Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 214

Fri, 30 Oct 2009

• 1. Re: The plot against the Nasi (David Riceman)
• 2. Re: Children at a Wedding (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Re: Bensching Gomel (Liron Kopinsky)
• 4. Re: Bensching Gomel (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: dinosaurs (Micha Berger)
• 6. me marom (Eli Turkel)
• 7. mei marom (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: mei marom (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: mei marom (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: mei marom (Zev Sero)
• 11. Tayshvu K'ein Taduru (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 12. Re: dinosaurs (Ben Waxman)
• 13. Re: dinosaurs (David Riceman)
• 14. Re: dinosaurs (Arie Folger)
• 15. Re: me marom (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: children at a wedding (David Riceman)
• 17. Shepherd Vs. Farmer Redux (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 18. Attending religious services other than Jewish (Claudia Gaspar)
• 19. Re: Attending religious services other than Jewish (Micha Berger)

Micha Berger wrote:
> In any case, I have a problem attributing multi-generational rivalry to
> the extent that one implies it compromised the search for an objective
> halakhah. Too "historical school" for my tastes.
>   
See Horayos 14a "bnei adam shebikshu la'akor kvodcha ukvod beis avicha".

David Riceman

 

 
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
>>In short, nearly  all of us come from communities where divorce was a
possibility. Which means  that it was possible to have a minhag about
whether children attend their  parents' remarriage.<<






>>>>>
Remarriage was tragically common in Europe,  divorce was rare.  People 
died, parents were widowed, children were  orphaned.   Children did not attend 
their parents'  weddings.
 
My grandfather was married three times (my father's father).  His  first 
wife died in childbirth, his second wife was killed in a pogrom (along  with 
an infant son).  My grandmother was his third wife, and the first  child they 
had together died of hunger during WW I.  This series of  tragedies was all 
too common in Europe.  Quite common enough for an  accepted practice to 
develop regarding children at a parent's wedding.  
 

--Toby  Katz
==========

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091030/ea8afe4f/attachment-0001.htm>

>
> How come "shluchei mitzvah einan nizzaqin" didn't prevent Hayyim from
> falling?
>
>
Other than the fact that I don't know if this concept is supposed to be
taken literally, in its pure sense do we have to say that it also applies
to:
a) People doing a Hechsher Mitzvah like building a Sukkah
b) People doing a mitzvah with more hidur than is required (more than 51%
schach)

Issue 2

> Re: Haggomel. Hayyim survived a near-death accident. But, since he
> is still suffering minor fractures and bruises, he has not recovered
> 100% yet.
>
> The halachah in SA O.H. 219:1 states that a choleh bensches only after
> "shenisrapei"


He isn't benching Gomel as a Choleh who recovered. Rather, he is Benching on
having survived a potentially tragic situation. It doesn't seem to me that
the statements of the SA or MB apply here.


Kol Tuv,
~Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091029/e4cf5e30/attachment-0001.htm>

> Issue 1:
> How come "shluchei mitzvah einan nizzaqin" didn't prevent Hayyim from
> falling?

That question goes as far back as Acher, or further.

> Issue 2
> Re: Haggomel. Hayyim survived a near-death accident. But, since he
> is still suffering minor fractures and bruises, he has not recovered
> 100% yet.
> The halachah in SA O.H. 219:1 states that a choleh bensches only after
> "shenisrapei"
> MB: 2 v'holeich k'var al buryo"

But he is not benching as a choleh, so that is irrelevant.  If a choleh
is not yet completely healed, then the miracle for which he's thanking
Hashem hasn't fully happened yet, so he can't bench.  But in this case
the miracle for which he's thanking Hashem has already happened; he
could have died and he didn't, and is no longer in any danger of dying
from that accident.  So it seems to me that he has to bench now.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

RNTK and RnISE addressed the chinukh question.

I saw a more fundamental question, involving emunas chakhamim and eilu
va'eilu...

Does one continue to follow a rav, say in our case the dinosaur denying
mechaneikh's rabbeim and their rabbeim, when you find that he labeled
you a kofeir for a belief you cannot (as well as don't want to) shake?

