Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 45

Tue, 06 Nov 2007

• 1. Re: Traditions Should not be Altered (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 2. Re: Boruch Dayan Emes (Michael Kopinsky)
• 3. Re: Just what ARE the rules of p'sak anyway? (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Women's zimun (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Just what ARE the rules of p'sak anyway? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 6. Re: Just what ARE the rules of p'sak anyway? (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Re: Mikveh l'zona (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 8. Re: Women's zimun [AhS, MB etc.] (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Esther and Achashveirosh (Sarah Green)
• 10. Re: women learning Torah (Richard Wolpoe)
• 11. Re: Societal Needs vs.Self-Perfectin was re: Religion and Falsifiability (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: women learning Torah (Micha Berger)

R' Meir Rabi:
Is it reasonable to suggest a Kal VeChomer from the following? Reb Moshe was
asked about a Paroches that opened and closed from and to the centre. The
shoel thought there may have been a problem on Shabbos of Kosev and Mochek
with the writing on the Paroches. Reb Moshe though considered the entire
Paroches to be an unacceptable change from the ancient traditions and
instructed that the Paroches must be altered to the traditional single
curtain.


Is this in Igros Moshe? Do you have a Mareh Makom?

KT,
MYG

R' Richard Wolberg wrote:
>
> Thank God, I'm not reporting anyone's passing.
>
> However, I realized an interesting configuration of Dayan Emes. With 
> one slight change, you can read it: Dayan 'Aleph' Meis. The One 
> (aleph) Judge of the dead. In other words, only HaShem can judge the 
> deceased.
>
But the Bracha is Baruch Dayan HaEmes.  With your change, that would 
read as "Dayan Hei Meis", clearly a problematic change.

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071106/29ffd059/attachment.html 

On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 08:05:24PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: And the aforementioned Rabbi ABC posits that:
...
: IOW - why use Davka THIS Tosefta to overrule THIS Bavli unless one has an
: inner prejudice that cause a special selectivity to take place?

Or a value to seeing what the people do, and presuming the practice got
started because of an alternate shitah?

If one wants to get Agusian, the entire minhag Ashkenaz has to be
studied this way. You can't simply point to a Bavli if a large chunk of
kelal Yisrael still follow a mesorah no less authoritative than it, but
not as centrally documented.

Presumed is this all-or-nothing "Bavli trumps Tosefta", which I would
object to as being fundamentally the wrong model.

(I'm also considering whether the notion that the rules are "fuzzy
logic" rather than boolean is why the SA has exceptions to relying on
his triumverate.)

I fail to see the da mah lehashiv in addressing his accusation
of prejudice (in the case you brought of women leining megillah:
misogyny?) . The question only exists because his postulates are off.
There are other motivations. Just because /he/ thinks they aren't valid
doesn't mean I wouldn't use them.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 06:21:56PM -0500, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: > The formalist's answer would depend on whether he emphasizes Shas
: > (must) or BY (may) or MB (ought not).

: No one has brought any support from any classical source for don't -
: only that it wasn't done - but without the leap that therefore it
: shouldn't be done.

: The MB never says it shouldn't be done - he brings down that the
: minhag is not like the gra - who requires it...

No, but it is at this point a text that implies "ought not",
a codification of the minhag avos argument. I did intentially write
"ought not" rather than "can not".

IOW, the MB's argument is minhag avos... Err... imahos. But someone
pointing to the MB rather than the authority of minhag itself is still
trying to make an argument on the authority of a text.

My following RDLifshitz's preference for the AhS doesn't make me a
mimeticist. Rather, I'm following a text written by someone with a strong
belief in the authority of minhag. I'm not doing what I was raised to
do because halakhah is related to as a culture.

This is also a flaw in following "chadash assur min haTorah". It calls
for one to consciously imitate a kind of yahadus that wasn't founded on
conscious imitation of the past! Chidush! Veharaayah, it is less fluid
than the pre-declaration version they are trying to preserve.

I didn't mean this as an upshlug. Just that CAMT is an equal and
opposite reaction, and not (as it seems at first glance from the words)
a preservation of pre-haskalah life.

