Avodah Mailing List

Volume 38: Number 67

Thu, 20 Aug 2020

• 1. What to do in Elul? (Ken Bloom)
• 2. Brisker Dialectics? (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: birchat hanehenin (Danny Schoemann)
• 4. Re: birchat hanehenin (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Re: Re'eih vs Shema (Danny Schoemann)
• 6. uncovered hair in home in front of relatives. looking for sources and current custom (mco...@touchlogic.com)
• 7. Re: Brisker Dialectics? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: birchat hanehenin (Micha Berger)
• 9. Limits of Parshanut (Micha Berger)

Can anyone share sources in mussar literature (or elsewhere) about what one
should do or think about to prepare for yamim noraim? I'm interested in
finding a guide to an Elul cheshbon hanefesh or something similar.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200817/81ff81ba/attachment-0001.html>

An important caveat (IMHO) from R' A Lebowitz to a number of shiurim from diverse speakers:
Me-....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I
just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y,
and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean
choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y?
R' AL-I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just a helpful way to contextualize the issues

I'm still thinking there's another paradigm shift coming, interested in hearing from others.

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/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200817/98ed01dd/attachment-0001.html>

> From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@Segalco.com>

> If one had full intent to be yotzeih with another's birchat hanehenin and then did not eat, is it a bracha l'vatala for him?

I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3  (excuse the Hebrew for the
????? crowd) - translation from Sefaria (after removing a Chumra not
in the original):

 ????? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ??????
?????????, ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ?????????
?????????????, ???? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???????.

"Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday
following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi
shebeirach [a blessing for those who fast on these days] and you
intended to fast, this is sufficient, and no other form of acceptance
is needed. "

???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????,
??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ???????
?????? ?????????????

"Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you
may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself."

This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query.

Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of
getting the best of both worlds.

Kol Tuv

- Danny

???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????, ????????,
??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ???????
?????? ?????????????

"Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you
may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself."

This last line is - in my mind - parallel to your query.

Seems that answering Amen - even with intention - is one way of
getting the best of both worlds.
==============================================
When I learned this with my chavruta a few months back my comment was - I'd
love to understand why there seem to be 3 statuses - machshava balma
(random thought?) which has no halachic significance, amira (specific oral
articulation) which is completely binding and amen/specific
machshava(really imho 2 separate items) which are somewhat indeterminate
(not welcome in a brisker world?)
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.

RMB reminded me of a vort I heard and said over at this week's Shabbos table.

The opening word of the Sedra - Re'eih - is seemingly superfluous. "I
present you today with [the ability to choose between] blessing or
curse".

What does "Look! I present you...." add?

The answer was exactly as RMB proposed:

> Whereas re'eih introduces the basis of bitachon. It's a way of viewing the
> world and framing our experience -- seeing Yad Hashem in events. Quite
> different than an abstract truth.

We need to look around and see how choice and its consequences are
built into the creation.

Kol Tuv

- Danny

#! ... May a women uncover her hair in private? Halachah addresses public,
semipublic, and private settings:

Public: The Torah states that a woman must completely cover her hair in a
public place. Some opinions state that under a tefach (a handbreadth, about
three inches total) of hair may show.

Semipublic: In a semipublic place, one opinion states that even if men are
not usually found there, a married woman must cover her hair.

When a woman covers her hair, this brings much blessing into the home

Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted
for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in
more recent times "the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover
their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors,
in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full
force of Jewish law and is obligatory...."

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that "[covering
hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required."

Can anyone tell me where this igros moshe is? 

 

#2 https://www.yoatzot.org/questions-and-answers/1910/

Question: Does a woman have to cover her hair in front of her brothers?


Answer: It is permissible to uncover your hair in your own home in the
presence of your father, husband and son.

Where it is customary and not considered offensive, a woman may uncover her
hair in front of her brother in the privacy of her own home.

Is this leniency known/relied upon? Is this what people are doing out there
today?

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200818/cf81b666/attachment-0001.html>

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:37:49PM +0000, Joel Rich wrote:
> Me-
>> ....... I've been thinking about your classes for a while and ........I
>> just wonder if you were totally sold on the "is the reason for A X Or Y,
>> and if it is, here are the implications " as if it's always a boolean
>> choice rather than possibly being some of X and some of Y?

> R' AL[ebowitz]-
>> I always tell the talmidim that things aren't that neat and this is just
>> a helpful way to contextualize the issues

When discussing Brisker vs Telzher derakhim, everyone focuses on "Vus?"
vs "Fahr vus?" (What? vs Why?)

But another major different is R' Shimon's heavy use of the concept of
hitztarfus -- the idea that a halakhah can be caused by the convergence
of multiple factors.

From Widen Your Tent (by me), sec. 6.3:

    But there is a second distinction: Rav Chaim would explain an
    apparent contradiction by finding "the chiluk," the distinction
    between two cases that we initially thought ought to be the same, or
    the distinction between the viewpoints in two sides of a dispute. Rav
    Chaim's is a reductionist approach to analyzing a topic; it teaches
    how to understand something by identifying and understanding each of
    its parts. This methodology is suited for identifying "the cause" of a
    law. Rav Shimon also invokes hitztarfus, fusion or connectedness. It
    allows us to better ask, once we know the parts, how do they combine
    and interact to produce the given result? From this vantage point,
    rather than looking for a single cause, we can see that a given
    ruling can come from the way in which many halachic causes combine.

    Suppose we were tasked to do analysis to find out why some accident
    happened. For example: Why did David hurt his foot? Because a
    paint can fell on it. Why did the can fall? Because someone else
    accidentally knocked it off its shelf. Why did he knock it off the
    shelf? Because his nose itched, and he lifted his hand to scratch
    it, and also because the shelf wasn't on its brackets correctly and
    wobbled a bit.

