Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 64

Thu, 11 Apr 2013

• 1. Re: Chazakah vs Plausibility (hankman)
• 2. Re: YT Sheni in Eretz Yisrael (was Minhagim for Baalei Teshuva) (Chana Luntz)
• 3. Pidyon Haben (Joseph Kaplan)
• 4. Re: Davening: Is a Hat & Jacket Required? (Daas Books)
• 5. Davening: Is a Hat & Jacket Required? (saul newman)
• 6. Proper Attire For Shabbos (Marty Bluke)
• 7. Re: proper attire for shabbat (David Cohen)
• 8. proper attire for shabbat (David Riceman)
• 9. Re: Pidyon Haben (Zev Sero)
• 10. YHA nidche (saul newman)
• 11. Re: Which Day is YK (Arie Folger)
• 12. Re: Chazakah vs Plausibility (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Chazakah vs Plausibility (hankman)
• 14. Re: Chazakah vs Plausibility (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Chazakah vs Plausibility (Micha Berger)

CM noted:
> I know that oceans of ink have been spilt on the lomdus of ruba vechazaka.
> If you agree that a 200 year old man is indeed rare, why would the rov not
> govern.

RZS responded:
> What is the rov here? Most men born 200 years ago are dead?! In those days
> most men born 75 years ago were also dead.

> What is the class of which we are taking a rov? You seem to assume the class
> should be "men born in the same year as our subject", but why? Let's consider
>       ... What about "men born in the same decade as our subject", or "in
> the same calendar month (regardless of year)"...
> possible classes? It seems to me that choosing the class because it will

I do not think this logic is valid. I think that if the man in question
is a member of any class to which a rov applies -- then why not apply
it? The rov could only not be applicable if the man is not a member of
ANY class to which the rov applies.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster

RMB writes:
> I did not understood this as a question of minhag avos vs minhag hamaqom.
> After all, despite the use of the phrase "minhag avoseihem biydeihem", we
> do not argue that the grandchildren of benei EY still keep one day in their
> 2nd generation in chu"l!

Actually, as I mentioned, Rav Ya'akov Emden seems to tend the other way.
That is, everybody who lives in Israel today is a fairly recent product
of immigrants who came to Eretz Yisrael from Chutz L'Aretz, where they
kept two days. On arriving in Eretz Yisrael, these immigrants kept
the minhagim of the place they came from, with the exception of keeping
two days Yom Tov. My impression is that Rav Ya'akov Emden really felt
that they should have continued to keep two days Yom Tov like all other
minhagim they retained on coming to Israel (which is why he holds that, at
the very least, if people from Chutz L'Aretz come to settle a new place,
which is not already settled with people who did not think the matter
through when they originally came back, and where it is not definitively
known that the shluchim came in the times of the Beis HaMikdash- since
it was not known whether it was settled then, assuming the shluchim only
came to settled places, they should definitely keep two days).

That does seem a consistent position, but it does ignore the minhag the
other way, which is for people who come to settle, at least in areas that
everybody agrees are Eretz Yisrael, whether or not they were settled
at the time that shluchim went out, keep only one day (a minhag cited
extensively in the Rishonim - but perhaps Rav Ya'akov Emden would argue
that that was then, and they had a degree of connectivity to the original
bnei Yisrael, but that there was a period of desolation after them, and it
is all recent comers who should be keeping two days - or alternatively
even what occurred at the time of eg Rav Yosef Karo was a mistake,
and they should only have kept one day in the place of the Vaad who
established the chodesh, but that seems rather difficult to say). But I
agree, this opinion does not regard as relevant issues of kedushas EY.

It is fascinating that Rav Ya'akov Emden does not mention his father's
psak (to which his is diametrically opposed). Did he not know of it?
Seems unlikely. Did he not want to contradict or argue with his father,
so he just ignored it? Does seem strange, because his father is stating
that what he, Rav Ya'akov Emden, is suggesting is over on the Torah
prohibition of ba'al tosif, and yet Rav Ya'akov Emden does not engage
with that question at all (even as a hava mina). Very odd.

