Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 247

Tue, 08 Jul 2008

• 1. Re: T'uM (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Your brother's a Mumar; here's the solution! (menucha)
• 3. Re: Your brother's a Mumar; here's the solution! (Stuart Feldhamer)
• 4. Re: T'uM (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 5. Re: TIDE and Austritt (Samuel Svarc)
• 6. Torah riddle (Samuel Svarc)
• 7. Re: Halachic Texts: More Background (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. Re: T'uM (Richard Wolpoe)

Richard Wolpoe wrote:

> Tangentially, this has implications for Hilchos Muktzeh on Shabbos
> E.G. if I have a bossis for muktzeh and non-muktzeh
> 
>    1. The non-muktzeh is a $5.00 Hallah
>    2. The Muktzeh is a  $10.00 Gold coin
> 
> Then the halacha is a no-brainer, i.e. the money is the ikkar and the 
> bossis is muktzehbecause the non-muktzeh is bottel..
> 
> But I have questioned whether $10.00 of our paper money as really being 
> worth more than the $5.00 Hallah.

Since the basis of muktzeh is how people regard things, the $10 note
is certainly worth more *to its owner* than the $5 challah.



> Paper Money is like pre-written checks. It has no intrinsic value, 
> other than the paper and the artwork, etc.

That is one possible way to see things (though as above, not for
hilchot muktzeh).  But the fact is that it's not like a cheque; it
does have intrinsic value, if only by the government's fiat.
A cheque is not money, it's merely a promise to pay money; and that
promise can be cancelled.  A note or a coin makes no sort of promise
at all; if you present a $10 note to the Treasury, all they'll give
you for it is two $5s.  Its value comes from the fact that the law
says that if you give it to your creditor the debts are cancelled,
and from the fact that everybody agrees to accept it.  The question
is to what extent halacha takes notice of this.


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

The one whom immediately comes to mind is Michal . Shmuel aleph, 18,20.
menucha

> re any women in Tanach described as loving their husbands?
>
>KT,
>MYG
>
>_______________________________________________
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080707/124bf48a/attachment-0001.htm>

Great example - see Sh"B 6:16 : )

 

Stuart

 

From: avodah-bounces@lists.aishdas.org
[mailto:avodah-bounces@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Meisner
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 2:21 PM
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Your brother's a Mumar; here's the solution!

 

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Moshe Y. Gluck <mgluck@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Are any women in Tanach described as loving their husbands?


Michal bas Shaul, although technically it was before she married him (Sh"A
18:20).  



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080707/67e676e6/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> Take another example: fiat money.  All of our money today,
> notes as well as coins, gets its value only from the fact
> that the law says it has value, and we all agree to pretend
> that it does.  There is a discussion in halacha ... over
> whether such money can be used for kiddushin, pidyon haben,
> chilul maaser sheni, etc., and various distinctions that
> can be drawn between these different purposes.

R' Richard Wolpoe asked:
> But I have questioned whether $10.00 of our paper money as
> really being worth more than the $5.00 Hallah. ... Paper
> Money is like pre-written checks. It has no intrinsice value,
> other than the paper and the artwork, etc.  This throws a
> big winkle -as I see it - in the laws of bossis.  Is a
> $10.00 bill worth really worth $10.00 or it is just like a
> $10.00 check?  is it intrinscially worth more than a Hallah
> at half the face value?

I see a VERY big difference between what RZS wrote, and what RRW wrote. RZS
asks, "Is it *money* for this halacha? Is it *money* for that halacha?" RRW
asks, "What is this *worth*? What is that *worth*?"

Things are worth whatever people feel they are worth. There are some
situations which call for an expert to appraise an object, but no one would
do that for a $10 bill. A $10 bill might or might not be "money" for a
halacha which requires money -- Pidyon Maaser Sheni, for example -- but it
is certainly not valueless.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Sweepstakes!!! 
Enter for your chance to WIN  a summer spa getaway!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/JKFkuJi7Ujkjbe2tP6jUQvWRnO3sRcMFLJmOnP6WwuDt4oCscCxJBQ/

> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> 
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 12:56:50AM -0400, Samuel Svarc wrote:
> : TIDE requires Austritt. If one recognizes something other than Torah
then
> : the Torah in TIDE is not reigning supreme.
> 
> : As for the "possibility of cooperation on non-Torah matters", this is
> : something that needs more detail to be answered intelligently. Oh' and
> : TIDE
> : doesn't recognize any "Non-Torah matters", as all of DE is part of the
> : rubric on which Torah must be the master of.
> 
> How does this argument exclude R (or, as RRW pointed out, even
> non-Austritt O), but not Schiller?

