Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 18

Wed, 30 Jan 2013

• 1. Re: Dispute Resolution (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Can Eliyahu Hanavi decide halachic questions? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Insights Into Halacha: The Curious Case of the Karpef (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Can Eliyahu Hanavi decide halachic questions? (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 5. Re: [Areivim] learners' ktuba (Chana Luntz)
• 6. Mitzvos are not for Hashem (Micha Berger)
• 7. Do not hate your brother in your heart (Micha Berger)
• 8. tfilat haderech and birchat hagomel (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: tfilat haderech and birchat hagomel (Zev Sero)
• 10. The Definition of Greatness (Micha Berger)
• 11. Who is Great (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: tfilat haderech and birchat hagomel (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Re: tfilat haderech and birchat hagomel (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: tfilat haderech and birchat hagomel (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: tfilat haderech and birchat hagomel (Rich, Joel)
• 16. Re: tfilat haderech and birchat hagomel (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: tfilat haderech and birchat hagomel (Micha Berger)

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:53:51PM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: how the Rishonim understand these concepts is breathtaking - IIUC
: shuda [d'dayna] runs from the judge should do his best to mirror his
: best guess at equity, to HKB"H doesn't care what the result is and
: the judge can do whatever he wants and feel good about it. Similarly
: IIUC kol [d'alim gvar] runs from its judges absenting themselves
: (and the litigants can arm wrestle till the cows come home) to a
: one time reflection of a court action based on assuming the "right"
: person will win. So let's start with an easy question. When HKB"H
: commanded the nations in dinim (courts), did he give them direction in
: dispute resolution or just say you figure it out any methodology you like?

I think the latter. I always understood the Noachide chiyuv in light of
Avos 3:2. Any system that keeps people from eting eachother alive would
fulfil the chiyuv.

To my mind, a bigger question would be WRT the Noachide issur of geneivah.
There it would seem that their legal contstructs to define ownership
ought to be less relevant than halakhah's definition of baalus. However,
since transfer of baalus too is based on expectation -- dina demalkhusa,
situmta -- perhaps by definition baalus would be transfered if ownership
in the sense they're thinking of is.

And it's possible that even hefqer BD hefqer, shuda dedaina and kol
de'alim gevar (which sounds much like "hamotzi meichaveiro") are also
instances of this linkage between ownership and expectation.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 05:00:53PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
> On 1/21/2013 3:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>                      However, derash, repated by people with a much
>> firmer grasp of how halakhah is decided than she or I have, is
>> "Tishbi yetzareitz..." Which implies to me that while one can't say
>> this idea of Eliyahu answering the question [is] the meaning of
>> the word, I also wouldn't say the idea itself is untrue.

> Whereas I, l'shitati, hold that a mistake is a mistake, even after 3000  
> years....

But that pits your notion of how halakhah works, not "merely" the impact
of specific facts on specific instancers of halakhah, against those of
whom we rely to decide halakhah. E.g.:
    Peri Megadim (Igeres 5, #9)
    Tosafos YT (end of ediyos)
    Even haEzel (Hilkhos Zekhiyah uMatanah 4)
    Ravaz (3 - CM 97)
    Arukh laNeir (Nidah 23b)

The Ya'ir Ozen (#400) saw a kesav yad of the Rambam's haqdamah to mishnah
where the Rambam gives "tishbi..."

The Peri Megadim also suggests "teiqu" is from "tiq". The answer
is in a package within a package. Also, interestingly, he discusses
whether teiqu leaves the question as a safeiq in the sense of lack of
known facts and thus subject to safeiq derabbanan lequla. He says the
"Tishbi..." interpretation implies it would not.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
mi...@aishdas.org        but by rubbing one stone against another,
http://www.aishdas.org   sparks of fire emerge. 
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 07:57:13PM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
: That's funny... I have never heard it pronounced that way. To me it
: has always been Karfef, not Karpef.

FWIW, RYGB has karpaf / karpeifos. See
http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/eruvp2b.htm "7. The 'Disappearing' Halacha
of Karpeifos"

:-)BBii!
-Micha

R' MB:
The Peri Megadim also suggests "teiqu" is from "tiq". 
--------------



KT,
MYG

RGS writes on Areivim:

Rabbeinu Tam disagrees http://torahmusings.com/2012/12/support-your-wife/

Well the case that RSN referred to namely:

On 1/27/13, saul newman <newman...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2013/01/civil-judge-uses-halacha-
to-obligat
e.html
>
> should the obligation to live the learning lifestyle abrogate terms in the
> ktuba? a judge thinks not

Is not about the same kind of case that Rabbanu Tam was commenting on.
Rabbanu Tam was talking about a situation where the marriage was ongoing, ie
the ketuba was operational, and the judge was talking about a case where the
marriage had broken down, and so any ongoing obligations under pure halacha
under the ketuba would fall away.  Any ongoing obligations under the halacha
(as opposed to any secular law entitlement) has to come in relation to
supporting the children (as discussed on this list previously, takana of
Usha etc).