Eilu va'eilu works fine when it comes to yom tov sheini shel galiyos.
It gets messier WRT gittin, since a qulah my poseiq doesn't recognize
might mean children (from a second marriage) who my children may not
marry. Batei Hillel and Shammai got along because they kept track of such
things and forewarned each other. But today? The granddaughter could be
entirely unaware of the terms of her grandmother's divorce before she
married her grandfather.

EvE becomes a paradox altogether when dealing with someone labeling
something kefirah. Because it applies to ideas, one can close the
referential loop.

Shitah A: A and B are boh eilu va'eilu Shitah B: Shitah A is kefirah,
and thus outside eilu va'eilu

What does shitah A's acceptance of shitah B imply about A's belief
in itself?

RRW answered me privately that the proglem is only in Greek logic, as
the Torah is Eastern and thus doesn't have the same problems with paradox.

I'm not sure that's true. We have middle terms, neither fully yes nor
fully no, e.g. acknowledging that someone who isn't beautiful may not
be ugly either. But we do have the concept of tarta desasrei when not
dealing with those middle terms -- shitos do require self-consistency.

When it comes to bein hashemashos, we have no problem saying it's part of
both days WRT qedushas esrog. But when it comes to davening after pelag,
we do have a problem (resolvable on erev Shabbos) with davening both
minchah and maariv in the same window of time. It would seem that we
acknowlede when the meti'us is "overlap", but we do not simultaneously
follow contradictory shitos about the metzi'us.

So I think this poses a real question for adherents of shitah A. Can their
eilu va'eilu include shitah B and its exclusion of their own opinion? Do
we say palginan divura -- it's only on the points about which it's
kefirah that A-nikim reject B? What about the common methodology used
by B in reaching both that rejection and ome of their other pesaqim?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

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

> RYBS assumes that means the hirhur teshuva that the executioner did
> and that is obviously simple pshat.

Really?  It's not at all obvious to me.  Where do you see that he
did any kind of teshuvah?  What words in the gemara indicate any
such thing?  >>>

The gemara little before that discusses the classic teshuva case of
R. Elazar Durdia and Rebbi remarked on that case also


-- 
Eli Turkel

from
http://www.jewishpressads.com/pageroute.do/14221

HaRav Eliezer Shach, z"l asked: "Why did Rabbi Chanina cry? Shouldn't
he have rejoiced at the fate of the executioner, who merited to earn
his portion in the World to Come in only a moment? After all, Rabbi
Chanina did toil his entire life for Olam Haba. Why did it bother him
that the executioner earned his portion in Gan Eden in a moment?"

The executioner was ruthless and cruel. He had spent his life hanging
and burning people. But Rabbi Chaninah's behavior transformed him.
Suddenly, he sensed that the man he was killing was more angel than
human.

He saw the way the Tanna bore his suffering; he witnessed the exchange
between the tzaddik and his disciples. He heard him tell of the
letters of the Torah flying to the Heavens. It suddenly occurred to
the savage that Rabbi Chaninah was not an unfortunate victim; he was a
victor! Rabbi Chaninah, who displayed a profound attachment to his
Creator, was going to a World where holiness and purity reign.

At that moment, the executioner lost his interest in this world. He
was engulfed with a burning desire to take part in this holiness he
witnessed in Rabbi Chaninah ben Tradyon, the holiness of the World to
Come. This world and everything in it lost all of its appeal.

And so, when he had Rabbi Chaninah's promise that he would go to the
Next World, he plunged into the flames. His absolute desire for
holiness truly earned him his portion. When Rabbi Chanina cried, he
did not cry for the man who had literally leapt into Olam Haba.
Rather, he cried for himself. In his great humility, Rabbi Chanina
assumed that the Torah and mitzvos to which he had devoted his life
were performed out of habit rather that pure spirituality.

The executioner had perceived the ultimate truth- that this world and
all of its pleasure were worthless, and that only purity such as that
of Rabbi Chaninah ben Tradyon was worthy of pursuit. Rabbi Chanina
craved the purity of one who had experienced a pure, holy moment, a
moment of total negation of this world, in which he had leapt in Olam
Haba.

