Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 72

Tue, 21 Jun 2016

• 1. Re: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth (Ben Waxman)
• 2. derabbanan (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: derabbanan (Micha Berger)
• 6. tora of convicts (saul newman)
• 7. Fwd: tora of convicts (Rich, Joel)
• 8. YH with haredi teachers (saul newman)
• 9. Re: Fwd: tora of convicts (Micha Berger)
• 10. A Potential Role of Orthodox Judaism in a "Fractured Republic" (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: tora of convicts (Micha Berger)

Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the 
halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing before 
marrying a woman. When people get married, they don't just sleep in the 
same bed. That is where the question starts and finishes, nothing about 
literally sleeping together.

Ben

On 6/19/2016 5:17 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
> The Taz in no way implies that Boaz and Ruth
> did more than be in the same bed, and it's impossible to read anything
> more into it.

< What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out
 any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all
 to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim.
Chanukah, Purim, and Hallel do "help implement de'oraisos". We are
obligated to acknowledge and celebrate nissim and yeshu'os; chazal
"merely" coined standard ways to do so.
Netilas yadayim *is* there to protect deOraisos. Or at least was, back
before we gave up an taharah. The whole notion that by default hands
are tamei was a gezeirah, not a taqanah.
In neither case do we need to assert that there was some metaphysical
danger to avoid or metaphysical benefit we would have missed that the
Torah hadn't already forced us to take into account. >

I am not claiming anything metaphysical. It just seems to me that not all
rabbinical decrees are
to help a deoraisa.

I am certainly not baki enough to go through every rabbinical law but
certainly some others include eruvin, most importantly almost all berachot,
davening (certainly according to those that disagree with Rambam), shevat
brachot. As I said before there are loads of decrees in monetary matters
that are not just nezikin including prozbul, takanat hashuk, bar
metzra. Again I would have to review the 3 Babas to come up with a more
detailed list. Even in hilchot shabbat/yomtov we have candle lighting and
other aspects of oneg, much of the seder,

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160619/40f57c3c/attachment-0001.htm>

On 06/19/2016 11:44 PM, I wrote:
> On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:

>> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the
>> halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing
>> before marrying a woman.
>
> There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it.

I just realised my meaning may not have been completely plain.  What I
meant by this is that they can have a chuppas niddah.

-- 
Zev Sero               Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
z...@sero.name          meaning merely by appending them to the two other
                        words `God can'.  Nonsense remains nonsense, even
                        when we talk it about God.   -- C S Lewis

On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the
> halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing
> before marrying a woman.

There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it.  The halacha
in question is that when a woman agrees to get married she is presumed
to have become a niddah, and must therefore count 7 days like any niddah.
(Note that it's not the proposal that triggers this, nor is it her verbal
acceptance, but her internal decision to accept it.)

The Taz quotes the Maggid Mishneh that this is midrabanan, and says that
this explains two problems we would have if it were mid'oraisa.  One is
Yehuda and Tamar: *not* how they could have sex, but how she could have
told him that she was tehora, when by definition she has just become temeiah.
The second was Boaz and Ruth: how they could have slept in the same bed.

He says this *explicitly* so I don't understand how anyone can possibly
misunderstand it.


> When people get married, they don't just
> sleep in the same bed. That is where the question starts and
> finishes, nothing about literally sleeping together.

Again, you are contradicting the very Taz you are quoting.  He says
in so many words that the problem we would have with Boaz and Ruth, if
this halacha were mid'oraisa, is that she entered his bed.  How can
you claim that's not his concern, when he says it is?



-- 
Zev Sero               Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
z...@sero.name          meaning merely by appending them to the two other
                        words `God can'.  Nonsense remains nonsense, even
                        when we talk it about God.   -- C S Lewis

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 03:37:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
:> REWasserman Hy"d basically says "lamah li qera, sevara hi?"

: which again seems to make every derabanan a deoraisa

I think quite the reverse. His saying that we follow the rabbis because
not heading their advice would be stupid does not actually make the
derabbanan mandatory.

And I still think the Ramban is saying that the power of chazal to
legislate is from lo sasur, but that does not elevate the product of
their legislation to deOraisa. Thus his repeated reference to "zeh halav"
in distinction to "'lo sasur' keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah". This makes
a strong contrast to R' Mesamyah's position, "sheyeish bikhlal lav
de-'lo sasur' kol mah shhu midivrei chakhamim..."

One might employ parallel logic to REW's shitah, if it proves necessary.

