Avodah Mailing List

Volume 42: Number 61

Sun, 08 Sep 2024

• 1. Re: Tzedaka allocations (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Murder a Chok or Logically Compelling also KaVuA, OBriens Meat (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: rosh chodesh av (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: O'Brien's Quality Meat - Kol DePorish MeRubbah Porish also KaVuA, OBriens Meat (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Every Bullet Has Its Address (Simon Montagu)
• 6. Murder a Chok or Logically Compelling (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 7. Kol DePorish MeRubbah Porish (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 8. Re: Kol DePorish MeRubbah Porish (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: DELAYING THE CONGREGATION THROUGH PROLONGED PERSONAL PRAYER (Achdut18)
• 10. Re: Murder a Chok or Logically Compelling (Micha Berger)

On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 05:52:46PM -0400, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> Tzedaka is an area that I've found fascinating for a while. IMHO
> halacha/hashkafa provides general guidelines, but leaves a lot up to the
> individual. I've often thought that the process involved in allocations is
> a wonderful opportunity to clarify one's own thinking as to hkbh's
> priorities. When one just gives to a general fund, their funds may be
> allocated correctly, but they may miss an opportunity for growth. Thoughts?

More than that, the only way some causes would get sufficient funding is
because different people will have different priorities. If the rules
were tighter, people would support their family, friends and neighbors
the most. (Since aniyei irekha is a rule,) People in rural areas with
less family would suffer more. Yeshivos would get less money than food
banks, and those that have less wealthy alumni (assuming one's yeshiva is
"irekha") would suffer and likely shut down. Etc...

Chodesh Tov!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   but by rubbing one stone against another,
Author: Widen Your Tent      sparks of fire emerge. 
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz

On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 01:58:01PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> R Micha, you wrote - Consequentialism - the best outcome for the most people
> -
> but not in all circumstances

The definition of Conesequentialism is that the moral choice is the one
with the best outcome for the most people.

So I don't fully understand what your "but" means.

If you mean you are not promoting Consequentialism, no surprise. My posts
were examples of where it doesn't work. Even though at first glance it
seems like such a logical approach to Morality.

But if one isn't a Consequentialist, there is not much weight to "but
he would have died anyway." We aren't judging morality by measuring
outcomes. So your initial question is far far weaker.

On the other hand, you later argue in favor of consequentialism. (Which I
wil point out when I get there.) So I don't understand your position.

> only where someone is anyway going to die, the boat example
> or where someone will certainly be killed, what makes your blood redder
> than his?

Excewpt that R Aqiva lets you keep that canteen of water in the desert.
You are allowed to put yourself first. R Shimon sees it as akin to aniyei
irekha qodmin -- you have a greater moral duty to those who depend on you
than to others.

> R Micha seemed to equating those cases to taking a random fellow
> and killing them for spare parts

I never made an equation. I defined theories of morality. I then followed
up with an post that ran through the same material as the first one,
explaining how that's what I am doing.

> R Micha proposes that Torah calls for Virtue Ethics
> that our primary concern is Middos Tovos ("virtues')

> No Rashi says it is determined by what HKBH sees
> one life is as good as any other life
> and two lives is always better than one life

How is that "no"? What does the value of a life have to do with assessing
an act based on the underlying middos (1) that motivate it and (2) that
it fosters?

In any case, where do you see your seifa -- that two lives is always better
than one. It was only mutar to turn in Shiva ben Bichri, who would have
died anyway either because

1- the enemy picked who. It wasn't a case of "pick someone for us to kill".
(R Yochanan)
Or
2- he was chayav misah anyway. (Reish Laqish.)

We do not make the Consequentialist approach that better outcome, eg more
lifes, means more moral. That sugya shows that in the normal case, fewer
lives besheiv ve'al ta'aseh is preferred over being actively involved in
causing fewer deaths.

R Aharon Rakeffet-Rothkoff told a story from Lebanon I. A few soldiers
were sent into a building to make sure it was clear of enemy. They make it
to the top of the building, give the "all clear", and many more are
sent in. The enemy blew up the building. So now he, as the rabbi on the scene
was asked this horrifying question:

The majority of chayalim are buried in the rubble, but there will be
a few soldiers on top. Do you bulldoze away the top of the pile, knowing
you will be condemning those on the top for the sake of a greater likelihood
of saving many?

RARR won't tell you what he said or what was done lemaaseh.

