Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 223

Sun, 08 Nov 2009

• 1. daat torah and voting (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: Seclusion is not the Jewish Way (mirs...@sympatico.ca)
• 3. dor revii: MO godol? (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 4. Re: What is a minhag? (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: daat torah and voting (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: hilchos eretz yisrael/ kids at second weddings (basserh@queensu.ca)
• 7. Re: hilchos eretz yisrael/ kids at second weddings (T6...@aol.com)
• 8. Re: hilchos eretz yisrael/ kids at second weddings (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: What is a minhag? (Ben Waxman)
• 10. Re: dor revii: MO godol? (Samuel Svarc)
• 11. HIGHER THAN MALACHIM (Richard Wolberg)
• 12. Re: Seclusion is not the Jewish Way (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 13. Re: dinosaurs (hankman)
• 14. After the Akeda (Yitzchok Levine)
• 15. Re: What is a minhag? (Ben Waxman)
• 16. Re: What is a minhag? (Ilana Sober Elzufon)
• 17. Re: What is a minhag? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

<<And, if the proof is from the explicit exclusion of foreign rabbanim,
it would seem that the civil leadership of the local rav was taken for
granted beyond the need for discussion!>>

taken for granted by whom?
In the days of the Maharal I dont think rabbis made civil decisions
but rather a group of rich Jews in town.
read about the vaad arba arazot

-- 
Eli Turkel

Yitzchok Levine provides source material from RSRH supporting this.  But
how does this square with Austritt?  Was the issue that associating with
the Reform was more dangerous than Avraham amongst the nations of his time?

 

Michael 
                                          
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091105/fc4fb783/attachment-0001.htm>

http://www.jewishjournal.com/morethodoxy/item/
innovation_in_halacha_rabbi_barry_gelman_20091103/

using his ideas to back  halachic innovation....


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091105/ecf3a5b6/attachment-0001.htm>

RAM wrote:
> I believe that the confusion arises in this case because although the
> technical halachic term "minhag" means "holy religious custom",
> there is also a colloquial Hebrew term "minhag" which means
> "practice" or "habit". There are many cases where it is very easy to
> confuse these terms, but I believe that the qualifiers "shetus" and
> "ta'us" are added specifically to clarify that they are *not* holy
> religious customs, but foolish practices and mistaken practices.

Minhag also has a third connotation: as in minhag Ashkenaz, which
means "the Ashkenazi tradition of pessaq," i.e., as we pasqen in
Ashkenaz. That rises far above "holy religious custom", to the level
of "din."
-- 
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!

On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 10:59:46PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> And, if the proof is from the explicit exclusion of foreign rabbanim,
:> : it would seem that the civil leadership of the local rav was taken for
:> granted beyond the need for discussion!>>

: taken for granted by whom?

We were discussing the Rama citing shu"t Maharil, no?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Re: hilchos eretz yisrael/ kids at second weddings

Sefer Amar Yehushua is not a theory--- a factoid. the book exists and you
can find the exact? reference of tosfos in it. and indeed every pisqa
begins: amar yehoshua, and this is the way the rishonim called it. . the
first huge study of it was done by Avraham Epstein well over a hundred
years ago. he discusses eldad's sources, who he was and where he was. since
then there have been other fine studies, 
The most recent treatment of eldad i think is that of meir bar-ilan, of bar-ilan university. I would not be surprised if steinzaltz put in the right words.

Zvi Basser




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091105/cfee6140/attachment-0001.htm>

 

>>This is the theory I alluded to when I said the title "Hilchot  Eretz
Yisrael" may be an invention of the Bochur Hazetzer.  But AFAIK it  is
just a theory, and for all that it sounds nice it may be  completely
mistaken.  Perhaps there really was a sefer with that title,  which
the rishonim quote and reject. <<



-- 
Zev  Sero                      
 
 


>>>>>
 
This may have come up before but if so I don't remember it -- who is or was 
 the Bochur Hazetzer?
 

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



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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091105/fb70e818/attachment-0001.htm>

T6...@aol.com wrote:

> This may have come up before but if so I don't remember it -- who is or 
> was the Bochur Hazetzer?

The typesetter.

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

Is some sort of consciousness of what one is doing, or awareness that this 
is a good stringency, needed? If someone, say
someone who is not maqpid on khalav yisrael, happens to stay at a hotel 
where
they only serve khalav yisrael (and he knows this), and this guy drinks this
milk three times is he then stuck? And if he doesn't know but is informed
after the fact? I don't want to get too bogged down in current events, but 
if someone takes a mehadrin bus three times in a row is that his minhag?


Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
>    Someone who practiced some stringency with things that are permitted
>    by the law because of making a fence [about the law] or separation
>    [from temptation], such as making fasts during the days in which we
>    say Selichos, or not to eat meat nor drink wine from the 17th of
>    Tammuz on [until 9 Av], and the like -- even if he only practiced it
>    the first time but he had in mind to act this way forever, or if he
>    did it three times and it wasn't in his mind to act this way for
>    ever and he didn't [explicitly] make the condition that it should be
>    without a neder, and now he wants to change because he isn't healthy
>    -- he needs a removal [of the nefer]. He opens with [stating his]
>    regret, that he regrets that he acted in a manner for the purpses of
>    a nefer.
>
>    Therefore, if someone wants to practice some stringency for the sake
>    of a "fence" or separation, he should first say that he isn't
>    accepting upon himself to do it as a neder, and he should also say
>    that he doesn't have in mind to do so except this time or those
>    times when he wants, and not forever. 

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:51 PM,  <Saul.Z.New...@kp.org> wrote:
>
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/moretho
> doxy/item/innovation_in_halacha_rabbi_barry_gelman_20091103/
>
> using his ideas to back ?halachic innovation....

Why is this surprising to you? Do you know another sect of O that
claims him? Furthermore, he was Mizrachi, automatically placing him in
that category.

KT,
MSS

One of the most beautiful comments on the scene of
Avraham and the three men (malachim) was
given by R. Shalom Roikeach of Belz who noted that
in 18:2, the visitors are spoken of as standing above
Avraham [nitzavim alav]. However, in verse 18:8, AVRAHAM is
described as standing above them [omed alehem]. R' Shalom
points out: At first, the visitors were higher than Abraham
because they were angels and he a flesh and blood human being.
But when he gave them food, drink and shelter, he
stood even higher than the angels. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091106/0ee5e1fc/attachment-0001.htm>

mirs...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> Yitzchok Levine provides source material from RSRH supporting this.  But 
> how does this square with Austritt?  Was the issue that associating with 
> the Reform was more dangerous than Avraham amongst the nations of his time?

Acc. to my understanding of Austritt, it wasn't about fear of influence, 
but more the structural pressures caused by the interplay of community 
and government in religious life at the time, and also the impropriety 
of giving legitimacy to heretical organizations.  RSRH, AFAIK, does not 
say to stay away from Reform Jews as individuals.

-- 
Yitzchak Schaffer
Systems Manager
Touro College Libraries
33 West 23rd Street
New York, NY 10010
Tel (212) 463-0400 x5230
Fax (212) 627-3197
Email yitzchak.schaf...@tourolib.org

R'  Micha, for the most part, I hear what you are saying, and it is as good
an attempt at explaining EvE as I have seen (though I have not seen much on
this).	Nevertheless I still have to profess a residual unease even though
I am willing to accept much of what you write (as I have had thoughts along
some of those lines myself).

Let me try and paint a picture that includes (and perhaps elaborates) I think much of what you wrote. correct me if I am wrong or you disagree with my summary.

1) There is but one reality, it is the existence of G-d and his "boundless
self-knowledge" which is one and inseparable from him. (If I knew him, I
would be him). Since "ain od milvado" then in a real sense there is no
other knowledge, it is all a reflection of some truth about G-d.

2) Some how thru "Tsimtsum" He allows the "limited reality" of the universe
to be and the resulting finite beings in this universe due to their
intrinsic limitations can only grasp some limited understanding of the
total "boundless self-knowledge" of G-d.

3) I may be on shaky ground here in my assumptions: In a real sense (G-d's
perspective), Torah is the "boundless self-knowledge" (I suspect that this
is the meaning of "Yisroel ve'Auraysa ve'Kudsha Brich Hu chad hu" but I am
not clear on how Yisroel fits in here. I am also not sure if the KBH here
is actually G-d, or some tsimtsum based semblance of G-d in the
Sefirot???). Torah given to mankind, is a subset ( a man-size abridgement
designed by G-d) of the total superset that only G-d can realize. I presume
this is in some way expressed in a finite TSBK and a limitless TSBP? (I
feel on shaky ground mostly in this last statements about the nature of
Torah, so if anyone understands this differently let me know). It is in
this sense that the malachim wanted Torah as some meforshim explain, they
wanted a malachim-sized (appropriate) abridgement of the supraset of Torah
designed for them.  (Actually, I do not understand why they can not have
their version even while we have our ve
 rsion - why are the two mutually exclusive, so that if we get our mankind appropriate Torah, they can not have their version too).

4) Olam Haba, the ultimate gemul, is greater attachment to G-d through more
understanding of greater (but still limited) parts of the supraset of our
Torah, that we could not grasp within the more limiting structure of olam
hazeh.

5) Now the metaphor of shadows (and what I meant by my mathematical
expressions f(x,y,k), a lower dimensional slice of a higher dimension) for
EvE that you use fits well within this overall picture. 