Remember that the Ramban's central problem isn't the same as the one which
led us to this discussion. He is defending the idea that "lo sasur" is
one of the 613, but (unlike the Behag) the particular mitzvos derabbanan
are not each counted among them. Safeiq derabbanan lequlah is tangential
to his main point, and more noted than explained.


Also, I repeatedly contrasted the Meshekh Chokhmah's position (Devarim
17:11), that mitzvos derabbanan are "pragmatic", meaning the iqar
is obedience, as opposed to conforming to Retzon Hashem, which I
characterized as having metaphysical effect - or avoiding negtive effects.

And since they're about obedience, borderline cases like safeiq derabbanan
which are not rebellious can be meiqil, we do not have to worry about
spiritual damage. If the mitzvah had inherent value aside from obedience,
safeiq derabbanan lequlah would be a license to play Russian Roullete.

I realized Retzon Hashem could also be framed less mystically in terms
of desired ethics / relationship with Him, whether an asei to foster
them or a lav to avoid flaws (a more rationalistic take on spiritual
damage that is probably describing the same thing). Values and virtues.

And in this formulation, there is no clear line between laws that Chazal
would set up to implement a general deOraisa din (eg pirsumei nisa and
ner Chanukah) and laws that implement His values. The broader mitzvos
get kind of mussar-y / valu-ish. Like ve'asisa hayashar vehatov.


On a related topic, 20 agurot from AhS Yomi. YD 201:206 (there are
218 se'ifim in the siman).

There is a question whether a miqvah where most of the water is mayim
she'uvim is pasul deOraisa or derabannan, or if even a miqvah that is
entirely mayim she'uvim is "only" pasul miderabbanan. 3 positions:
pasul deOraisa at rov, pasul deOraisa when there is entirely she'uvim,
or never pasul deOraisa. The pesul derabbnan starts at 3 log is they were
poured in before the 40 se'ah were complete; rov otherwise -- unless rov
is deOraisa

The Toras Kohanim learns the pesul of mayim she'uvim from "akh ma'yan
uvor miqeih mayim" just as a maayan is made by G-d, so must the gathered
water of a miqvah.

But it is possible that this is an asmachta, or that it's a derashah
about using actual tamei keilim but generalizing to she'uvim is asmachta,
or... (See se'if 17)

Now the relevant bit.  In se'if 210, the AhS opines (nir'eh LAD) that
because there is an asmachta, we cannot simply say safeiq derabbanan
lequlah. Thus ruling out the Rambam's idea that asmachtos are just
mnemonic and polemic tools; he is saying they actually change the authority
of the derabbanan.

And if could change whether the iqar is obedience, limiting that
possibility only to dinim derabbanan that have no asmachtos. IFF RYME
buys into that idea at all.


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to
learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i
wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal
offenses.

ie  the current issue is about one who has specifically violated tora laws
related to even haezer related issues.   i wonder if crimes against secular
governments would fall under the same type of reasoning , which as i
understand , is only due to a 'bizayon hatora'  . it would seem that any
type of crime might fit that bill....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160620/7dbaf40b/attachment-0001.htm>

there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to
learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i
wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal
offenses.
------------------------------------
  "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b).

KOL TUV
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/20160620/5fb14ebb/attachment-0001.htm>

https://torahdownloads.com/player.html?ShiurID=24398   r reuven feinstein
[around  minute 35 ]

responds on this tora umesora Q and A  on how the haredi teacher should
deal with Hallel on YH.
thiswil presumably be more of  a bedieved, since lechatchila schools that
celebrate YH shouldn't have to rely on teachers that don't on there
faculty, and increasingly may not need to....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160620/dc88bf91/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 07:45:55PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
:   "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is
:   not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b).

R' Shimon Shkop discusses this gemara near the end of the haqdamah
to Shaarei Yosher. Leshitaso, there is a difference between a rebbe
from whom "yevaqeish Torah mipihu" and learning from someone else,
who could even be an Acher.

    But to my mind it is worth knowing and contemplating what our Sages
    said on Chagiga folio 15b. How could Rabbi Meir receive Torah from
    the mouth of Acheir [the former Rabbi Elisha ben Avuya, after he
    became a heretic]. Doesn't Rabba bar bar Chana quote R' Yochanan
    [in Chagiga as saying] "What does it mean when it says 'For the
    kohein's lips should keep knowledge; they should see Torah from
    his lips, for he is the angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts" (Malachi
    2:7)? If the rav is similar to an angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts,
    seek Torah from his mouth. And if not, do not seek Torah from his
    mouth." And the Talmud concludes, "There is no question this [Rabbi
    Meir studying under Acheir] is with someone great, this [the verse]
    is of someone of smaller stature."