> That the entire town must sacrifice their life
> rather than give up one person
> is due to the Mitzvah of Kiddush HaShem

Where to you get that from the Tosefta or the Gemara? If it were about
qiddush hasheim, then why would it matter whether they pick the victim
or you do, or whether the victim would have been chayav misah in beis
din?

In any case, now you are arguing *for* Consequentilism? This is what
confuses me -- you opened by saying there are exceptions to judging
the morality actions by outcome, and now youre defending it.

Chodesh Tov!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The greatest discovery of all time is that
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   a person can change their future
Author: Widen Your Tent      by merely changing their attitude.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                 - Oprah Winfrey

On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 05:50:20PM -0400, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> What is the proper attitude to have onrosh chodesh av given it's the start
> of the nine days (sad) and but also rosh chodesh (happy)? Is it a dialectic
> state of mind?

I am a big believer in halakhah demanding ambivalence and nuance in our
reactions. Like the person who inherits a fortune being required to make
a Birkhas Dayan haEmes on his loss and a Shehpor HaTov vehaMeitiv for
the inheritance. (Berakhos 59b)

As I posted on Avodah in the past, I think this need for ambivalence is
the resolution of the conflict between "baavod resha'im rinah", saying
there is rejoicing when evil people die, and "binfol oyivkha al tismach",
which demands we mourn the loss of human life, even of our enemies.

I heard in the name of the last Lubavitcher Rebbe this kind of idea
to explain R Nachman's "Mitzvah gedolah lihyos besimchah tamid", and
"Mishnichnas Av memaatim besimchah." One can mourn despite maintaining
a baseline joy.

Human reactions are often self contradictory. But this allows us to
relate to the full complexity of the situation. I am therefore enamored
of the idea that halakhah at times demands ambivalence, rather than
push us toward simplistic stances.

Chodesh Tov!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Weeds are flowers too
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   once you get to know them.
Author: Widen Your Tent             - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 01:58:39PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> Please tell us more about Tosafos's definition (Chullin 95a "sefeiqo
> assur") that qavua describes a case where the item that is assur is NOT
> niqar.
> 
> Do you, R Micha, mean to say that Porish means that the item in Q IS
> Nikkar.
> Why is one case Nikkar whilst the other is not?

No, 180def opposite. An item that is not niqar is subject to rov. An
item that is niqar cannot be bateil, and thus neither is the possibility
bateil berov.

...
> whilst Porish means the Safek begins in the street where it cannot be
> identified. [he never had the ability to identify, even though it
> certainly came from a shop where it could have been identified]

Tosafos say that qavua is because we can identify stores -- niqar.

> R Micha explains RAE...

See RAE inside, and we'll continue.

I could be misunderstanding. But he speaks of the difference between
a safeiq in the metzi'us, where rov works, and one in the din, where
rov does not. Because it once came from a known store, the meat that
was qavua had a din, but the din is now subject to safeiq.

So it all revolves on whether the din was known but now we are unsure,
or the din was not ever known (by someone who was metzuveh in the din
in question).

And therefore if I realize now that this is a piece of meat I could
have once knon the din for, because I saw O'Brian's truck...

Chodesh Tov!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   but by rubbing one stone against another,
Author: Widen Your Tent      sparks of fire emerge. 
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz

On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 6:57?PM Akiva Miller via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> "They" say that every bullet has a predestined name and address.
> Unfortunately, I don't know who "they" are, and Google wasn't any help
> either.
>

I have heard this as "every bullet has its billet" which Google gives a lot
of different sources for, as so often happens

>
> To me, this clearly supports the idea that Hashem saw fit for this victim
> to die at this time and in this manner, and that the tree-chopper was
> simply Hashem's tool for this to happen.
>
>
Rashi (based on Mechilta) says something very similar on "veha'elohim inna
leyado", Shemot 21:13
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240904/58ba74be/attachment-0001.htm>

Where Baruch is threatening the life of Aharon
even if only inadvertently [he is standing on his air supply line]
Baruch is a Rodef
and must be killed.