-- 
Eli Turkel

Eli Turkel wrote:
> from
> http://www.jewishpressads.com/pageroute.do/14221
>  "Why did Rabbi Chanina cry?

*He didn't*.  RChbT was already dead and unable to cry, even had he
been so inclined.  This entire "torah" is based on the author
misremembering the gemara, and thus fails.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

> Eli Turkel wrote:
>>
>> from
>> http://www.jewishpressads.com/pageroute.do/14221
>> ?"Why did Rabbi Chanina cry?
>
> *He didn't*. ?RChbT was already dead and unable to cry, even had he
> been so inclined. ?This entire "torah" is based on the author
> misremembering the gemara, and thus fails.
>
The "author" is HaRav Schach. unlikely he didn't remember correctly the gemara.
So far both HaRav Schach and HaRav Soloveitchik associate the gemara
with teshuva
Good enough for me

-- 
Eli Turkel

Eli Turkel wrote:
>> Eli Turkel wrote:
>>> from
>>> http://www.jewishpressads.com/pageroute.do/14221
>>>  "Why did Rabbi Chanina cry?
>> *He didn't*.  RChbT was already dead and unable to cry, even had he
>> been so inclined.  This entire "torah" is based on the author
>> misremembering the gemara, and thus fails.
>>
> The "author" is HaRav Schach. unlikely he didn't remember correctly the gemara.

He admitted that he only knew the "yeshiveshe mesechtos".  In any case,
whether he ever knew it or not, he clearly got it wrong.  This entire
"pshetel" rests on RChbT having cried, and *he didn't*.  Make of that
what you like, and I'm trying to keep this polite, but this pshetel
is worthless.


> So far both HaRav Schach and HaRav Soloveitchik associate the gemara
> with teshuva
> Good enough for me

No, it's not good enough.  Show me *anything* in the gemara to suggest
such a connection.  Even show me *any* commentator on the gemara who
reads it that way.  Do *not* show me mussar drashas that are not based
on the text of the gemara, from the inside.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

As I understand it, the mitzvah of sukkah exists on three levels, and all of them are d'Oraisa:

1) There is a Chiyuv D'Oraisa to eat bread in the Sukkah on the first night, whether he wants to or not.

2) After the first night, if he chooses to eat a Seudas Keva, he has a Mitzvah Chiyuvis, on a d'Oraisa level, to eat it in the Sukkah.

3) If he chooses to eat a Seudas Arai, he has a Mitzvah Kiyumis, on a d'Oraisa level, to eat it in the Sukkah.

The first of these has a distinct source, namely the gezera shava to Matza, so let's set that aside. This thread has no questions about it.

In this thread I want to analyze the distinctions between the second and
third levels. My understanding is that they *both* derive from the same
source, namely the pasuk "Basukkos Tayshvu" (Vayikra 23:42), which Gemara
Sukkah interprets with the famous "Tayshvu K'ein Taduru".

I find it odd that both levels would come from the same phrase, but someone
explained the logic to me: Because people *always* eat their Seudas Keva at
home, therefore Tayshvu K'ein Taduru teaches that it must *always* be in
the Sukkah. And because people *don't* always eat a Seudas Arai at home,
Tayshvu K'ein Taduru *also* teaches that this *isn't* always eaten in the
Sukkah.

I have several problems with that explanation.

The smallest of my questions is that if Tayshvu K'ein Taduru teaches that
eating a Seudas Arai in the Sukkah is optional, then from where do we know
that we get s'char if we choose to do so? In other words, if Tayshvu K'ein
Taduru teaches that the Mitzvah Chiyuvis doesn't exist for a Seudas Arai,
then from where do we learn that the Mitzvah Kiyumis *does* exist? Maybe
there's no Mitzvah Kiyumis at all, and it is merely a Hanhaga Tova?

My guess is that the above might be answered by referring to the exact
language of the pasuk - "Basukkos Tayshvu Shiv'as Yamim" - which suggests
that one should literally stay in the sukkah for seven full consecutive
days, whether eating or not. But that's just my guess; I wonder if anyone
else says such a thing.