Because reading Schiller doesn't dispute the supremacy of Torah, while the
other two do.

> Clearly RSRH divided the world into
> at least three: Torah, DE, and things one must shun. Thus there is DE
> or potential DE, things that could serve Torah IF one chooses to give
> them the Torah's form. Survival of Jews would seem to qualify.

Who disagrees with that? With what constitutes survival yes, but that
survival is permitted?
 
> :> RYBS's midpoint answer also insists on a society in which Torah reigns
> :> supreme. However, it does so without cutting themselves off from the>
:> non-observant world in matters in which that allegiance isn't
> threatened.
> 
> : I'm no expert on RYBS, so no comment.
> 
> He sought a way to work together on common cause without implying any
> religious legitimacy. Rather than total exclusion, he divided pragmatic
> survival questions from religious ones.

Once again, without particulars this is almost unintelligible. There are
very few ways that one can work together with R and C without legitimizing
them. This was the opinion of the majority, b'mchilas RYBS. Even he agreed
in religious matters. And I think history has spoken as to the rest. (But
this is totally off topic - Namely RSRH's Austritt.)
 
> Would the Austritt community not use records of who is a Tay Sachs carrier
> because the population was tested under a Federation program? (Okay, by
> picking an extreme case I run potentially afoul of piquach nefesh issues.)

No. But if they had to recognize that the Federation was the
standard-bearer, blah blah blah, then yes. They would set up their own.

> 
> ...
> : The beauty of RSRH's torah is that he didn't address certain situations
> : and
> : build things on them. He built edifices of thought based on what the
> : Torah
> : says, and with that addressed situations. So the answer is: No. Austritt
> : is
> : not bound to one particular situation but rather that nothing may reduce
> : Torah's dominion...
> 
> What does this mean? How does one have a pesaq that is NOT a function
> of the metzi'us at hand?

Doesn't exist. Pesak is always based on the circumstance. Why Frankfurt's
circumstances demanded Austritt was obviously based entirely on those
circumstances. Why the chiuyiv of Austritt exists is not based in any way on
the particular circumstances of Frankfurt. But your conflating the
circumstances of having caused the philosophy of Austritt, that's the
mistake.

> Yes, there are ideals. But what were they? What
> feature of German R and the Gemeinde was the subject of Austritt's
> ideal? And does it still exist today.

Read Collected Writings Vol. 6 page 86, "The Legal Case of the Jewish
Shoemaker", v'timtzu rov nachas. Most assuredly it exist today, but first
read it (and the rest of the volume which discusses Austritt) and then we
can discuss if RSRH's Austritt applies today.


> RnTK:
> : > : I admit that that whole last paragraph has no source other than my
> : > : gut
> : > : feeling, based on the emanations of penumbras from the corpus of
> : > : Hirsch's writings.
> 
> RMB:
> : > WADR, though, you already "admitted" a few weeks backthat your view
> : > of TiDE is based on the assumption that your father (note to newbies:
> : > RNBulman) "channeled" RSRH. OTOH, I can not picture someone of your
> : > gather's stature adopting someone else's hashkafah wholesale, with no
> : > personalization.
> 
> MSS: 
> : So which points do you think RNB personalized, and what is your evidence
> : for
> : those points? Lacking those, it appears that your intent is more to
> : disqualify RTK from basically ever voicing an opinion on TIDE (as
opposed
> : to
> : just straight quoting from RSRH), with the handy rebuttal, "That's RNB
> : not
> : TIDE".
> 
> RMB:
> The chareidi world as a whole toned down TiDE, IMHO.

How is this relevant?

> Since RnTK wrote
> that she believes her father's TiDE is RSRH's exactly, and I disagree,
> anything she says based on emanations of penumbras won't convince me.

Once again, do you have anything to base this on, or are you doing what you
are arguing against, basing it on your "gut"?

> Yes, my intent is to disqualify RnTK's unsourced opinions of TiDE in
> the kinds of issues where R' Danziger and R' Elias disagree.