Where the threat is from a third party
The third party is the Rodef - but we are unable to neutralise that Rodef
Rava Paskens, since in HKBHs eyes no one Js life is more valuable than
another
one may not kill EVEN in order to save their own life
and KVeChomer no outsider can kill
[so this is a LOGICAL argument, Lamah Li Kera Sevara Hu, it is NOT a Chok]

TTBOMKnowledge, this is the Halacha
And was presented in order to challenge the proposition
That Halacha, HKBHs commands, CAN runs contrary to common sense
As is illustrated by the ruling
That two lives are NOT more valuable than one

I do not understand why or how it is related,
but R Micha argued/presented the illustration of
A surgeon who can save 5 people
by randomly selecting and killing an uninvolved person
[which is clearly wrong, no?]
Thereby proving that we cannot simply argue
that the best outcome for the most people
Is the right choice

I do not suspect that anyone in the discussion proposed or entertained such
a thought
and the reason is because
The random person is UNINVOLVED
And it is self evident [Sevara, Lama Li Kera]
That it is utterly untenable that we randomly grab someone to save the life
of many.
And that is why I do not understand why R Micha made a reference to that
illustration.

R Micha added that Halacha presents a different subflavor of Deontology,
called
Virtue Ethics. i.e. that our primary concern is Middos Tovos ("virtues').

I do not understand this
As Rashi explains this case, Halacha determines the value of a Y life in
the eyes of HKBH
is the same be that Yid a RoshY or a Shoteh
I do not readily see how that relates to Middos Tovos.

As for deontology - ethical choice following rules - and its subflavours
I do not understand why this has anything to do with ethics

Our ethics are determined by being loyal to HKBH
Rava expresses that best by ruling that the life of a famous Rosh Yeshivah
Is no more valuable in the eyes of HKBH than the life of
an illiterate Y street sweeper
Or brain injured paraplegic.

R Micha also presents
Every Y life has infinite value,
Certainly, this is the foundation of Rava?s Pesak ? the RY and the brain
injured paraplegic
#######

We also touched upon Rava?s ruling
As it appears to contradict the ruling that
The entire city must perish rather than give up one Y to be executed
i.e. may lives are NOT more valued than one life
[This Q is posed by the Kessef Mishnah]
Which is resolved by understanding that
The Y in the city are being asked to trample upon their Yiddishkeit
Which invokes the Mitzvah of Kiddush HaShem
And the entire city is commanded in this Mitzvah
Because the enemy is perfectly capable of killing everyone
Their single intent and purpose is to humiliate the Y
[and it is likely that it is a Mitzvah for one to voluntarily go to the
enemy in order to save the city]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240908/31cc2812/attachment-0001.htm>

R Micha argued that according to Tosafos (Chullin 95a "sefeiqo assur")
qavua is when the item that is assur isn't niqar.

Now let?s think about this
The classic case of KaVuA is where Chaim enters a butcher shop
1 of 10 in the city
9 of which are K and one is non-K
Chaim is thinking about a complicated RaMBaM all the while
And later as he is strolling down the street with his shopping
can no longer recall if he bought snags from the non-K for the dog
Or from the K shop for the family
This is KaVuA, 50/50 and Assur
Even though most of the shops are K.

Now in what sense and at what time
Are the snags not Nikker?
R Micha, Why do you suggest they are not Nikker?

Compare that to that very bag of snags
Dropped by Chaim in horror when he realised he may be carrying non-K snags
[although any clear minded person would have just decided to use those
snags for the dog ? oif a MaAseh one asks no Qs]
Now Dovi finds that very bag of snags and is advised by his Rabbi
That they are K bcs it is Porish, and most of the shops are K.
I would suggest that THESE are not Nikkar.


R Micha also advises that RAE [Tesh 136] defines qavua
when the issur was once observed.
I do not know what that means
The very same bag of snags was certainly observed by SOMEBODY

I think R Micha means to say
Rov applies when those who find it
NEVER knew/could have known its true status
Qavua applies when those who have it
KNEW or could have known its status

R Micha?s you describe
Safeiq in metzi'us vs safeiq in din
to differentiate KaVua fron Kol DePorish
Is it not simpler and more elegant to say
One is a TaAroves ? that is Kol DePorish and we follow the majority
It is as though all the shops are unidentified and mixed
The other is not a TaAroves ? that is KaVuA and we CANNOT follow the
majority
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240908/4a979bc6/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Sep 08, 2024 at 12:58:01AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> The classic case of KaVuA is where Chaim enters a butcher shop
> 1 of 10 in the city
> 9 of which are K and one is non-K

The stores are niqarim, so they are qavu'os. Since, according to the cited
Tosafos, one is the cause of the other. And I believe R Aqiva Eiget gives
a solid explanation why.

