Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 287

Mon, 11 Aug 2008

• 1. A VERY CRUCIAL LESSON (Excerpted from Aish.com) (Cantor Wolberg)
• 2. aveilus of Nine Days is equivalent to Shloshim (SBA)
• 3. Re: ID of chilazon vs. chagavim (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 4. Re: : [Areivim] KSA (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. Va'eschanan "It Takes TWO to Tango" (Cantor Wolberg)
• 6. Re: aveilus of Nine Days is equivalent to Shloshim (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: aveilus of Nine Days is equivalent to Shloshim (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: aveilus of Nine Days is equivalent to Shloshim (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: consistency? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: The halakhos of ecology (Micha Berger)

The ninth of Av is a date in the Jewish calendar in which we reflect  
on all of our suffering through the past 2,000 years. We attempt to  
correct our flaws and pray for salvation. In our time, this includes a  
respite for our brothers and sisters in bombarded Sderot and other  
Negev towns, for people who live daily with the threat of terrorist  
attacks, for soldiers who risk their lives for us daily, and for Jews  
around the world who live with the fear of anti-Semitism and what  
could come next.

As we reflect on Tisha B'Av, what it will take to get us out of this  
cycle of persecution called "exile?"

Our Sages of the Talmud teach us that we are in exile because of the  
hatred of one Jew to another. The only way to correct that flaw is to  
repair ourselves in that realm.

Perhaps each time God puts us through another round of suffering, His  
proclamation of "Again," He is waiting for us to stop identifying  
ourselves as an individual Jew coming from his separate background and  
upbringing. "I'm modern Orthodox." "I'm Reform." "I'm a Hasid." "I'm  
secular." "I'm Conservative." "I'm yeshivishe."
Those characterizations polarize the nation and make it impossible for  
us to function together as one team. As individual groups, we cannot  
accomplish what we can accomplish as one team. We are held back by  
that same baseless hatred which creeps in when we are not one unit.

Perhaps God is waiting for all of us to proclaim in unison, "I am a  
Jew." Plain and simple.

Even more importantly, perhaps God is waiting for us to stop seeing  
others as "He's modern Orthodox." "He's Reform." "He's a Hasid." "He's  
secular." "He's Conservative." "He's yeshivishe."

Perhaps the answer to our suffering and long exile is reaching the  
point where we see other Jews as members of the same team and family.  
Jews and nothing else.

From: "Moshe Feldman" 
>> The aveilus of Nine Days is equivalent to Shloshim.  <snip>   RMS is
quoted as saying: if someone wishes to be machmir on himself and not wash on
Erev Tisha B'Av, "m'heicha teisi." <<

Doron Beckerman> I've always wondered about the equivalence of  the Nine
Days to Shloshim -
============
Nefesh HaRav p. 191 cites Pischei Tshuva OC 551:3 citing Tshuvas Panim
Me'iros that a woman is permitted to have a haircut during the Nine
Days given that there are *some* poskim who permit her to have a
haircut during Shloshim.  The implication is that the Nine Days are no
more chamur than Shloshim.
>>

What about eating meat? Who bans eat during Shloshim - or even Shiva?

SBA 

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 16:18:19 -0400
Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

...

> The simanim for chilazon don't define what source may be used for a dye
> (IOW, the claim is not that anything that gufo domeh layam etc... can
> be used), they are the gemara's description of the source. They are
> descriptive, and thus one can argue that they only serve to confirm
> a mesorah.

Actually, the Radziner [0] seriously considers the possibility that dye
derived from *any* animal species [1] is acceptable for Techeles, as
long as it satisfies the crucial colorfastness criterion.