But in terms of the article on Torah musings itself, and Rabbanu Tam's
position, there seems to be something of an eliding between what is regarded
as proper behaviour, and what a beis din should be empowered to enforce.

Let's give a slightly different case.

Let's say we were dealing with a husband who was engaging in extra marital
relations (in modern parlance: "cheating on his wife").

Would Rabbanu Tam require a beis din to force the husband to divorce his
wife? - famously no.

Does that mean that Rabbanu Tam is comfortable with a man who has a bit on
the side, and indeed would embrace a society where this was the norm and
regard them as ideal?

I find that position very doubtful, and yet that appears to be the
implication of the article vis a vis the ketuba - ie if a beis din is not
empowered or required force a man to get a job to support his wife, then a
society where men are not prepared to do this can therefore be accepted as
an ideal.

There are many situations where the moral situation and the legal situation
do not align.  Classic cases in halacha are the situations that give rise to
a mishepara.  If somebody agrees to enter into a contract, but reneges
before the necessary halachic formalities creating a kinyan are carried out,
the courts are unable to force such a person to fulfil the contract.  But
what they can do is give a formal curse for engaging in such behaviour and
going back on their word.

Similarly here.  One can have a political/philosophical position that is
generally not keen on government or beis din intervention, and regards such
intervention as a cure worse than the disease, and still not support the
actions of those who take advantage of the lack of intervention.  It does
not necessarily follow that anybody opposed to government regulated gun
control believes that shooting innocent children is ideal or appropriate,
nor does it follow that if somebody does not support a beis din forcing a
husband to hire himself out to support his wife, especially if the rationale
is, as the Hagahos Mamonios indicates, because that would violate the
Torah's prohibition on slavery, then such a person supports a society where
husbands learn in kollel rather than work (or a society where people refuse
to fulfil their korbanos obligations by refusing to go out and work).  It is
just that such a person may regard minimal interference by the courts (or
government) in people's lives as an ideal, even if that has consequences
that result in people (maybe even many people) not fulfilling the
obligations to which they have signed up to or where as a consequence they
are left free (at least b'zman hazeh) to act in immoral ways with others
paying the price.

>Gil Student


Regards

Chana

The chazal usually cited to teach that mitzvos are for our benefit,
not HQBH's, is Bereishis Rabba 44:1:
    Rav says: The mitzvos were only give letzareif bahem es haberios.
    Does is matter to HQBH who slaughters from the throat and who
    slaughters from the back of the neck?

Then there are references to the gemara that explains that "al qan
tzipor yagiu Rachamekha" is a problem for a chazan because "it arouses
jealousy of other animals" or "mitzvos are mptjomg bit decrees. Which
the Rambam and Ramban then debate. The Rambam cites this as proof that
not every detail of every mitzvah has a taam hamitzvos. The Ramban says
this means that shiluach haqen was legislated for our benefit, not the
bird's. Thus leading to the same point as BR.

However, there is a clearcut discussion in the Y-mi, Nedarim 9:1 (vilna
29a). The gemara discusses whether the pegam in one's parent's kavod
could be used as the basis of a pesach for hataras nedarim. "Im kein ein
nedrarim!?" So they conclude that it is a valid pesach only for those
nedarim whose substance directly relates to their kavod. Then the gemara
makes a parallel question about kevod haMaqom:
    Similarly, they should make a pesach for him with kavod in things
    that are between him and haMaqom.

    What is kevod haMaqom? Like "the sukkah I won't make"? "The lulav
    I won't lift"? "The tefillin I won't place"? That's kevod haMaqom???

    We hear from this that it is for his [own] soul that he provides
    hana'ah. Like "if you're just, what are you giving Him? If you sinned,
    what did you do to Him?" (Iyov 35)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Another thing from Y-mi yomi learned while I was in Israel I want to
share with the chevrah....


There is a machloqes rishonim as to whether one violates "lo sisna es
achikha bilvavekha" when one acts on one's hatred, rather than keeping it
bileiv. The Ramban (Vayiqra 19:17) holds that the pasuq says "bilvavekha"
because that's the most common scenario. And it's part of the flow of
the pasuq, which continues "... hokheiach tokhiach es amisekha, velo
sisa alav cheit". Don't hate him in your heart, air your grievance and
see if reaproachment follows.

(C.f. Rashbam, Chizquni ad loc.)

The Me'iri (Yuma 75a) goes further and says that it's acting on sin'ah
shebeleiv

The Rambam (Lav #320, Hil' Dei'os 6:5), OTOH, holds that if one acts
on that hatred, one is oveir other issurim, but not lo sisna.