(Nor do I think RMShinnar would find that a chiddush.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Micha Berger suggested:
> Let's say pesaq is not an algorithm, with yes-or-no rules,
> but a heuristic in which various factors are weighed. ...
> This seems to me a very clear expression of the distinction
> I'm trying to draw. Not rule vs rule, but adding up weights.

It is so obvious to me that there aren't really any undisputed rules here, that I've had trouble getting a grasp of the basics of this discussion. Another way of phrasing that would be to view my silence as a vote for the "adding up weights" idea.

(Yes, I know that many poskim have published their psak on what the rules are and how the rules work, but the lack of strong consensus among them leads me to read things like "The halacha is to pasken like A over B", and translate it as "My personal preference is for A over B".)

Akiva Miller

 



It is so obvious to me that there aren't really any undisputed rules
here, that I've had trouble getting a grasp of the basics of this
discussion. Another way of phrasing that would be to view my silence as
a vote for the "adding up weights" idea.



Akiva Miller

===============================
Agree, which brings us back to my original response to R' RW's question.
IMVHO you can't say the guy is wrong on any other basis than he is not
recognized as one of the chachmei hamesora - it seems we have a self
perpetuating subjective system which allows for "votes" of indeterminate
weighting by both the poskim and the am that accepts them (e.g. R' MF's
comments on how he became the posek hador)

KT
Joel Rich
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.

R' hankman wrote:
>  
> 3) Finally the Zohar is completely problematic. If Achashverosh did 
> not have relations with Esther (counter to everything I took for 
> granted from the basic story of the Megila and Shas) then he knew that 
> Esther's son was not his! Why did he not charge her with adultery and 
> treason as soon as she became pregnant with Mordechai's child? 
> Furthermore, why did he allow someone elses child to succeed him to 
> the throne? He certainly had many other sons that were his from his 
> other wifes and harem?

According to the Zohar a  demon who looked like Esther was with 
Achashverosh.

Daniel Eidensohn

On 11/6/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
>
> My following RDLifshitz's preference for the AhS doesn't make me a
> mimeticist. Rather, I'm following a text written by someone with a strong
> belief in the authority of minhag. I'm not doing what I was raised to
> do because halakhah is related to as a culture.
>
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha



re; AhS, As I've posted before, Litvisher Rabbanim  including R. Dovid L ,
[as opposed to Roshei Yeshiva] AFAIK always favored AhS as THE poseik of his
generation.

The Doros in Lita go something like this:
Primary:

   1. R. Elchonon Spektor
   2. AhS
   3. R. Chaim Ozer

Close Seconds:

   1. Beis Halevi,
   2.  his son R. Chaim Brisker
   3.  Netziv
   4. Others?

In pre-WWII p'sak literature, how often is the MB quoted?  For that matter
how often is the Kitzur SA mentioned?

If popularity counts, certainly MB and KSA are amongst the top poskim of
their times.
OTOH, if  you see the popularity of these texts as more about which is the
better textbook over which states the correct p'sak then it would imply
something else.  [iow it would imply learn from them, but don't PASKEN from
them!]

Of the following 4 major codes which is the least user friendly?
Which is the  most Halachically authoritative?

   1. Mishneh Torah
   2. Arba Turim
   3. ShulchanAruch-Mappa
   4. Levush

 and FWIW What text did the MB himself use to teach basic Halachah?

One of my colleagues suggests using a Beis din of

   1. MB
   2. AhS
   3. Kaf hachayyim

I think this idea makes a lot of sense.

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/20071106/49e01974/attachment-0001.htm 

I can't remember a source, probably a medrash that says that Esther would send a dybbuk or some such creature instead of her.

However, there was one part I never understood - on 'ka'asher avadti ovodti".    Possibly because we tend to have pictures in our minds of what we learned as children, and we find it hard to switch to another view.  

However, in my adult mind it still seems to me that if you go to request an audience to speak to a king, he is sitting in a public throne room or reception room surrounded by courtiers and advisors.  

So why on earth, when Esther went to invite him the party, would we need to assume that anything private or personal would take place?  If Chazal say so there must be some tradition or source for it, but it seems hard for me to grasp.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071106/16a2e09a/attachment-0001.html 

On 11/4/07, T613K@aol.com <T613K@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> But my question about girls learning Torah in utero was meant seriously.
> And RBH's question -- which I didn't think of, though I should have -- is
> also a logical question.  Do goyim learn Torah in utero?
>
>
> *--Toby Katz
> =============*
>

WADR I think people are taking this aggada too literally.