[0] Ma'amar S'funei T'munei Hol, end of 'Ha'ta'anah ha'shniah', pp.
18-19 in the YM 5743 edition

[1] He says 'kol minei halazonos u'tolaim', but in context it's clear
that he means any animal species

> Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>wrote:

> From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
> <<I joke that if the SA were written today it would have an introduction
> that it is not le-halachah le-masseh >>
>
> No joke;  it was meant for quick chazara.  Halacha lema'aseh required the
> Tur and Beis Yosef.
>
> <<Where did you get that from?>>
>
> In the hakdama to Shulchan Aruch he describes it as a quick reference, to
> be reviewed every 30 days.  The inference is that deeper understanding, for
> nonstandard situations, remains with the Tur and Beis Yosef.
>
> Gershon
> gershon.dubin@juno.com
>
I more or less a gree but I would like to quibble.f

Everything above is true more or less but the SA was a book of peskkim. The
idea of a separation of Halacha and peskakkim ws foudn amonst a nubmer of
Rishonim including the Toras habayyis [oruch vs. katzar]

AISI there is a caveat  The SA WAS meant to be used for bottom line p'sak
PROVIDED thatthe Rav  already understood the dispute and was MERELY looking
for a decision.  So in THAT case no other sefer was needed.  This is
tantamount to the Rav either

   1.  having learned the Tur/BY already
   2.  or its equivalent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tangent:

 And indeed the SA was a review book so that everyone would be familiar with
Halachah. As such it was intended as a TEXTBOOK for students - a lot like
the KSA  300 years later - w/o any sources etc.

Obviously the SA morphed over time and the Be'er hagolah gave kemoros, as
did his descendant the GRA.

I think the Levush could have won the day because he really set out to be
mekztzer the BY but in a much more thorough way, thatn the SA did himself
But the levush also omitted sources and also put in a lot of his own
opinions w/o support [Rambam-like].

If you want to read a different Kitzur of the BY WITH sources and more
Ashekanzically oriented I would suggest the new edition of the Darchei Moshe
Ho'oruch. Imho it edges out the prisha as a quick commentary on the Tur
allthough both bote together might serve as a good shorcut for the BY which
can be daunting at times.

As I posted once, in my prep to teaching issur v'heter this year I did the
following exercise:

I divided Issur V'heter by the tradtional 3 subjects

   1. Melicha
   2. Bassar v'chalav
   3. Ta'aruvos

Then I went throgh each Subject [Cheilek in the new Tur/SA] with each of the
following Codes

   1. Tur
   2. Sa/Rema
   3. Levush

I challenge anyone to do this on ANY topic.  EG. try Hilchos RH. Go throuh
the Tur, then the SA/Rema then the Levush and see what you know

for Review you can Try MB and/or AhS and see how much is added by doing the
latest Acharonim.

If you really have a lot of time, insert SA harav and Cahyei Adam after
l;evush and before AhS and MB.

If you omit MB, you will have read ONLY codes w/o commentaries. it has a
different feel.  You can do things in chunks or with taking breaks much
easier than using a Code with A commentary. You also get the smoothness of a
single author each time  [except SA/Rema of course]

If you are the kind that compares notes between poskim then you have to
juggel a lot. if you are a gestalt type, your subconsious will tkae care of
that and you get the picture more by intuitve feel than by hard-core analysi
of the details.


-- 
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080808/742984e9/attachment-0001.htm>

The two sets of luchos contain the same laws, with a slight change of
wording. The first tablet of each set contains the laws of
bein odom l'Makom, which are represented by the verse, "V'ahavta es  
HaShem Elokecha,,,"
(D'vorim 6:5).

The second tablet contains the laws of bein odom l'chaveiro, which are  
represented by the verse,
"V'ahavta l'rayecha komocho; Ani HaShem." (Vayikra 19:18).
Both phrases have the identical gematria: 907 (Mishnas Tzadikkim).

Thus the laws of how we should act towards other people carry an equal  
worth
as the laws of how we should act towards God. The Torah reminds us  
that both are
essential, by pointing out that the word for tablets, Luchos, is  
written incomplete in the Torah.
This informs us that neither tablet is whole on its own, and that a  
person must follow both sets of laws.
This is also reminiscent of the half shekel which teaches that we are  
never complete by ourself.

ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080811/ac425bdf/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 03:42:20PM +1000, SBA wrote:
: From: "Moshe Feldman" 
:> Nefesh HaRav p. 191 cites Pischei Tshuva OC 551:3 citing Tshuvas Panim
:> Me'iros that a woman is permitted to have a haircut during the Nine
:> Days given that there are *some* poskim who permit her to have a
:> haircut during Shloshim.  The implication is that the Nine Days are no
:> more chamur than Shloshim.

: What about eating meat? Who bans eat during Shloshim - or even Shiva?

I have a more fundamental problem... Practices for the 9 Days originated
as minhag. RYBS is forced to assume that even minhag must follow
established halachic categories because of his concept of Halakhic Man
and the lack of "rituals" in Yahadus.

To quote RYBS (RARR's "The Rav" vol II, pg 54):

> Judaism must be explained and expounded on a proper level. I have read
> many pamphlets that have been published in the United States with the
> purpose of bringing people closer to Judaism. There is much foolishness
> and narrishkeit in some of these publications. For instance, a recent
> booklet on the Sabbath stressed the importance of a white tablecloth. A
> woman recently told me that the Sabbath is wonderful, and that it
> enhances her spiritual joy when she places a snow-white tablecloth on
> her table. Such pamphlets also speak about a sparkling candelabra. Is
> this true Judaism? You cannot imbue real and basic Judaism by utilizing
> cheap sentimentalism and stressing empty ceremonies. Whoever attempts
> such an approach underestimates the intelligence of the American Jew. If
> you reduce Judaism to religious sentiments and ceremonies, then there is
> no role for rabbis to discharge. Religious sentiments and ceremonies are
> not solely posessed by Orthodox Jewry. All the branches of Judaism have
> ceremonies and rituals.

> This is not the only reason why we must negate such a superficial
> approach. Today in the United States, American Jewish laymen are
> achieving intellectual and metaphysical maturity. They wish to discover
> their roots in depth. We will soon reach a point in time where the
> majority of our congregants will have academic degrees. Through the
> mediums of white tablecloths and polished candelabras, you will not
> bring these people back to Judaism. It is forbidden to publish pamphlets
> of this nature, which emphasize the emotional and ceremonial approaches.

> There is another reason why ceremony will not influence the American
> Jew. In the Unitesd States today, the greatest master of ceremony is
> Hollywood. If a Jew wants ceremony, all he has to do is turn on the
> television set. If our approach stresses the ceremonial side of Judaism
> rather than its moral, ethical, and religious teachings, then our
> viewpoint will soon become bankrupt.

> The only proper course is that of Ezekiel's program for the priests:
> "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and the
> common, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean"
> [Ezekiel 44:23] The rabbi must teach his congregants. He must deepen
> their appreciation of Judaism and not water it down. If we neutralize
> and compromise our teachings, then we are no different than the other
> branches of Judaism.

There is a difference between not establishing qiruv on ceremony, and
dismissing that ceremony has a role altogether. And yet, R' Saul Weiss
quotes him as saying (tr from Yiddish, said to the RCA in 1956):
> [RSR] Hirsch wanted to lead the young generation into the Heichal --
>structuring them for an esthetic beautiful Judaism. A Judaism built on
>ceremony, beautiful sentiments, candle-lighting, a white table-cloth for
>Shabbos, decorating the Sukkah, carying the ethrog in a silver pushka
>and chanting beautifully when they removed the Torah from the Aron.

> German Jews observed the whole Torah, they were careful to fulfill
> mitzvoth kalloth kvachamoroth. Yes, German Jewry was a beautiful
> menorah. They entered the Heichal but they remained chutz l'parocheth
> ... in the Heichal. Torah was lacking! The German Rabbinate kept all
> the minhagim and had noble character traits. Many of our Rabbis can
> learn from them -- but they knew very little Torah. A little Kitzur
> Shulchan Aruch, Chai Adom "oif a shpitz gopel", a little Jewish philophy
> and a little Tanach. There are many here in Amarica who want the yeshiva
> to produce these kind of professional Rabbis, consisting of menorah,
> shulchun, and altar, but who will never life the parocheth of the aron
> ha'aiduth.