    It is worth understanding according to this how Rabbi Yochanan spoke
    without elaboration, since he speaks only of the smaller statured,
    not the greats. One may say that we should be exacting in that
    Rabbi Yochanan said, "seek Torah from his mouth" and not "learn from
    him". For in truth, one who learns from his peer does not learn from
    the mouth of the person who is teaching him, but listens and weighs
    on the scales of his mind, and then he understands the concept. This
    is not learning "from the mouth of" his teacher, but from the mind
    of the teacher. "Torah from the mouth" is only considered accepting
    the concepts as he heard them, with no criticism. And it was by this
    idea that Rabbi Yochanan spoke about accepting Torah from the mouth
    [i.e. uncritically] only if the rabbi is similar to an angel of
    Hashem, L-rd of Hosts.

    And according to this, in Rabbi Yochanan's words is hinted a
    distinction between who is of smaller stature and who is great. The
    one of smaller stature will learn Torah from the mouth, for he is
    unable to decide what to draw near and want to keep away. Whereas a
    person of great stature who has the ability to decide [critically]
    does not learn Torah from [someone else's] mouth.

    Similarly, it's appropriate to alert anyone who contemplates the books
    of acharonim that they should not "learn Torah from their mouths",
    they shouldn't make a fundamental out of everything said in their
    words before they explore well those words.

    Something similar to a reminder of this idea can be learned from
    what the gemara says in Bava Metzia, chapter "One Who Hires Workers"
    [85b]. Rabbi Chiya said, "I made it so that the Torah would not be
    forgotten from Israel." It explains there that he would plant linen,
    spread out nets [made of tat linen, thereby] hunt deer, made parchment
    [of their hides], and wrote [on them] chumash texts. This hints that
    whatever is in our power to prepare from the beginning of the Torah,
    it is incumbent on us to do ourselves, according to the ability that
    was inherited to us to explore and understand. And not to rely on
    the words of the gedolim who preceded us.

Tir'u baTov!
-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

[Rabbi] "Meir Soloveichik on Yuval Levin's 'The Fractured Republic'"
<http://j.mp/28LTzNU> or
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/meir-s
oloveichik-yuval-levins-fractured-republic

    ... Levin is undoubtedly correct about the state of American
    religion, both in diagnosis and prescription, and reading his book
    has made me more convinced that it is at this moment that American
    Orthodox Judaism may have found a unique calling. As Rabbi Joseph
    Soloveitchik has pointed out, religious Jews have always sought
    to embody Abraham's identification of himself in the Bible as a
    ger vetoshav--a stranger and a neighbor, aware of what makes one
    different while engaging the world and, like Abraham in Canaan,
    speaking candidly and eloquently about why they are different. Last
    summer, an Ivy League-educated lawyer who is also a devout Christian,
    struck by how so many traditionalists feel that they now live in a
    culture not welcoming to them...

    As I argued in a recent symposium in Mosaic, the Jewish example
    can lead faith communities in a joint project to safeguard an
    America that will allow all of us to be "strangers and neighbors"
    --to fight for our religious freedom and distinctiveness, while
    also articulating a conservative vision of the American idea--and
    thereby illustrating how traditionalists can, in Levin's words,
    "live out their faiths and their ways in the world."

Tir'u baTov!
-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

RGS posted a link to <http://bit.ly/28MJQrs> on Torah Musings:

   Jewish Action
   HALACHAH AND THE FALLEN RABBI:
   Q & A WITH RABBI HERSHEL SCHACHTER
   JA Mag | June 4, 2015 in Jewish Law
   By Avrohom Gordimer

   ...
   Jewish Action: Can one still follow the piskei halachah of a fallen
   rabbi?

   Rabbi Schachter: No. The pasuk in Navi (Malachi 2:7), as expounded by
   the gemara (Moed Katan 17a), says that a Torah teacher must be sinless
   and righteous like a malach (angel). According to the Torah, we only
   follow a rabbi's ruling if he properly models Torah behavior. If he is
   a ba'al aveirah, if he knowingly violates Biblical or rabbinic laws,
   he is not qualified to teach and render halachic rulings. When members
   of the public become aware of his improper behavior, they may no longer
   rely on his judgment for any rulings, unless it can be verified that
   such rulings were rendered before the rabbi's sinful conduct began.
   Since it is often not possible to ascertain when these rulings were
   rendered, one should ask another rabbi for a new pesak.