Kindly source this assertion as well. Where do R' Elias and R' Danziger
argue about Austritt? Furthermore, if we were do view this instance as
indicative, I would be more likely to trust her "gut" feeling about TIDE in
the future as she was spot on in this case.

> : Even when two separate people (one of whom never heard RNB) give
> : essentially
> : the same answer?

While you have answered the second half (omitted for brevity) eloquently
(and in a way that leads me to suspect that your feelings about Austritt are
highly questionable), you haven't addressed this point. Two separate people
gave the same answer. This should be a strong proof as to what Austritt
requires.

KT,
MSS

 

How can one have a Tumas meis that is m'tamah b'ohel, b'masa, but not
b'maga?

KT,
MSS

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 12:07:46AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> :> Give me a rigorous definition of "new enough" that allows for ther
> Rambam
> :> and not the Gra.
>
> : I already did!. Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 25 wherein the mechabeir
> : insisted that to'eh bidvar mishneh included posqim...
>
> But that does NOT exclude the Gra. The Gra, each and every time he rules
> against minhag, has a reason to say that the minhag was based on a ta'us
> bidevar mishnah. He didn't overturn accepted pesaq just because he had a
> batter sevara, it was only when he felt that the accepted pesaq was wrong.


The GRA did not jsut rule against minhag he ruled against widely accepted
P'sak. This is tantamount to What R. Eliezer Hagaodl did with his rayos. I
fail to see any hilluk in how the GRA rejected the consensus of Posqim and
Rabbi Eliezer rejecting the consensus of his peers.



>
>
> E.g.
> - Making baqashos after benching (the "harachaman"s) on Shabbos

good point but this is NOT a psaq



>
> - Having MORE portions instead of fewer for the sake of lechem oni (an
>  oxymoron, no? particularly since mishneh lechem on YT is itself iffy)


Not when it fallssis Friday night See Behag



>
> - Adding a proof from Zecharia at the end of a Aleinu, attributed to
>  Yehoshua bin Nun (implies a rejection of that mesorah)

I dunno this one


>
>
> ...
> : Also see Heramann Stracks' quote that the "MAIN TASK" for posqim today is
> to
> : read the codes and trace them back to the Talmud.  IOW, the Talmud isnow
> : jsut  background for the p'saq, not the foreground.  I posit this morphed
> : from the early Rishonim to the end of Rishonim and I can actually quote
> you
> : sources to this effect.
>
> One could attribute this to today's poseiq not being a throwback. Thus,
> he has neither lesser wisdom nor precedent to confine him.
>

So who syas WHO is a throwback.  I s RAmbam a Trhowaback? Tosafos? Tosafos
essentially jsut did waht the Talmud did, except in France. They
dialectically threw texts together ina eiseive and urminhu style.  Soes
folowing Amoraic Style give Tosafos Amoraic power?  some say yes!  That is
how Tsoafos can be mevateil mayyim acharonim and the issur of clapping on
Shabbos


>
> :> The Gra argued that he only changed pesaqim that were against halakhah
> :> (as he understood it) in favor of those that are not.
>





>
>
> : Guess what? so does every body else. I argue that bachurim not wearing a
> : Tallis Gadol  is against p'saq, and the Darchei Moshe,
>

Do me  a favor and see both the DArchei Moshe and the Mishna Brura. Despite
the mechabeir it is liekly that the brahc on a Talis TKatan is is a bracha
levatllah - hence the MB's position to waith untnil wearing a Tallis Gadol.
And your arguemtn that thsi is optional flies in the face of gazilloins of
Posqim> if Tallis siindceed optional then put on TEfilin first and froget
about tadir veshei'no tadier etc.


>
> If it were assur to daven without a tallis gadol, then it would fit
> the Gra's model to overturn Ashkenazi norm. It's not against halakhah
> because tallis is a reshus.


As Above:
if Tallis siindceed optional then put on TEfilin first and froget about
tadir veshei'no tader etc.




> Same argument we had WRT tefillin on ch"m.
> There is no actual issur against missing a day of tefillin.


Just a bittul mitzvas Aseh!  Please bring me a source for this one! I would
like to see one poseik -  ANY poseik say that this is no big deal.



> Both are
> "merely" mechzei kemeshaqeir.