AISI it is saying this:
A n'shama inherently knows all the Torah that is needed to be known
intuitively, on a spiritual level.  [I do NOT take the Mal'ach's part
literally. it is  merely a MODEL for how one KNOWS Torah - viz. by learning
it with someone]

So this neshama which has 100% of the awareness that a neshama can have is
suddenly thrust into a body. At THAT point, the hybrid neshamah-body loses
ALL conscious memory
of the Torah it used to have.

However, a residual legacy lurks in the Sub-Conscious. This makes Torah
learning like restoring lost data on a file rather inputting new data. Not a
real"'tabula resa" [sp?]

As far as the different madreigoss of Torah they are irrelevant because even
a Gentile ultimately has the bechira to become a Jew etc.



-- 
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/20071106/0232f84b/attachment.htm 

On Sat, November 3, 2007 8:00 pm, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: This is imho putting the cart before the horse.  Vayichan shows the
: need for
: communal unity for receiving the Torah [ayein sham Rashi Parshas
: Yisro]
...
: The point is obvious!. Torah was and is alwasy a covenant with a
: community.

Beris Noach has one national mitzvah, and 6 personal ones. However,
you seem to be speaking specifically of Jewishness, even though
someone who is observant of the 7MBN can end up getting the same
sechar as one of us...

Well, beris Avraham isn't. Veharaayah, the os beris is very personal.
His-haleikh lefanai veheyei tamim is not AFAIK taken to be about the
community's deveiqus and temimus. And, for that matter, olam haba (in
the Rambam's sense of the word) has no place for national grouping.

For that matter, despite "vayichan", the first beris Sinai shows no
sign of being national. Non of the diberos used to summate it are
national duties. Even the 7MBN has one of those.

It's not until the 2nd beris at the end of the 40 years that we get to
national tokhakhah, mitzvos teluyos ba'aretz, and other national
concepts.

: Man doesn't SERVE the community. He fills his destiny by performing
: his
: role. Yonah didn't SERVE Ninenveh by warning them he did his mission.
: Yirmiyahu did no SERVE his era,. he fulfilled the role that was his
: destiny
: [beterm etzorcha bebetten yedaticha]...

I fail to see the distinction. Yirmiyahu's hischayvus was to the
tzibbur, not particular members thereof. Yonah is a poor example, as
his famous message was to someone else's community. We don't know much
about his failed mission to Y-m, do we?

...
: David may have been a beter Eved Hashme as a warrior than Shlomoh was
: as a
: peace-maker. But Shlomoh got to build the Mikdash. As a warriro,
: David's role was not as a builder.

Both were kings, and thus tied to serving the community. As is a nasi,
the members of Sanhedrin, and for that matter, sarei alafim vesarei
mei'os... Even an LOR has to at times place the needs of the tzibbur
as a corporate entity ahead of the more immediate needs of any of its
members.

I'm arguing that this is only because the members will be better off
altogether being constituents of a healthy tzibbur.

But how does a comparison of melakhim say anything about the primacy
of tzibbur? And how is war vs building a difference in individual vs
tzibbur?

: Torah  was NEVER given to individuals and the righteous deeds of shem
: v'ever are really never mentioned in Mikra at all! ...

Except for one, by Sheim and Yefes. (Or should I say "Yafes" even when
ending an English sentence?)

For that matter, the overwhelming majority of MRAH's deeds aren't
either. I fail to see the raayah. All it means is that HQBH chose
other incidents as role models or warnings. What does this have to do
with the primacy of tzibbur?

: Moshe was appointed the receiver - according to Hirsch - davka because
: of
: his flaws [ a flawed public speaker]. Had he taken a Dale Carnegie
: Course
: first he would  have been rejected for the role to being with!

How is this relevant either?

: The Community is not a shell to serve the individual, the inidividual
: is a
: cog in the greater hole. The stories are even aback by ba'alei msusar
: who
: tell rich people to stop fasting and do THIER tasks of doing charity.