...
> Now in what sense and at what time
> Are the snags not Nikker?

You still have things backwards. Since the store *IS* niqar, the meat is
qavua.

> R Micha also advises that RAE [Tesh 136] defines qavua

As in our conversation about murder, rather than repeat myself yet again,
I recomment looking at the cited sources yourself. Clearly my presentation
of them isn't making an impression.

..
> I think R Micha means to say
> Rov applies when those who find it
> NEVER knew/could have known its true status
> Qavua applies when those who have it
> KNEW or could have known its status

That's exactly what RAE says, yes. Rov is a rule for determining the
halakhah when the metzi'us isn't known. If the halakhah was ever
established (qavua) becuase the metzi'us was known then, we are in a
situation where the present doubt is in halakhah, not metzi'us, and
rov doesn't work then.

> R Micha's you describe
> Safeiq in metzi'us vs safeiq in din
> to differentiate KaVua fron Kol DePorish
> Is it not simpler and more elegant to say
> One is a TaAroves -- that is Kol DePorish and we follow the majority
> It is as though all the shops are unidentified and mixed

Same thing as the distinction I was making about niqar. It isn't simpler
and more elegant. The situation is that one is a mixture and one is known
entities. RAE explains *why* rov works for one and not the other.

By the way, your explanation of rov has to work for ruba deleisa leqaman
too. Not a literal mixed set, but a hypothetical one, the "mixture" of all
meat in the area or something. And then, why is this set a taaroves, but
the set of meat from known (niqar) stores not?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger                 Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   In that space is our power to choose our
Author: Widen Your Tent      response. In our response lies our growth
-- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    and our freedom. -- Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

Sunday, August 21, 2022, 3:25:47 PM, [R Joel Rich] wrote:
> From the RCA Koren:
...
> A recurring principle in the laws of the synagogue is the need to
> avoid unnecessary
> burdening of the congregation, primarily through delays of the service
> when a good portion of the congregation will be forced to stand idle. As
> such, when the congregation is awaiting the beginning of the repetition of
> the Shemoneh Esren, there is the concern that there will be a significant lag
> between the point at which most of the congregation completes their silent
> prayer and the Shaliah Tzibbur beginning...

So, what is "unnecessary burdening?" And, what is a "reasonable davening
speed for the shmoneh esrai?" And, does it matter if it is an early
morning weekday shacharit vs a late morning shacharit vs a shabbat
morning shacharit?

There is a vast chasm between a delay of 2 minutes vs a delay of 10
minutes.

On Sun, Sep 08, 2024 at 12:39:30AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote:
> The third party is the Rodef - but we are unable to neutralise that Rodef
> Rava Paskens, since in HKBHs eyes no one Js life is more valuable than
> another
> one may not kill EVEN in order to save their own life
> and KVeChomer no outsider can kill
> [so this is a LOGICAL argument, Lamah Li Kera Sevara Hu, it is NOT a Chok]
> 
> TTBOMKnowledge, this is the Halacha
> And was presented in order to challenge the proposition
> That Halacha, HKBHs commands, CAN runs contrary to common sense

That halakhah doesn't assume a Consequentialist system of ethics.

It does indeed make sense. Once you accept any of the numerous arguments
proof that having the best outcome for the most people is not the best
moral code.

As you put it about third parties... Damage or boon caused by third parties
isn't about you making the right choice, it's about those third parties doing
so. Which presumes a Deontological ethics -- one in which the morality of
a choice depends on the rules of behavior themselves more so than outcomes.

In my first post on this discussion I posed three possible reasons why halakhah
would be deontological. And they are not mutually exclusive. In short:
1- Every moment of human life is of infinite value, and one cannot compare
infinities.
2- People act. But Hashem controls outcomes.
3- Our whole purpose in olam hazeh is to refine souls. And thus the
world is made (see answers 1 or 2) such that our choices matter more
than their outcomes. #3 argues for Virtue Ethics in particular. But then,
so does all the attention paid to Middos.

> I do not understand why or how it is related,

Perhaps google the terms I introduced: Consequentialism, Deontology, and
Virtue Ethics. Clearly my attempts to define them aren't working for you.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Man is capable of changing the world for the
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   better if possible, and of changing himself for
Author: Widen Your Tent      the better if necessary.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF          - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning


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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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.)