Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 107

Fri, 01 Sep 2017

• 1. Re: Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Rav Moshe Feinstein on America (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? (Akiva Miller)
• 5. Neveilah; MAyin; Jewish Status before MTorah; BBCh (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 6. Zeh VeZeh Gorem (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 7. Re: nature of torah sheb'al peh (Akiva Miller)
• 8. Re: Rav Moshe Feinstein on America (Ben Waxman)
• 9. Re: Rav Moshe Feinstein on America (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Re: Rav Moshe Feinstein on America (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Rav Moshe Feinstein on America (Elli Fischer)
• 12. Re: Rav Moshe Feinstein on America (Micha Berger)

On 31/08/17 09:55, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur,  since to me it 
> sounds like "original sin."  YL

And your problem with this is?   Did you think only Xians beleived in 
Chet Etz Hada'as?!   True, there is a big difference between our view of 
it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the guf, but 
the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi", while they believe it affects the 
neshama as well.  But everyone agrees that it affects us all deeply, and 
that it requires a major tikkun -- pretty much all of our avodah in this 
world for all of human history.  So why should it surprise us that the 
task of bringing physical light into the world should be part of that 
tikun that is preferentially assigned to those who more closely resemble 
Chava than Adam?

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:44:12AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
:> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur,  since to me
:> it sounds like "original sin."  YL
: 
:                                  Did you think only Xians beleived
: in Chet Etz Hada'as?!   True, there is a big difference between our
: view of it and theirs, primarily that we believe it only affects the
: guf, but the "neshama shenasata bi tehora hi"...

The guf, the nefesh and perhaps the ruach.

Middos were impacted... Because Adam and Chavah ate from the eitz hadaas
too early, while it was still erev, instead of waiting for full Shabbos,
all our decisions have been consequently an irbuvia. Every good act
has some other motive mixed in, and the same for sin.

Eis hada'as tov-vara, the tree of knowledge that turns our view of
the world into a sea of gray area, good and evil combined.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R Elli Fischer (CC-ed) posted this translation on Lehrhaus
<http://j.mp/2vJ5Kmz> see there for more background:

   On Wednesday, March 4, 1939, the United States celebrated the 150th
   anniversary of the Constitution becoming the law of the land...
   On the Shabbat after the sesquicentennial, which happened to be
   Shabbat Zakhor, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein...

REF reminds us that this is someone who fled Stalinism speaking at a time
when American Jews were aware of the evils of Nazism, and it was something
of a hayday for both isolationists and Bolsheviks in the US.

Translating from Darash Moshe, Vol. I, pp. 415-6:

   Every superstition and every nonsensical opinion in the world claims
   to bring light to the world and creates beautiful things to deceive
   and win over adherents. However, since many do not espouse them,
   they compel anyone they can, with sword and spear, to adopt their
   views. This is true in all times, with respect to both matters of
   faith and matters of ideology, past and present, and especially in
   Russia and Germany ... Ultimately, all that is left is wickedness,
   not the ideology it was fashioned to support; what need do they have
   for it once they have swords and spears? ... In the end, only the
   sword and spear remain, while the light is completely extinguished,
   as we see in the extremes of Germany and Russia.

   Therefore, no sovereign power should accept one single faith or
   one single ideology, because ultimately only the power will remain,
   without an ideology, and this leads to destruction, as we see with
   our very eyes ...

   This is likewise the case with the attack by Amalek, which had a
   mistaken view they wished to express: that [the redemption of Israel]
   was not miraculous and that there was no reason to fear them. Yet
   they should have first engaged in discussion, to prove their point
   if they could, or to concede the point if they could not. They did
   not do so, instead opting for war straightaway, and thus showing that
   their primary motive was not [to illuminate, but to exercise power]. We
   therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that
   we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and
   sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow,
   false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is
   why we continue to remember Amalek.

   It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system
   of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to
   see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or
   murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow
   one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and
   speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes.

   Therefore, the United States, which established in its Constitution 150
   years ago that it will not uphold any faith or any ideology, rather,
   that each person shall do as he desires, and the regime will see that
   people do not molest one another, is carrying out God's will. It is
   for that reason that they have succeeded and become great in our times.

(Also CC-ed RHM, since he so often quotes RMF's idiom about America
being a "medinah shel chessed.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

.

R' Yitzchok Levine cited today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I have
several comments.

The OU writes:

> The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded
> this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare
> the home for Shabbos.

Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3.
The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was
"awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a
level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why
this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this,
because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs
of the home."

In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting
the lights is part of that!

The OU continues:

> The Tur (based on the Midrash) offers another explanation.
> Chava shortened Adam?s life on erev Shabbos by causing him to
> sin. Because Chava extinguished G-d?s candle (man?s neshama),
> women light Shabbos candles erev Shabbos to atone for that act.

R' Yitzchok Levine asked:

> I have never understood the reason given by the Tur, since to
> me it sounds like "original sin."

I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only
superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any
other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't
mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it
became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly
damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there.

Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be
in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do
something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I
think that's all the Tur is saying.

It's a small minhag for us, and a foundation of faith for them - these
are so far apart that I'm not bothered if they both happen to derive
from the same event.