But I am not sure what the Rambam does with the mishnah Nedarim 9:4
(on which the Y-mi has the famous machloqes R' Aqiva and Ben Azzai over
"ve'avta lerei'akha" vs "zeh seifer toledos adam).
    R Meir also said: We make him a pesaq [for his neder] from what is
    written in the Torah and say to him, "Did you knew that you would
    violate 'lo siqom velo sitor', 'lo sisna', 've'ahavta lerei'akha
    kamokh', and 'vekhai achikha imakh' -- because maybe he'll become
    poor and you won't be able to support him?" ...

So you see that violating lo siqom does not take one out of lo sisna,
even though fulfilling the neder is acting on it, not keeping the
sin'ah in one's heart.

As I said, it appears to be a raayah against the Rambam.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha


H/T Rav Binyamin Zimmerman, who by coincidence (if you believe in
coincidence) recently sent a shiur on the subject
    <http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/chavero2/14chavero.htm>
and my original exposure to the sugya
    <http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/chavero2/14chavero.htm>

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I know we've discussed issues of tfilat haderech and birchat hagomel before
but does anyone have anything on the "perceived danger" threshold that
might differentiate between them (e.g. a trip where I might say one but not
the other?)
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130129/8c8056f3/attachment-0001.htm>

On 29/01/2013 5:43 AM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> I know we?ve discussed issues of tfilat haderech and birchat hagomel
> before but does anyone have anything on the ?perceived danger?
> threshold that might differentiate between them (e.g. a trip where I
> might say one but not the other?)

I don't think tfilas haderech depends on the perception of danger; one
says it whenever one travels out of ones city, and not (at least not with
shem and malchus) if one drives all day on dangerous roads within the city.
Hagomel OTOH is said for the four statutory occasions (though for some
reason deserts seem to have dropped out), even if there was no perception
of danger, but *also* in any situation where there was a real danger.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

Another thought from Y-mi Yomi... Nedarim 10:8 (vilna 35b):

One of my pet topics is a basic difference I believe exists between the
Semitic and Yefetic perspectives on the world.
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/12/semitic-perspective.shtml>.

    Another difference can be seen by contrasting the style of Aristotle
    with that of Rav Yehudah haNasi. Aristotle catalogues. He divides
    a subject into subtopics, and those subtopics even further, until
    one is down to the individual fact. Greek thought was focused on
    reductionism. To understand a phenomenon, break it down into smaller
    pieces, and try to understand each piece. This is typical of the
    Yefetic perspective....

    As opposed to the way Rav Yehudah haNasi redacted the first
    mishnah. The beginning of the mishnah could have said that the time
    for evening shema is from sunset until 1/3 the night. But instead it
    uses referents involving kehunah, taharah and ashmores. This is not to
    confuse the issue, but because from the Semitic perspective the key to
    understanding one mitzvah is from its connections to everything else.

    Yefes is reductionist, believing the world can be understood as
    the sum of its smallest pieces. Sheim is holistic, looking at the
    interconnections between those pieces, and the pieces only gaining
    meaning from the relationships in which they partake.
    ...

Well, the Y-mi concludes that it is possible to give semichah in just one
topic -- "limnos zeqeinim lidvarim yechidim". A rav telling a talmid that
he is capable of pasqening only in a subset of the Torah. But, the talmid
must actually knowledgable in all topics in order to get semichah in one.

    Hara'ui ledavar echad ra'ui lekhol hadevarim.
    Veshe'eino ra'ui lekhol hadevarim,
    afilu ledavar echad eino ra'ui.

One example is R' Yehoshua b Levi's almid who couldn't get semichah in
yavamos because his eyesight wasn't up to being able to see the spittle.
But because the talmid /knew/ all of halakhah, he could get semichah in
everything but.

Another was R' Yosi bei R' Bun, who didn't get semichah in mumin, or in
internal mumin. The Bavli says this is because of a fear that people would
try to copy his accumen, fail, and allow people to eat tereifos. While
the Y-mi doesn't make this explicit, it's another case of having the
accumen in kol haTorah kulah, despite only getting a limited semichah.

I think this reiterates my thesis:

Competence in one area is impossible, because there is no reductionist
approach to understanding the Torah. 

The gemara I quoted must state the conditional
    Whomever is capable in one topic, is capable in every topic.
and its contrapositive
    And whomever is not capable in every topic,
    even in one topic isn't capable.

In Greek bivalent logic,
    if A then B
and
    if not B then not A
are logically identical. But if one acknowledges shades of grey,
multivalent logics, then they are not.