> Our Yeshiva, I don't know if it has a Heichal but an Aron it surely
> has... 

And Divrei haShkafah p. 78:
> To the degree that average people in our society attain higher levels
> of knowledge and general intelligence, we cannot imbue them with a
> Jewish standpoint that relies primarily on sentiment and ceremony.

Interestingly, RYBS simultaneously laments the lack of Jewish feeling in
America. On Repentence pp 97-98:
> Even in those neighborhoods made up predominantly of religious Jews,
> one can no longer talk of the 'sanctity of Shabbat.' True, there are
> Jews in America who observe Shabbat... But it is not for Shabbat that
> my heart aches; it is for the forgotten 'erev Shabbat' (eve of the
> Sabbath). There are Shabbat-observing Jews in America, but there are no
> 'erev Shabbat' Jews who go out to greet Shabbat with beating hearts and
> pulsating souls. There are many who observe the precepts with their
> hands, with their feet, and/or with their mouths - but there are few
> indeed who truly know the meaning of the service of the heart!

What is the "erev Shabbos Jew" but a positive portrayal of the same
sentimentality and extra-halachic ceremony?

This is not necessarily a contradiction: RYBS could well have chosen to
emphasize the primary goal, and thus lamented not having time to get
beyond teaching the halakhos shemiras Shabbos. Or, it could just be a
Brisker speaking like a Brisker.

But in any case, this notion of a lack of ceremony is uniquely Brisk,
and perhaps also the perspectrive of Dardaim and other Maimonidians.
For the rest of us, this attitude shouldn't really win the day. Most of
us want our Lekha Dodi, and want it sung.

Which gets back to how we view minhag. RYBS couldn't accept the notion
of enshrining the common acts of "erev Shabbos Jews" as binding minhag.
He had to cast the minhag into halachic categories lest it be sentimental
ceremonialism.

For most of us who lack such objections, why recast the parts of the
minhag that don't fit into the usual categories of aveilus? By what
right can we use sevara to trump minhag in this way -- who said minhag
must conform to halachic sevara? Maybe it takeh is ceremony?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

Mi-I have a more fundamental problem... Practices for the 9 Days
originated as minhag. RYBS is forced to assume that even minhag must
follow established halachic categories because of his concept of
Halakhic Man and the lack of "rituals" in Yahadus.
================================================
Me- Forced to assume? Wouldn't it be appropriate to assume kol dtakkun
rabbanan K'ein duraita tikun and that "minhag" regarding aveilut for
beit hamikdash would have originated (or been shaped) with the rabbis
not the people?
====================================================
 
Mi-

What is the "erev Shabbos Jew" but a positive portrayal of the same
sentimentality and extra-halachic ceremony?

This is not necessarily a contradiction: RYBS could well have chosen to
emphasize the primary goal, and thus lamented not having time to get
beyond teaching the halakhos shemiras Shabbos. Or, it could just be a
Brisker speaking like a Brisker.

===========================================

Me- Not a contradiction, he was saying iiuc that the sentimentality
could not be the primary connection.  He laments not being able to
"teach" the sentimentality because it does not lend itself to classroom
instruction but only through experience.

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.

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 01:15:41PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Forced to assume? Wouldn't it be appropriate to assume kol dtakkun
: rabbanan K'ein duraita tikun and that "minhag" regarding aveilut for
: beit hamikdash would have originated (or been shaped) with the rabbis
: not the people?

Does minhag start with the rabbanan? If so, how do you distinguish
between minhag and a din derabbanan?

I thought that minhag was common practice as ratified by the rabbanan.
And that the Rambam (Mamrim 2:2-3) is a daas yachid in requiring proactive
ratification rather than considering shetiqah kehoda'ah sufficient.