No, what that means is that different people have different personal
goals, and the fact that he fell to the role of local gevir is because
his goal lies more with tzedaqah than taanis.

He serves the community, whether or not he is defined as part of the
whole, someone who chose to build a collection, or both. I'm arguing
"both", but that the choosing to build the collection is causally
first.

For that matter, I have argued that Shem's view of the world is as a
set of relationships that define individuals, rather than Yafes's
individuality. For me it was a hazy notion until RMLevin had posted
something similar. My version evolved into
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/12/semitic-perspective.shtml

I even developed the idea to explore the difference between ownership
in the western legal sense and ba'alus as captured in halakhah. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/03/qinyan-and-baalus.shtml>. (In
short, baalus is a person's ability to control the object -- a
relationship. Ownership is a property of the object -- reductionism.)

But do I exist to perfect the community, or to be as close to G-d and
as whole (to paraphrase Bereishis) as possible, which is enabled by
pooling effort?

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Tue, November 6, 2007 4:13 pm, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: WADR I think people are taking this aggada too literally.

Particularly since it reads like an adaptation of an idea of Plato (or
his from us, or common ancestor, etc...).

From the Meno:
> MENO:  Yes, Socrates; but what do you mean by saying that we do not
> learn, and that what we call learning is only a process of
> recollection?  Can you teach me how this is?
...
[Geometry problem posed to Meno's slave deleted.]
...
> SOCRATES:  And that is the line which the learned call the diagonal.
> And if this is the proper name, then you, Meno's slave, are prepared
> to affirm that the double space is the square of the diagonal?

> BOY:  Certainly, Socrates.

> SOCRATES:  What do you say of him, Meno?  Were not all these answers
> given out of his own head?

> MENO:  Yes, they were all his own.

> SOCRATES:  And yet, as we were just now saying, he did not know?

> MENO:  True.

> SOCRATES:  But still he had in him those notions of his--had he not?

> MENO:  Yes.

> SOCRATES:  Then he who does not know may still have true notions of
> that which he does not know?

> MENO:  He has.

> SOCRATES:  And at present these notions have just been stirred up in
> him, as in a dream; but if he were frequently asked the same
> questions, in different forms, he would know as well as any one at
> last?

> MENO:  I dare say.

> SOCRATES:  Without any one teaching him he will recover his knowledge
> for himself, if he is only asked questions?

> MENO:  Yes.

> SOCRATES:  And this spontaneous recovery of knowledge in him is
> recollection?

> MENO:  True.

> SOCRATES:  And this knowledge which he now has must he not either
> have acquired or always possessed?

> MENO:  Yes.

> SOCRATES:  But if he always possessed this knowledge he would always
> have known; or if he has acquired the knowledge he could not have
> acquired it in this life, unless he has been taught geometry; for he
> may be made to do the same with all geometry and every other branch
> of knowledge.  Now, has any one ever taught him all this?  You must
> know about him, if, as you say, he was born and bred in your house.

> MENO:  And I am certain that no one ever did teach him.

> SOCRATES:  And yet he has the knowledge?

> MENO:  The fact, Socrates, is undeniable.

> SOCRATES:  But if he did not acquire the knowledge in this life, then
> he must have had and learned it at some other time?

> MENO:  Clearly he must.

> SOCRATES:  Which must have been the time when he was not a man?

> MENO:  Yes.

> SOCRATES:  And if there have been always true thoughts in him, both
> at the time when he was and was not a man, which only need to be
> awakened into knowledge by putting questions to him, his soul must
> have always possessed this knowledge, for he always either was or
> was not a man?

> MENO:  Obviously.

> SOCRATES:  And if the truth of all things always existed in the soul,
> then the soul is immortal.  Wherefore be of good cheer, and try to
> recollect what you do not know, or rather what you do not remember.

And so, Plato has Socrates prove that the real unchanging Platonic
Truths are learned before birth, and "learning is recollection".

Given this context, I think the chiddush isn't that we're prepared
knowing Torah in order to make Torah learning easier. Rather, Chazal's
point is that those Truths aren't limited to geometry or the
rigorously provable, but are/include Torah.

The history of the mashal does not suggest the mal'akh is an ikkar
element.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 45
**************************************

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..."