6) My issues begin here. If men are fungibly equal, then our appropriate
and correct view should be the same (we should all see the same shadow) for
every individual and if we do not, it is only due to error. Thus we are not
all fungible, and this fits well with the notion that the shoresh of our
neshama for each individual comes from a different part of the overall
whole, so they are not fungible and therefore might logically and naturally
view a different shadow. This also sits well with the notion that each
shevet had its own nusach for tefila (I can not recall where I saw this
idea). If this is correct, then there should be a whole spectrum of pesak
(and EvE) appropriate to each individual, why are we all shoehorned into
the views of only BH and BS as there should be as many perspectives as
there are individuals? I then thought, that in fact this seems to be what
we are getting as we march through time - there are more and more shitos,
and different minhagim. Yet we view 
 this as a deteriorating march away from the ideal at Sinai, rather than a
 march toward the ideal spectrum of pesak to better match each individual's
 different perspective (shadow or choice of k).

7) Along the same lines of thought, I would imagine from mathematical
analogy, just as in mathematical analysis in a well behaved function, a
small change in x will produce a small change in y, why are we getting
diametrically opposed results (eg., tamei or tahor)? Why are the shadows we
see so different? Furthermore, if the picture I paint is correct, the the
ideal would be "tisgodedu" yet we are commanded "lo tisgodedu." Clearly my
thinking runs into a ditch somewhere - where?


I have allowed myself the luxury of thinking aloud here, these are not conclusive opinions just where my wandering  (and wondering) mind led me for now.

RMB wrote: In the world of thought, contradiction is NOT a show stopper. 

CM: I do find this problematic. In what world of thought is 2+2=5
admissible? Avoiding contradiction is always required. In my world of
thought it is always a show stopper.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091106/2102a995/attachment-0001.htm>

In his commentary on Bereishis 22

19 Avraham returned to his young men; they rose 
up and went together to Be?er Sheva, and Avraham remained in Be?er
Sheva.

RSRH points out the following:

19 Vayalchu Yachdov: Avraham, Yitzchak, and the 
young men ? all of them together.
This is the third time that yachdov occurs in the account of the Akeda,
and it is the final stroke of the pen in this great narrative.

<snip>

Now we are told what happened after Avraham and Yitzchak had
met the highest challenge and accomplished the most exalted mission
a person can complete: They returned to their attendants, and all of
them ? Avraham, Yitzchak, and with them the young men ? went
Yachdov, together, to Be?er Sheva.

This is most typical of the spirit that had its beginnings in Avraham
and Yitzchak. After such an ascent to God?s closeness, after such an
elevation above all earthly concerns, an Avraham and a Yitzchak belonging
to any other nation would have been so full of themselves and
of the Divine that they would no longer have taken any interest in
ordinary earthly concerns and in ordinary human beings. In any other
society, such closeness to God ? even if only imagined ? generally
engenders such arrogance in those who experience it that they look
down in disdain on all other men as ?mere mortals? and avoid all
contact with them.

Not so the spirit that is to be perpetuated through the example of
Avraham and Yitzchak. Just after performing the most exalted deed a
person can perform, they return to the attendants they had left at the
foot of Mount Moriah, and go Yachdov, together with them. They do not
consider themselves superior to the others in any respect. To the true
son of Avraham, no man is better than another by virtue of his vocation,
and he sees no distinction between himself and a humble woodcutter
or servant. The higher his own moral and spiritual level, the less likely
is he to feel superior to others, and the less he is conscious of his own
greatness. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091107/c8a8e4bc/attachment-0001.htm>

How do all the minhagim which are based on kabbalah fit into this 
definition? For example, staying up all night on Shavuot; how is that a 
seyag? Yet it has been accepted (?) by all communities, n'est pas?

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
> Could it be that a minhag (of RRW's type 2) is any [mutar] practice
> that is accepted by the community as a whole only if the purpose is
> a seyag or perishus? And any other communal practices are just that,
> communal practices -- with no bindingness?

Rav Broyde's guest post on Hirhurim
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2009/11/halacha-first.html includes several
paragraphs, towards the end, about different types of minhagim and the
different degrees to which they are binding.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091108/b3307e50/attachment-0001.htm>

> How do all the minhagim which are based on kabbalah fit into this 
> definition? For example, staying up all night on Shavuot; how is that a 
> seyag? Yet it has been accepted (?) by all communities, n'est pas?
> Ben

Isn't Tashlich the same thing N'est-ce pas? 

Many minhaggim are simply "spiritual enhancers" 
EG:
    Tashlich
    Selichos
    Shir Hashirim erev Shabbos
    Qabbalas Shabbos
    Tiqqun layl Shavuos
    Tevilah for men (see more)

Some are "al pi sod" and some lav davka.

IIRC Rema recommends Miqveh But only erev YK and mequbbalim use it more
frequently and neither practice are AFAIK strictly Halachic.

My "gut" tells me that perhaps over 50% of what we do on a given day is
"extra-halachic"

Thing of how much davening is required and how much is added on.
Bentsching, too

Qaddesh es atzemcha bemuttar lach I guess can be refraining from the
permitted
OR
Sanctifying the optional.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 223
***************************************

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..."