It's a big deal that Ashekanzim don't wear tefilin on Tisha B'av except that
we do for Mincahh. Look at all the posqim who obejct to that model


>
>
> :> and probably a product of the collapse of the ghetto's culture
> :> during his times.
>
> : Nah.  Gra dies 1797, Napoleon invades Russian Emptire in  1812 The
> ghettoes
> : only BEGAN collapsing 15 years after Gra's passing.
>
> : Gra knew his pesakkim were private.  He never even tried to popularize
> : them.  Those who reached back to the GRA to create a new Halachic norm
> : really wer quite radical to abandon Minhag Avos.
>
> These two paragraphs largely cancel
>

How?

#1 GRA stil had a ghetto
#2 Gra never pushed his minhaggim or psaqim

Why didn't Chayei Adam follow the Gra in his sefer?



> .
> That's not the question. The question is whether what the Gra said still
> within the eilu va'eilu of halakhah.


Wlle whose eilu v'eilu do you accept?
Rabbi Backman's hafka'as Qiddushin?  Arguably not as radical as you would
think.
How about mechira for Shemitta.  We aruable are not 100% sure what year
shemitta is anyway, making every year kind of like not knowing what day
Sahbbos is either.

But you are missing my entire point.  I am not saying the Gra created yesih
mei'ayin I AM saying he opened a can of worms /p[androa's box/ slipery slope
etc. ready-made for future abuse against the system.

Even if every arguemnt is 100% trued ,he destabilized it.

I can prove how dangerous this is because some people on this list find ANY
objection of mine to the status quo of their chrished beliefs and prctices
as really problematic. I see the reaction I get for shwoing with rayos
bruaros that their dearly held shittos are really flimsy,

But I am a nobody.

But the GRA is a somebody. and by showing that nto dozens but operhaps
hundreds of minhaggim, psesaqqim and mietmietcs are questionable if not
wrong is even MORE disturbing.

So for all of you readers on this list that find I am rocking the boa far
too mcuh, mjultiply that by about a factor of 199 to 1,000 and you will get
my point. The Gra's long list of dissents cuouples wwith HIS gravitas is
bound to make the system far less stable than any of my kveches on Avodah.

If YOu are OK with radical changes so long as yo ucan bring proofs, then you
should be OK wiht all of my stuff, too. If not, then you are not being
hoestly introspective, or you are jsut used to the GRA for the last 200
years but are unble to put yourself back into his own day and see what I
mean.

Maybe in 200 years from now, my proposals wil seem like old hat too!
-
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080707/ba52a9ba/attachment.htm>

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

>
>
>
>  Paper Money is like pre-written checks. It has no intrinsic value, other
>> than the paper and the artwork, etc.
>>
>
> That is one possible way to see things (though as above, not for
> hilchot muktzeh).  But the fact is that it's not like a cheque; it
> does have intrinsic value, if only by the government's fiat.
> A cheque is not money, it's merely a promise to pay money; and that
> promise can be cancelled.  A note or a coin makes no sort of promise
> at all; if you present a $10 note to the Treasury, all they'll give
> you for it is two $5s.  Its value comes from the fact that the law
> says that if you give it to your creditor the debts are cancelled,
> and from the fact that everybody agrees to accept it.  The question
> is to what extent halacha takes notice of this.
>
>
>
> --
> Zev Sero
>


In Golden Acres the yused to sell "shabbos scrip" to "buy things on Shabbos
[like extgra wine or pay for a baby sittter] The scrip was NOT legal tender
but it was equivalent to legal tender

From a strictly puritanical vewi once the US governmetn stopped paying gold
or silver for paper miny it is ARGUABKLE that all w have is US Scrip instead
of Golden Acres Scrip.

Coins are different, albeit they have little intrinsic value nowdays either.


But I have questioned whether $10.00 of our paper money as really being
> worth more than the $5.00 Hallah.
>
> Since the basis of muktzeh is how people regard things, the $10 note
> is certainly worth more *to its owner* than the $5 challah.
>
Is a shtar chovvv [in other words an IOU or p[romissory note] with $10.00
face-value  really muktzeh on Shabbos? It may be assur to read as "shitrei
hedyotos" but is it really muktzeh?

If TODAY"S US money - no longer back by gold/silver is ONLY a promissory
note - then it might not even be muktzeh at all
-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080707/8e78d07d/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 247
***************************************

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..."