We had this out on list back in 2001 (vol 6) and in 2002 (WRT qitniyos
being minhag). RAM writes at the end of the latter thread
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n115.shtml#03>:
> I wrote <<< My understanding is that a "minhag" is a "way of acting";
> a person (or group of people) takes it upon himself. A "gezerah", in
> contrast, is imposed on the group from the outside. >>>

> R' Micha Berger wrote <<< Perhaps, but there is a role of beis din in
> a minhag. Hilchos Mamrim 2:2-2:3 refers to a beis din that "hinhigu
> minhag". I suggested that they endorse a norm already being practiced
> rather than takanos which they craft themselves. A gezeirah is only one
> kind of takanah -- that which was created to avoid violation of an issur
> through accident or habit. Takanos can also be ... >>>

> Thank you for the clarification, which seems to support the way I used
> to describe my distinction: A minhag is something which originates with
> the people, and is ratified by the rabbis. (If the rabbis reject it, or
> choose not to endorse it, it is considered a silly minhag, or mistaken
> minhag, or wrong minhag, and the followers can and should cease to
> follow it.) In contrast, a takanah (which includes gezeros and perhaps
> other forms of d'rabanan) originates with the rabbis, and is ratified by
> the people. (If the majority of the people are unable to abide by it,
> it ceases to have the force of law, but stays on the books as a strong
> recommendation. Pas Palter and Tevilas Ezra are my favorite examples.)

> I acknowledge that this distinction between minhag and d'rabanan is very
> simplistic, and is the output of this comparatively uneducated mind.
> Nevertheless, I have found it to be useful, have not noticed any
> exceptions to it, and I offer it to the public for whatever little use
> they might find it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:51:52AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Tosfot (munachot 11a S"V vrabbi shimon explains that when the gemara
: says rabbi shimon doesn't doresh et here it really just means for the
: drasha suggested by the gemara (to me implying he would use it for
: something else; tosfot is forced into this because elsewhere we see R'
: shimon does doresh etim).  Question- I find no other place in shas where
: R' Shimon has a limud from this et, how do you understand this seeming
: omission?

Since we have very few remaining derashos compared to the total occurances
of the word "es" in chumash, why is this ommission notable?

I'm a little surprised, though. Darshening "es" and other "extra" words
was one of the known ways Rashbi differed from his rebbe, R' Aqiva.
In that way he defected to R' Yishma'el's "diberah Torah belashon
benei adam" school -- kelal uperat, not ribui umi'ut with its "es"
lerabos. (Another was his use of taamei hamitzvos in pesaq; something
that links him in style to the Zohar...)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 03:52:34PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Bal tashchis doesn't just give priority to fruit trees over others,
: it doesn't assign any importance at all to the others.  There's no
: injunction not to cut down more barren trees than necessary, or to
: choose cheaper ones over more expensive ones.

The pasuq'a military case places battering the wall ahead of a fruitless
tree. However, lehalakhah bal tashchis is about needless waste in
general. And not just ecological; wasting "pareve cheescake" (which I
think are made by DuPont <g>) can be an issur bal tashchis.

Which ties in the pesaq to one's determination of the metzi'us of
needing non-fruit trees, or even a general question like whether the
current ecological balance is something we can waste.

: The way it comes down lahalacha, though, is that it's a simple economic
: calculation, and if the tree's economic value if left standing is less
: than the value one would get by cutting it down then one may do so.
: Indeed, one is allowed to destroy ones property just for the sheer joy
: of destruction, if the subjective value of that enjoyment is greater
: than the value of the property.

The value is functional, not really economic. Need is only one factor
that goes into price. I would agree that the halakhah of bal tashchis
doesn't speak of inherent value.

But if the enjoyment is short-sighted, and will cost far more in the
long run than the short-term fun, wouldn't that still be bal tashchis?

Think of is misvara: You're defining bal tashchis in a way such that
by definition no one would want to do it. Say someone wants the ease
of cutting down the nearest tree, despite it having apples, instead of
going another 30 yards to that oak. How do you avoid saying that that's
subjective value, and thus not bal tashchis?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
micha@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 287
***************************************

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..."