    However, it's equally true that he hurt his foot because even though
    he usually wears iron-toed hiking boots, he chose not to wear them
    that that day. And why did he not wear his boots? Because when he was
    looking for something to put on his feet, someone else had turned on
    the light in another room, which changed his train of thought. And
    so on. Every event has many causes, each of which in turn has its
    own many causes.

    Rarely does an event only have one cause. We get used to identifying
    "the cause" of something. I would instead suggest that every event
    is like "the perfect storm"; each one has combinations of factors
    that come to a head at the same point.

    Similarly, Rav Shimon saw no reason to assume that it takes one cause
    to create an obligation or prohibition, rather than a combination
    of them.

Which I then relate to R Shimon's approach to chessed as a widening of
one's "ani" to include others. (The way we naturally have little problem
giving to our children, because in a sense, they're "us".)

I also use the difference between the focus on reductionism vs
interconnectedness to explain a structural difference between Aristo's
books and the Mishnah. WHich may be more relevant to the point:

    This difference between Semitic and Yefetic perspectives can be seen
    by contrasting the style of Aristotle with that of Rabbi 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.

    That reductionism stands in contrast to the way Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi
    redacted the first Mishnah. The beginning of all of Mishnah could
    have said outright that Rabbi Eliezer ruled that the time for saying
    the evening Shema is from sunset and for the first third of the
    night. This is the way United States legal codes are arranged divided
    and subdivided into law, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph,
    clauses, and items, with an effort to minimize cross-references.

    Instead the first Mishnah makes its point by invoking the priesthood,
    purity, and the night shifts in the Temple, "from the time Kohanim
    [who went to the mikvah to be purified during the prior day] may
    enter to eat their terumah until the end of the first shift." It
    describes the start and end times for the mitzvah using referents
    that one wouldn't normally assume when starting study. This is not
    to confuse the issue or needlessly close study from non-initiates,
    but because the key to understanding one mitzvah necessarily includes
    its connections to everything else. The proper time to say Shema
    cannot be understood without that context.

    The task Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi set out to accomplish with the Mishnah
    was not to explain the rationales of the halachah, and therefore
    the Mishnah spells out this holistic understanding. We are left
    not knowing why the rules of when Kohanim who needed the mikvah
    may eat terumah or the time the first shift in the Beis Hamikdash
    ended add meaning to the time span in which the nighttime Shema may
    be said. But the Mishnah does record the law in memorizable form,
    and apparently that includes helping us remember the halachah by
    association to the other halachos it relates to.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
Author: Widen Your Tent      Kippur with that intent.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 02:55:45PM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote:
> I would compare it to the Kitzur in 127:3...
>     "Similarly, regarding the fasts on Monday, Thursday and Monday
>     following Pesach and Sukkos. If you answer Amein after the Mi
>     shebeirach ... and you intended to fast, this is sufficient...
>     "Nevertheless, if you change your mind, and do not wish to fast, you
>     may [eat], since you did not expressly commit yourself."

> This last line is -- in my mind -- parallel to your query.

> Seems that answering Amen -- even with intention -- is one way of
> getting the best of both worlds.

I think the best of both worlds may only because you said amein to blessing
the fasters, and not "me too" to someone's pledge to fast. There is mental
acceptance during a related verbal act. Not a verbal acceptance.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Education is not the filling of a bucket,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   but the lighting of a fire.
Author: Widen Your Tent                   - W.B. Yeats
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

Parshanut doesn't have rules of pesaq. Nothing ever ends an opinion
(lifsoq) once it is derived. So, those 98 ways become 9,604 ways, and
then 941,192 ways as each interpretation gets its 98 interpretations.

And then we have cases where those who pursue peshat -- Rashbam, IE,
most famously -- give a peshat in the pasuq which they acknowledge runs
against Chazal. But they feel Chazal weren't working bederekh peshat. (And
the Rashbam is clear that he doesn't believe Chazal were wrong, or that
anything he says about the pasuq has halachic signicance. E.g. see
his comments on "vayhi erev, vayhi boqer".)

But, procedurally, there still has to be rules for what kind of
interpretation is valid and what aren't. I cannot believe that people
can just make stuff up, and if fits a linguistic oddity of the text or
a wording in some source of Chazal it's necessarily Torah.

I don't know what the limits are. All I know is the limits of my own
comfort zone.

*To me*, "toras Hashem temimah" means that if I have a theory of how
to understand something aggadic -- theology, mussar or parshanut -- it
must be driven by material internal to the existing body Torah. If I am
forced to an an entirely new understanding that no one proposed before to
answer a scientific question, I would prefer leaving the question tabled,
teiqu, than to run with this kind of innovation.

To me, following a tendency I heard around YU from R YB Soloveitchik's
students (my own rebbe, R Dovid, was yet more conservative), this is
related to the difference between chiddush and shinui. "There is no beis
medrash without chiddush" because learning Torah means extrapolating
new points from the existing data. Extrapolation from and interpolation
between existing Torah "data points" is chiddush. Shinui is innovation
driven by something other than Torah.

I am not sure if RYBS would say that in the context of parshanut in
particular or not. As I said, as this point we're only discussing the
not-that-relevant topic of "Micha's comfort zone".

Chodesh Tov!
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
http://www.aishdas.org/asp               ... but you're the pilot.
Author: Widen Your Tent                          - R' Zelig Pliskin
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF


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



_______________________________________________
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.)