Finally, the OU writes:

> Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah
> Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the
> candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us
> that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks
> and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros
> the wicks will easily catch fire.

It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully
understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain
piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and
difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a
charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later.
In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be
counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be
*more* difficult to light later on.

Akiva Miller

NEVEILAH

Reb Micha observes that RaMBaM lav #180 and Chinukh #472, list the
prohibition to eat Neveilah

It is also documented in RaMBaM MAsuuros 4:2
However the Issur is restricted to those types that can be Shechted
Thus our Q - this non-fully gestated preemie born from a cow
cannot be Shechted, ever, to make it Kosher to eat or remove Tumas Neveilah
according to that guideline, it ought not be Assur to eat as a Neveilah.

I also noted that Rashi explains the Mishnah Chulin 72b
the preemie is not Bakar nor Tzon - it is not even deemed an animal by
Halacha
so why is it Assur to eat it?


MARIS AYIN

The following are universally accepted
1]  AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all Halacha
and even Minhag
2]  AAvinu cooked BP meat with milk [as per the Pesikta]
3]  AAvinu, who disqualified the bread he ordered Sara to bake for the
guests, because he kept the stringency of Taharas HaTerumah, had no concern
that he not cook or serve this BBCh due to MAyin

Why was AAvinu not concerned for MA?
I suggest it is because Halacha does not deem it to be an animal.
and similarly the kidney fats of a deer, which are not NAMED Cheilev are
not banned due to MA no matter how much they look like cow kidney fats,
even though cooking deer meat with milk is Assur due to MA.
The Mishnah 72b Chullin, describes a non fully gestated preemie as a non
animal. Non animal = soy = no MAyin


JEWISH STATUS of AAvinu

As for the Jewish status of the Yidden before MTorah -
Firstly, Medrashim need not agree with one another; one Medrash may imply
they were Yidden, another Medrash may imply they were not.
Furthermore, the Medrash Reb Zev refers to - that Moshe Rabbenu defended
the Yidden, arguing that the contract was not consummated [the Luchos had
not yet been accepted by the Yidden] when they worshipped the GCalf - has
no direct Halachic component to it
Reb Zev may quote a Vertl proposing there was no transgression because they
were not fully Jewish, but that is all it is - a Vertl and not at all a
reflection of Halacha.

Reb Zev posits that EVERYONE [other than the MChochma] agrees that our
ancestors before MTorah were not Yidden.
Please provide some sources.
As for the argument that if we were Yidden before MTorah MosheR would be a
Mamzer as would be all Cohanim to this day; it seems this assertion is
also predicated
upon a selective reading of chosen Medrashim.

As for Dovid Hamelech legitimacy, it seems you are referring to his
ancestry from Lot. Was Lot Jewish?


ISSUR BBCh

I thank Reb Micha for noting that the Issur HaNaAh of BBCh does not qualify
as an Issur Mossif which would override the rule of Ein Issur Chal Ul
Issur. This rule can be illustrated with the following fishing metaphor -
only one fish can be caught on a hook UNLESS a much larger fish comes along
and snaps up the fish which is already on your hook.
The RamBaM proves this must be so because the rule EICHAIssur means there
is no BBCh prohibition to EAT nor to gain BENEFIT from non-Kosher meat that
has been cooked with milk. [it is however, prohibited to COOK them] Now if
there is an Issur HaNaAh which is independent of the Issur Achila, that
would be an Issur Mossif and it should prohibit us gaining any benefit from
Neveila or Tereifa meat cooked with milk [similarly, if it is an
independent Issur then it would apply simply because it occurs
simultaneously with the Issur Achilah]. But the meat/milk is Muttar
BeHaNaAh. This is the Astonishing Consideration that the RaMBaM points out
- the Issur HaNaAh is just an extension of the Issur Achilah.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170901/16d6ecdd/attachment-0001.htm>

We asked, why not apply the rule of ZVZGo to permit eggs are inside a hen
which becomes a Tereifa? These eggs, after all, have developed partially
before the hen became a Tereifa and are thus ZVZGo

Reb Zev asks, in that case - Why not ask the hen's meat was mostly grown before
it became a Tereifah. [BTW we do not require MOSTLY for ZVZGorem, even a
little bit will do]

That is a Q I did not ask in order to keep the post uncomplicated. However,
for the engaged reader, it is clearly included in and answered by the
proposition I presented. It is only when a Halachic determination must be
made that we consider the arguments of Ubbar Yerech Immo and ZVZGorem. Just
as when the hen becomes a Tereifa the eggs are Tereifos because the
opportunity for ZVZGo has passed and we employ UYImmo, the same will be
true for determining the status of the Flieshch of the hen.
The parallel case for Fleisch is where a foetus is conceived from a Tereifa
and a non Tereifa. But this too is misleading because the conception of a
foetus is akin to the hatching of an egg. An egg which is Tereif, will
hatch a Kosher chick because it is a new entity.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170901/9bd1f51d/attachment-0001.htm>

.