   Although people use [Marcus] Jastrow's [Aramaic] dictionary [for
   Talmudic and Midrashic terminology], and I was told that Jastrow
   was not Orthodox, that is different because that is an issue of
   translation, not pesak (halachic adjudication). For a pesak, a rabbi
   needs to consider all issues before him, and weigh and evaluate them.
   It is very different than mere translation. To issue halachic rulings,
   one must be part of the chachmei haMesorah (Torah scholars who follow
   the Torah's traditions). A rabbi who sins, especially if he commits
   a crime, is certainly not in this category.

   JA: What does one do with the sefarim written by such a rabbi?

   RS: They should not be used. Since his sefarim include his ideas and
   rulings, they fit into the prohibition against studying Torah from
   someone who is unfit due to his improper behavior. Any time someone
   writes a sefer, he fleshes out and resolves apparently contradictory
   passages. This is called being machria--providing one's own resolutions
   in Torah study. The type of person we are discussing is not qualified
   to be machria and, therefore, his sefarim cannot be used. If it can
   be verified that the sefarim and the halachic rulings were issued
   before this person's sinful behavior began, only then can they be
   relied upon and quoted.

   JA: Can we/should we continue to cite divrei Torah in his name?

   RS: We are not allowed to do so. The gemara (Avodah Zarah 35b) says
   that if a rabbi violates halachah, one cannot say divrei Torah in his
   name. The statements found in the Talmud in the name of Elisha Ben
   Abuya were made when he was still committed to Torah observance and
   belief (see Tosafot, Sotah 12b). If it would appear that the books and
   articles of the fallen rabbi were written before he began his sinful
   behavior, they may be used.
   ...

This follows something we've noticed about RHS's position in the past. He
holds that pesaq involves the poseiq's full Weltenschaung. To the extent
that someone should be looking to posqim from his own camp in particular.

From Kol haMevaser (a school machashav newspaper from YU), 2010, by "Staff"
http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2010/07/an-interview-with-rabbi-hersh
el-schachter

   An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter
   ...
   Who is qualified to give a pesak Halakhah (halakhic ruling)? What makes
   his ruling binding upon a large group of people?

   ...
   A person has to have a strong tradition in Torah logic. Common
   sense has its own system of logic and so does Halachah. And to know
   Talmudic, halachic logic, you have to be learned in all areas of
   Torah. A posek cannot "specialize" in one area of Halachah alone. In
   order to be an expert in medical Halachah, you have to know Nashim,
   Nezikin, Kodashim, and Tohoros, because everything in Halachah is
   interconnected and interrelated.


   ...
   Which characteristics should a person look for when choosing a
   personal/family posek? Is it appropriate to choose one posek for one
   area of Halakhah and another for a different area? Is it problematic,
   halakhically or otherwise, for someone to ask she'eilot to a rabbi
   other than the leader of his or her shul/kehillah?

   The Mishnah says "aseh lecha rav" - you have to pick a rav to
   paskn all of your she'eilos. He has to first and foremost be very
   knowledgeable....

   Second, he has to be humble. The Gemara says that we paskn like the
   Beis Hillel against the Beis Shammai, because, among other reasons,
   the Beis Hillel were more humble than the Beis Shammai...

   He also has to be an honest person. Sometimes you have a rabbi who is
   a politician and says one thing to one person and another thing to a
   different person, giving everyone the answer that he wants to hear.
   That is obviously inappropriate.

   Finally, he must be a yere Shamayim (God-fearer). The Gemara talks
   about why the pesakim of talmidei chachamim are binding and says
   that it is because "sod Hashem li-yere'av" - God gives the secrets of
   understanding the Torah to those who fear Him. Usually, we assume that
   the more learned one is, the more yir'as Shamayim he has. If, however,
   the rabbi of my choice is very learned but seems, unfortunately,
   to lack yir'as Shamayim, he is not ra'ui (worthy) to receive divine
   assistance in figuring out what the dinim are.

And one off-topic teaser:

   What does it mean that koah de-hetteira adif (the power of
   permissibility is greater) and how does one apply that rule? How does
   this principle accord with concepts like ha-mahamir, tavo alav berakhah
   (blessing should descend upon the stringent) and yere Shamayim yetse
   yedei sheneihem (a God-fearer tries to fulfill both)? When, if ever,
   is it a good idea to take upon oneself a personal humra (stricture)?

(REMT already posted the same answer here years ago...)

Also, there is <http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/807758>, which
RET brought to the chevrah's attention in Feb 2014 and RAM transcribed
parts of. But then we were talking about that shiur's primary subject --
"Da'as Torah - What are its Halachic Parameters in Non-Halachic Issues?"

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@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


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



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


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


**************************************

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