Halachic logic is multivalent (like Quantum Logic, Fuzzy Logic,
Probabilistic Logic, and numerous other modern systems). One reason
why is because there is no such thing as one fact. Every fact exists
in relation to others. It can't be simply assessed in only one way. The
notion of dialectic, that two things that produce conflict can each be
true in their own way, is built into the Semitic perspective.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

And yet another Y-mi Yomi thought from Nedarim 10:8 (vilna 35b):

R' Chiya bar Aba got R' Lezer to appeal to R' Yudan Nesiah (the grandson
of the compiler of the mishnah) for a temporary semichah as a letter
to take with him to Bavel. RYN agrees, and includes in the letter "I am
hereby sending you an adam gadol".

According to R' Chizqiyah, R' Dustei, R' Aba bar Zimna, and others repeat
it in the name of R' Dustei Saba, he wrote "I am hereby sending you an
adam gadol, for he is not embarassed to say 'I didn't hear it.'"

I wish I had more rabbeim willing to say "I don't know". Elementary and
HS would have been much smoother.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

I don't think tfilas haderech depends on the perception of danger; one
says it whenever one travels out of ones city, and not (at least not with
shem and malchus) if one drives all day on dangerous roads within the city.
Hagomel OTOH is said for the four statutory occasions (though for some
reason deserts seem to have dropped out), even if there was no perception
of danger, but *also* in any situation where there was a real danger.

-- 
Zev Sero         
==============================================
OTOH IIRC  R' HShachter ( Nefesh Harav) says that R'YB Sdid not say tfilat
haderech from Boston to NY because of it being a tfila bet tzara since the
gemara mentions tfilat haderech right after
it says someone  who is in a dangerous place says a tfila- and today there is no feeling of  danger.
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 Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 05:54:20PM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: OTOH IIRC R' HShachter ( Nefesh Harav) says that R'YBS did not say
: tfilat haderech from Boston to NY because of it being a tfila bet tzara
: since the gemara mentions tfilat haderech right after
: it says someone who is in a dangerous place says a tfila- and today
: there is no feeling of danger.

But what about birkhas hagomel? Does crossing the Long Island Sound
qualify? I assume birkhas hagomel can't be a chiyuv, as it's a fill-in
for the qorban Todah. But would it be a berakhah levatalah?

It is likely wider than the path of Qeri'as Yam Suf, which is what
this instance of Birkhas haGomel commemorates.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 29/01/2013 5:54 PM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> OTOH IIRC	R' HShachter ( Nefesh Harav) says that R'YB Sdid not say
> tfilat haderech from Boston to NY because of it being a tfila bet
> tzara since the gemara mentions tfilat haderech right after
> it says someone  who is in a dangerous place says a tfila- and today there is no feeling of  danger.
> KT

Didn't RYBS get all upset at the idea that the chazakah of "tav lemeitav
tan du" is only valid in certain cultures, and not an eternal statement
on the nature of female humans?  So how is "kol hadrachim bechezkas
sakanah" different?

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 29/01/2013 5:54 PM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> OTOH IIRC	R' HShachter ( Nefesh Harav) says that R'YB Sdid not say
> tfilat haderech from Boston to NY because of it being a tfila bet
> tzara since the gemara mentions tfilat haderech right after
> it says someone  who is in a dangerous place says a tfila- and today there is no feeling of  danger.
> KT

Didn't RYBS get all upset at the idea that the chazakah of "tav lemeitav
tan du" is only valid in certain cultures, and not an eternal statement
on the nature of female humans?  So how is "kol hadrachim bechezkas
sakanah" different?
Zev Sero            
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If I had to guess- tan du was inherent in creation based on nachash story, drachim just a contemporary reality chazakah.
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 Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 05:16:46AM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: If I had to guess- tan du was inherent in creation based on nachash
: story, [the dangers of] drachim just a contemporary reality chazakah.

I also think that this was a side-issue in RYBS's total argument against
R' Rackman's BD. I know that's the piece that gets quoted a lot, but
RYBS spent far more time discussing the engineering of mechanisms that
moot large sections of halakhah.

In particular, he didn't understand how one could possibly argue meqach
ta'us based on things that may have not even existed at the time of
the wedding. If it did work, Yevamos -- and in fact the shas's seder
Nashim in general -- would be far shorter. Do the members of this beis
din think they understood this kelal in halakhah better than all the
tannaim, amoraim rishonim and earlier acharonim who stuggled with just
such cases but didn't take this (relatively) easy way out?

Which in turn has impact on nidon didan... As an auxiliary argument,
I don't know how strong RYBS thought the argument of saying tav lemeitiv
is an existential reality since "ve'el isheikh teshuqaseikh" actually was.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:02:31AM -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
: I also think that this was a side-issue in RYBS's total argument against
: R' Rackman's BD. I know that's the piece that gets quoted a lot, but
: RYBS spent far more time discussing the engineering of mechanisms that
: moot large sections of halakhah.
...

I wrote "I also think". I just recalled that I got this impression
from a report RARakeffet made of how RALichtenstein understood that
particular shiur.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 18
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)