But I think most people pretty intuitively reject at least this part of
the psak of Rav Ya'akov Emden (the major part, in which he comes down
pretty hard on Bnei EY who go to Chutz L'Aretz for a temporary period,
and only keep one day in any form, is probably a lot more accepted, and
one can perhaps say that all these statements about what should happen
in Eretz Yisrael are really only to buttress his very strong opposition
to Bnei EY not keeping two days in Chutz L'Aretz. After all, if they
really ought to be keeping two days in EY, then kal v'chomer if they
travel to Chutz L'Aretz, even for a temporary period).

But if you accept that somebody who comes to settle, while keeping all
their other minhagim from their time in galus, abandons the second day,
you get back to the logic of the Chatam Sofer. Which is, that is the
right thing to do, because continuing to keep that which those in galus
were formerly doing out of safek due to the instruction to be careful
of the minhag avoseihem b'yadahem is a separate takana (possibly of
Hillel and his Beis Din, who fixed the calendar) - lest a time of shmad
come and they make a mistake as is stated explicitly in Beitza 4 (and
as the Ran says on the Rif on Sukkah 22a and the Ritva on Sukkah 43a),
and this minhag avoseinu is very different form the minhag avoseinu of
saying half Hallel which is also described as minhag avoseihem b'yadehem
(in Ta'anis 28b). And while the Rabbis may have the power in terms of
shev v'al ta'aseh to prevent people fulfilling mitzvos from the Torah
(which can explain Sukkah 43b-44a where they may have banned taking of the
lulav on the first day of Sukkos if it falls on shabbas - if you accept
this conclusion and not the one that people outside of the beis hamikdash
never took the lulav on first day anyway if it was shabbas), to add on a
day of observance in Eretz Yisrael, well if that is not ba'al tosif it is
hard to understand what is. And it is one thing to bring one's minhagim
from one town to another town which happens to have different minhagim
(but which could have originally formed exactly the same minhagim),
and another to bring ones minhagim (which are really a rabbinic gezera)
to a place where such minhagim/gezera are ossur d'orisa - and hence that
the gemora in pesachim about keeping the chumros of both the town one
leaves and the town one comes to is not speaking about such a case.

> Rather, I had assumed it's a question of whether minhag hamaqom is based on
> where you are at the moment or where you live, defining "where you live",
> and in this case, whether making an error is belittling qedushas EY ch"v.

And my point was that the question of Yom Tov Sheni of the golus,
despite the reference to minhag avoseichem b'yadeichem appears by general
consensus to be much more of a rabbinic gezera than a true minhag -
Half Hallel is a true minhag (except that everybody keeps it now, with
the only question being with or without a brocha so there is nowhere to
go to abandon it) but YT sheni is not, and thus despite the references
to the fourth perek in pesachim, it is not a good one to use as your
illustration of the question.

>Tir'u baTov!
>-Micha

Regards
Chana

"I just got a piece of spam advertising pidyon haben coins for $235.  

http://www.pidyonhaben.org/

 

I've included the URL not because I want to advertise this, but in case 

anyone wants to take a look to see what they're talking about.

 

Is this in any way for real?"

 

Many MANY years ago on a trip to Israel I bought the Israeli mint pidyon
haben coins.  I remember they said that they contained exactly the amount of
silver that was in 5 shekalim at the time of the Beit Hamikdash.  I've been
using them at pidyon habens ever since (as you can guess, I'm a kohen) if
the family doesn't have coins they want to use.  I sell them to the father
before the ceremony and, guess what, I always go home with them.

 

Joseph

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130411/027c4334/attachment-0001.htm>

This article has several flaws, the first being in the first paragraph:

> One will readily notice that wearing a hat and jacket during prayer 
> is standard dress in many orthodox circles. It is generally assumed 
> that the reason for this is to comply with the requirement to be 
> dressed "appropriately" when standing before God in prayer.[1] In 
> fact, it is especially meritorious to have a garment reserved 
> exclusively to be worn during prayer and a hat can often conveniently 
> fill that role.[2]

