin haTorah the get is no get since it was given only in anticipation of death (Gittin 73a)

     In these three cases, there is a defective get.  However, we also have

       4. When a man compels a woman to agree to kiddushin (Bava Basra 48b)

       5. When a man married a minor (kiddushin d'rabanan), and when she reaches maturity he prepares a chuppah to make his mariage d'oraisa, only to have someone else come and be m'kadesh her before the first one can (Y'vamos 110a)

       In these two cases, there is no get, yet afk'inhu is applied.
(These cases, however, are different in another regard as well: the hafka'ah is not a retroactive one, but is applied at the very beginning of what would otherwise be valid kiddushin.  Retroactive nullification is indeed only found in cases of a get with a defect.)

EMT 



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 20
**************************************

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..."