That brings me to my next point. In trying to research this topic, I found
that the Torah Temimah brings seven different gemaras on the one phrase
"Basukkos Tayshvu". As far as I could tell, none of them address my
question. (Just to remind you, "my question" is the source for the
distinction between Level 2 and Level 3.)

But one of them does come close. Torah Temimah Vayikra 23:167 brings Gemara
Sukkah 27a: "Tayshvu K'ein Taduru - Just as in one's Dira, if he wants to,
he eats, and if he doesn't want to, he doesn't eat - so too in his Sukkah,
if he wants to, he eats, and if he doesn't want to, he doesn't eat."

That's a pretty interesting gemara. Neither "keva" nor "arai" appear,
neither in reference to the dira, nor to the eating. It seems to draw a
distinction to Level 1, but makes no distinction at all between Levels 2
and 3.

It makes me wonder if Levels 2 and 3 are d'Oraisa at all. Is it possible
that there really is no pasuk anywhere that requires a Seudas Keva (after
the first night) to be eaten in the Sukkah? Is it possible that this chiyuv
is actually a d'Rabanan?

And now I come to my last point. The claim has been made that a Seudas Keva
is always eaten at home, and therefore it always has to be in the sukkah.
Well, actually, people do sometimes eat a Seudas Keva on the road, and
that's why exceptions are made for Holchei D'rachim. Okay, so a Seudas Keva
is *almost* always eaten at home, and so it has to be in the sukkah,
because "we leave the diras keva, and enter the diras arai."

But is that really so? Let's think back to the recent discussions about
Shmini Atzeres in chu"l. There are a variety of conclusions on what the
Halacha L'Maaseh is, but I'd like to cite one of the arguments which was
used in those discussions. Consider this statement: "Presuming the weather
is good enough, it is not out of the ordinary to eat a seudas keva in the
backyard instead of in the house." It seems to me that no Rishonim or
Acharonim disagreed with that statement. (They might disagree with the
halacha, but they don't seem to disagree with this statement of common
eating practices.)

Remember the context: There was a fear that eating in the Sukkah after
Sukkas has ended might look like Bal Tosif. In other words, no one would do
such a thing unless there was a chiyuv forcing him to do it. This fear was
knocked out by the observation that in actual fact, people DO leave their
Diras Keva to eat elsewhere. And in fact, it happens not-too-infrequently.
It happens often enough that when we see someone leaving his Diras Keva, to
eat a Seudas Keva in a Diras Arai, we *don't* automatically presume that he
is doing something unusual.

So I am back to "square one". I seem to have proven that people DO
sometimes eat their Seudas Keva in a Diras Arai. It may not happen very
often, but it happens often enough that no one raises an eyebrow over it.
And it happens for reasons as ephemeral as nice weather. So what's the
distinction between Seudas Keva and Seudas Arai? Why can't I choose to eat
my Seudas Keva outside the Sukkah, just like I sometimes eat my Seudas Keva
in the backyard?

In my research for this post, I found myself drawn to Orach Chayim 639 and
Gemara Sukkah 26-27 on several occasions. But each time I only found
discussions of what counts as Keva, and what counts as Arai. (For example,
there are many discussions about sleeping, and about drinking wine.) But I
never saw the distinction itself clarified. There seems to be a pervasive
presumption that Seudas Keva MUST be in the sukkah, but this presumption is
taken as an axiom. I never saw it proven, and that's what I'm looking for.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
The Art Institutes
Get Info on our Media Arts Programs - Film, Audio, Web & More!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=atw78iknBsbBu6rf9vVQHwAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAAIRl-z4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhBQAAAAAA=

Shitah A doesn't hold that B is a kofer, rather that he is wrong. Therefore 
if Shitah A really believes in what he is saying, he can 
suffer/tolerate/accept people who are wrong.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- >
> Shitah A: A and B are boh eilu va'eilu Shitah B: Shitah A is kefirah,
> and thus outside eilu va'eilu
>
> What does shitah A's acceptance of shitah B imply about A's belief
> in itself?
> 

Micha Berger wrote:
> EvE becomes a paradox altogether when dealing with someone labeling
> something kefirah. Because it applies to ideas, one can close the
> referential loop.
>   
IIRC we discussed this at length years ago.