First, the statement, "it is generally assumed" is unsubstantiated. Assumed
by whom? Second, it is contradicted by the next sentence. What is the
reason for the hat and jacket, because it is "appropriate" or because it is
"reserved exclusively"? Or both? The halacha is the latter, yet the rest of
the article ignores this halacha and follows the "appropriate" path. The
problem with the hat and jacket is that if one wears them all the time,
then they are not "reserved exclusively" for prayer. So what should a
person do, who wears them throughout the day? Rav Frand spoke about this at
one of his famous Thursday night classes. He concluded (with sources, but I
didn't take notes) that one could button one's jacket at prayer time
(assuming one does not ordinarily walk around with it buttoned).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130411/cfeffef8/attachment-0001.htm>

obviously this is somehow eidah related, since  in many MO circles  neither
item would be found in shul during the week [and the hat not on shabbat
either] except for purim or rain.....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130411/a819aafe/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Wohlberg wrote:
"I will attempt to address the above concerns with the following analogy.
Other than

erev Pesach, one could eat everything Kosher L'Pesach the entire year
with chametz
all over the house, otherwise. Then Pesach arrives. You can say there
has been no
distinction between the rest of the year and Pesach. But the fact is
that it is Pesach by
the calendar and that's what makes it holy. The fact that you ate no
chametz the entire
year doesn't take away from the kedusha of Pesach. Likewise, if a
professional wears a
suit all week long and comes Shabbos, and he wears another suit, that
doesn't take away
the Kedusha of Shabbos. It is STILL Shabbos irrespective of what he wears. "

The analogy is flawed, because with regard to Shabbos there is a
mitzva of kavod, kavod implies a distinction between what you wear on
the weekday and what you wear on shabbos. There is no such
corresponding halacha by Pesach.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130411/6eb34ba6/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Akiva Miller wrote:
> I will add a similar point: If we wear our best on Shabbos, how do we
comply with Orach Chayim 529:1,
> which says that on Yom Tov, our clothes should be even better than our
Shabbos clothes?

When I lived in the U.S., and wore a suit every Shabbos, I was not able to
do this.  But ever since I made aliyah and adopted the jacketless and
tieless Shabbos attire that is common in my community, I reserve the suits
for yom tov (more specifically the regalim, not Rosh haShanah), thereby
fulfilling this din in the Shulchan Aruch.

-- D.C. (who is currently on a business trip to the U.S. and packed a suit
for Shabbos, as per minhag hamakom)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130411/23775c6f/attachment-0001.htm>

RET:

<<What does someone, eg a lawyer, do when he wears a fancy suit all week 
long>>

See AhS OH 551:11.

David Riceman

On 10/04/2013 11:26 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> I just got a piece of spam advertising pidyon haben coins for $235. http://www.pidyonhaben.org/
>
> I've included the URL not because I want to advertise this, but in case anyone wants to take a look to see what they're talking about.
>
> Is this in any way for real?

Note that the prices they quote are for a set of 5 coins, not per coin.
At first I thought it was per coin, and searches for these coins showed
that they tend to sell for about $30-45 each.  For a set of five, their
prices are not completely out of line, though you could probably do better
elsewhere.  Unless, of course, you want their special medallions.


-- 
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

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/tazria/arnd.pdf

question----given that  much of the time YHA is nidche  for  shabbos  [
 shvii shel pesach/YHA   can fall on fri/shab/mon/wed ---->  therefore as i
believe it is currently observed it is changed except when
5 iyar is on wed]  ,  is the recommended  practice  to then say tachanun on
5 iyar ; and is there a difference  in israel vs  chu''l?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130411/d7d873a3/attachment-0001.htm>

Wrote:
> (If one wants to engage in fanciful explanation, it could be argued that
> RG required RY to come michutz lat'chum, since the Mishna indicates
> that RY traveled to Yavne on that day -- "natal maklo umaosav v'halach
> l'Yavne b'yom shechal YK."  This is no less fanciful than RMR's novel
> interpretations.)