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> I just came across someone who has somehow gained the impression
> that mishnah is torah sheb`al peh, but gemara is not, and we may
> disagree with it. "Mishnah is of course Torah sh'b'al peh; no
> one argues otherwise.  But while Gemara is encompassed within
> the rubric of the oral law, it is fundamentally different from
> Mishnah. It is comprised of debate and dispute and assertions
> made without backup and incorrect statements and statements that
> seem problematic to our minds."
>
> Any suggestions for how to counter this view most effectively,
> assuming he doesn't accept my mere assertion that this is not
> so? Recommended reading? I gather this person, who identifies
> as Orthodox, studies daf yomi in English but isn't very fluent
> in Hebrew.

I could respond in any of several ways.

Are you so sure that this person really is wrong? How do you define
the term "Torah Sheb'al Peh", and how does he define it? It might
simply be that you are talking past each other. (This is not trivial.
I had always thought that Torah Shebiksav is limited to the Chumash,
until a few years ago, when I was told by the listmembers here that
Nach is also included.)

Is there really that much difference between Mishna and Gemara as this
person thinks? Gemara does go into greater detail, but Mishna DOES
contain "debate and dispute and assertions made without backup". From
a quick look in my siddur at Bameh Madlikin, I see that ALL of the
first five mishnayos give opposing views without any scriptural
sources, and with hardly any logical arguments.

Does this person really think that the Mishna is free of "statements
that seem problematic to our minds"? Again I will cite Bameh Madlikin:
What about women who die in childbirth because they weren't careful
about those three mitzvos? (This is not to suggest that I disagree
with the Mishna myself, only to prod that person into examining his
stereotypes about mishnayos.)

This person feels that we may disagree with gemara but not with
mishna? I might be mistaken on this point, but I think one can find
examples of a "stam mishna" (a mishna that contains only one opinion,
and that opinion is not attributed to any specific person) where the
actual halacha is different. I'd think that if someone felt we're not
allowed to disagree with a mishna, then that person would be surprised
to find that the mishna declares the halacha to be ABC, yet our
practice is XYZ.

Akiva Miller

Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel?

Ben

On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
>   It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system
>     of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to
>     see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or
>     murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow
>     one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and
>     speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes.

I would ask where the current orthodox leadership believes the following

We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so that we
know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power and
sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow, false,
and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why we
continue to remember Amalek.

Kvct
Joel rich 

> On Sep 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> 
> Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel?
> 
> Ben
> 
>> On 8/31/2017 9:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
>>  It thus emerges that no national regime may espouse a single system
>>    of beliefs. Rather, it must only serve its function, which is to
>>    see that no one perpetrates injustice against another, steals, or
>>    murders, for if not for the fear of the regime, people would swallow
>>    one another alive. However, with regard to opinion, religion, and
>>    speech, everyone shall be free to do as he wishes.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?
> q=AXicY2Rm0JnHwKAKxEU5lYYmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGUWhi5JUY65hkam
> pgYmDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_c
> Sy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAM9csVA&;Z
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 Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:23:21AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
: Did RMF believe the below in regards to the State of Israel?

I would GUESS that this dilemma, the desirability of Jews living according
to Judaism vs that of not imposing ideology, was part of the worldview
that led to RMF not being a Zionist. The conflict is a problem with a
Jewish State that predates the vast majority accepting a Torah-based
ideology.

But I have a feeling that's all we can do on this one, state our guesses.



I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ
Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas
haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's
because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties.

And given that the Sanhedrin lost the command to perform makkos along with
that of dinei nefasho with leaving the lishkas hagazis, they basically got
out of the enforcing observance business. Power was left to legislate,
interpret, dinei mamonos, kenasos, qidush hachodesh... But corporal
and capital punishment were not longer mandatory, and only applied
extra-Judicially when there was sufficient need.

So it seems to me that before we lost the autonomous state, the state
wasn't trying to impose ideology on a masses that didn't embrace it
either.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> I should point out that there is indication that the late second BHMQ
> Sanhedrin apparently agreed. What was the self-exile from the Lishkas
> haGazis about? Rashi (Sanhedrin 41 "ela dinei nefashos") says that it's
> because they couldn't keep up with the demand for death penalties.

That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I
don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand.
"Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and
so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a
negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large. The Torah's
justice system envisions a society where the death penalty means something.
Once society has deteriorated to the point where most members don't uphold
the Torah's basic value system, the Sanhedrin becomes counter-productive,
and they recognized this.

The implications for today are self-evident.

As to RMF, he addresses the Hasmonean kingdom in this very drasha (I didn't
mention or translate it for the sake of brevity). He worked with Chinuch
Atzmai, and his positions on questions like abortion and end-of-life
impacted Israeli public policy, he was well aware that the early State of
Israel was ideology-driven, and the critique he applies here would
presumably apply to Israel as well. It is not very different from the
general Ashkenazi Haredi critique of the state and the belief that the
Zionists actively fought against religious practice.

-- 
Rabbi Elli Fischer
Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting
fischer.tir...@gmail.com
Twitter: @adderabbi

On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:58:23PM +0300, Elli Fischer wrote:
: That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I
: don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand.

Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham",

:-)BBii!
-Micha


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



_______________________________________________
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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)