David Riceman

R'nTK wrote:
> Any such disdain that I might feel would be  saved strictly
> for adult company, in, for example, the next issue of  Avodah.

It is nice that you express this confidence in us, that you consider
we always behave like adults. I guess that is why you didn't mention
Areivim? ;-) ;-)

More seriously, I began educating my daughters about variant opinions
before they began asking questions, when they were still she-'einan
yodhe'oth lishol. My oldest two knew early on about the problems and
resolutions to the tension regarding creation. I believe that we must
anticipate the problem, because of the following reason.

Anthony Flew, in his book produced with Roy Varghese, There is a G"d,
remarks on his own adolescent onset atheism, that some research
indicates that youngsters begin identifying as believers or non
believers quite early in life, even as early as 7-9years of age,
definitely before puberty.

If the above is correct, it behooves us to impress a lot more and a
lot earlier upon the next generation, how loved we feel by G"d and how
G"d-intoxicated we are as a result of our wonderful relationship to
Him. In otehr words, perhaps, before we set out to educate budding
talmidei and talmidoth 'hakhomim, we should begin educating them as
budding 'ovedei and 'ovedoth haShem.

Likewise, we should also impress upon them that there are good
questions of faith and good answers, and give them a little sampling
early on, so that they neither freak out, nor flip out or opt out.
They should find fulfilment and respect that a nivra betzelem E-lohim
deserves.

Kol tuv & good Shabbos,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* UK Commander Challenges Goldstone Report
* On the Stereotypical Jew
* Wieso ?ruhte? G?tt?
* Wir sind f?r die Evolution!

Eli Turkel wrote:
>> RYBS assumes that means the hirhur teshuva that the executioner did
>> and that is obviously simple pshat.
> 
> Really?  It's not at all obvious to me.  Where do you see that he
> did any kind of teshuvah?  What words in the gemara indicate any
> such thing?  >>>
> 
> The gemara little before that discusses the classic teshuva case of
> R. Elazar Durdia and Rebbi remarked on that case also

Exactly.  And a few pages before that he made exactly the same remark
about Ketia bar Shalom.  The second story was about teshuvah.  How does
that indicate, in any way at all, that the first and third stories were
also about teshuvah?  Do you think all three stories are about the same
thing?  If so, why tell all three?

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> Are you suggesting that a person should not attend a wedding unless he 
> will be there "wholeheartedly besimcha"?
The function of attending a wedding to be "m'sameah hatan v'kallah".  If 
your attendance has the opposite effect it makes sense not to go.  Of 
course this is a weaker requirement than being "wholeheartedly 
besimcha", which I imagine is assur anyway until the reconstruction of 
the temple.

David Riceman

This blog post draws upon two great sources
Rabbiner Hirsch
And
The Avodah List
So Enjoy

NishmaBlog: Shepherds vs. Farmers
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2009/10/shepherds-vs-farmers.html

GS
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

A friend of mine who is x-tian lost his 20-year old son in a terrible
motorcycle accident.

He invited me to attend a mass and I know it's very important to him I can
be present in a so painful time.

I don't know what to to. Is it an 'ethics' I can observe under such
conditions?

Shabat Shalom

Claudia Gaspar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091030/c93951fb/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 01:55:35PM -0200, Claudia Gaspar wrote:
: A friend of mine who is x-tian lost his 20-year old son in a terrible
: motorcycle accident.
: He invited me to attend a mass and I know it's very important to him I can
: be present in a so painful time.

Ask your poseiq, of course. But speaking on a theoretical plane...

RYBS didn't allow watching JFK's Catholic funeral on TV. We're talking
about actual AZ here, at least WRT our participation. (Shituf and 6
mitzvos benei Noach aside, we're talking about you attending.) I expect
a poseiq would tell you that you can't do one of the yeihareig ve'al
ya'avor to save someone else some pain.

I would expect a poseiq to tell you to wait at the sidewalk, so that
you're with him before and after, and perhaps not being during -- when
there is a family pew that you wouldn't be on anyway -- wouldn't be
a big deal for him.


:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 214
***************************************

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..."