Actually that suggestion is not fanciful at all. I think, and have long
been rather convinced, based on the detail you just cited from the Mishna,
that the traveling from outside the techum was a very obvious part of RG's
challenge to RY.
--
mit freundlichen Gr??en,
with kind regards,
Arie Folger

visit my blog at http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
sent from my mobile device
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130411/f05396be/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/04/2013 8:23 AM, hankman wrote:
> I do not think this logic is valid. I think that if the man in
> question is a member of any class to which a rov applies ? then why
> not apply it? The rov could only not be applicable if the man is not a
> member of ANY class to which the rov applies.

So, most men are dead, therefore any given man should be presumed dead,
even if he's 20 years old and we just saw him alive five minutes ago.

-- 
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

RZS wrote:

So, most men are dead, therefore any given man should be presumed dead,
even if he's 20 years old and we just saw him alive five minutes ago.

CM responds:
Your response merely muddles the issue. The only categories of men whose
rov would be relevant are those that have relevance to the issue at hand.
How many men have died in past centuries is totally irrelevant to the
question at hand whether a man who was alive before us still survives. To
think otherwise is patently absurd. Furthermore, I am not sure your ?rov?
of all men are dead is in fact true. I suspect that the cumulative sum of
all dead men over the approx 230  generations since Adam may in fact be
less than the number of men alive today - some 3.7 billion (due to
exponential growth). In any case you would have to prove your rov. It is
not self evident as you seem to think.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130411/a4476bde/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/04/2013 5:12 PM, hankman wrote:
> RZS wrote:
>> On 11/04/2013 8:23 AM, hankman wrote:
>>> RZS wrote:

>>>> What is the class of which we are taking a rov? You seem to assume
>>>> the class should be "men born in the same year as our subject", but
>>>> why? Let's consider the class "men" [...] or any other of an
>>>> infinite possible classes? It seems to me that choosing the class
>>>> because it will produce the result we already feel to be right is
>>>> circular and invalid. So how should we choose one? I submit that we
>>>> can't and shouldn't, and that rov is inapplicable here.

>>> I do not think this logic is valid. I think that if the man in
>>> question is a member of any class to which a rov applies ? then
>>> why not apply it? The rov could only not be applicable if the man
>>> is not a member of ANY class to which the rov applies.

>> So, most men are dead, therefore any given man should be presumed dead,
>> even if he's 20 years old and we just saw him alive five minutes ago.

> Your response merely muddles the issue.

On the contrary, it's an attempt at clarifying the issue.  Look at your
response and you can see that it has already succeeded somewhat.


> The only categories of men whose rov would be relevant are those that
> have relevance to the issue at hand.

Ah, so you *are* choosing a class.  You have abandoned the proposition
you made just above, that we must consider *all* possible classes in which
our subject is a member.  Now we're back at my previous question, how do
you choose a class?


> How many men have died in past centuries is totally
> irrelevant to the question at hand whether a man who was alive before
> us still survives. To think otherwise is patently absurd.

What *exactly* makes it more or less absurd than "men born in the same
year as our subject"?   It seems to me, at least at first glance, that
the most obvious reason for choosing this class as the one we will test
for rov is that we already know we will find one -- and that seems circular.


> Furthermore, I am not sure your ?rov? of all men are dead is in fact
> true. I suspect that the cumulative sum of all dead men over the
> approx 230 generations since Adam may in fact be less than the number
> of men alive today - some 3.7 billion (due to exponential growth). In
> any case you would have to prove your rov. It is not self evident as
> you seem to think.

I think you will find that it is in fact true even today.   If it isn't,
then it will surely be true 100 years from now, unless Moshiach comes.
And it was certainly true in Chazal's time.   In any case, it's just one
of an infinite number of possible classes, and my point is how do we choose
one without tailoring our choice to produce the result we want?


-- 
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

This whole discussion is somewhat a distraction, because it's not really
an issue of rov.

1- There is no indication anyone really believed that a 200 yr old person
was an option, unless we follow a later opinion about aggadic stories in
which we are supposed to assume they are indicative of historical claims.

2- Even so, it's not a matter of rov. This discussion is much like
denying pesiq reishei by pointing to the case of Mike the Headless Chicken
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_Headless_Chicken>.
A possibility this remote WOULD normally not enter consideration, if it
were a matter of assessing the physical situation.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 16th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             does harmony promote?


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


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 64
**************************************

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.)