Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 024

Sunday, October 18 1998

• Intermarried relatives
• Ron Arad - 12 years
• angelic question
• Re: angelic question
• Aveir Lishma
• Authorship of the Mishnah
• Re: angelic question
• Re: angelic question
• [none]
• Shulchan Aruch & Truth
• Re: Avodah V2 #22
• misc.
• Re: Avodah V2 #23

Curious to know how others would  have handled the following actual
cases.

I. An Avreich's (former Bal Tshuva) non Jewish stepfather died in an
accident several days before Yom Tov. He lives in Israel while his
mother lives in America. She says she can deal with his missing the
funeral.

Would you advise him to 1) drop everything to go to the funeral or 2)
go Chol HaMoed so that he misses the funeral but is there to comfort his
mother 3) not go at all?

I have received two conflicting answers 1) the only thing that matters
is that his mother is obviously suffering and her son must drop
everything to comfort her. Her statement that she accepts that he can't
make the funeral is to be disregarded 2).while there is a requirement of
kibud aim, since she has stated that she understands the extreme stress
placed on him and his family if he comes in time for the funeral -  that
absolves him of messing up Yom Tov with his family. Furthermore
attending the funeral conveys the message  - to his non religious family
and friends that the marriage was legitimate

II. A Bal Tshuva who has become a Mea Shaarim Chasid has siblings that
have married non Jews. His non religious father is very ill and wants
the whole family together for the first time for the upcoming Bar Mitzva
of the Chasid's son. The Chasid and his wife don't want their fully
Chasidic children exposed to the non Jewish spouses nor do they want to
have to deal them.

Widespread intermarriage has made situations of this type common,
however,  I have not seen guidelines in the literature for dealing with
them. However, I have been told that there is a difference between
Ashknazim and Sefardim.Any information of how these situations are
handled would be appreciated.

                                                      Daniel Eidensohn

As of last Friday (Oct 16, 1998), Ron Arad has been held for 12 years. To see
what you can do, see http://www.ron-arad.org.il

-mi

PS: Yes, I realize this post is off topic. However, pikuach nefesh docheh kol
haMembership Agreement kulah.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5952 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 17-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

I was discussing with RYGB on Friday if it's possible to say that angels
(malachim) have bechira. After doing a little research it seems clear
that angels don't have a yetzer hara but that doesn't exclude them from
having bechira (much like Adom before the sin). RYGB proved that it's
possible to say that angels have bechira when they come down to Earth but
we were debating if you could say they have bechira in heaven as well. If
someone can bring a source which says they do then we can better
understand the midrashim which say that the tree didn't follow Hashem when
it was commanded to have the bark taste like fruit or how the moon and the
sun can have a fight. If we can say that these midrashim refer to the
angels in charge of these items because they have bechira it makes a lot
more sense. If anyone has any info on the subject or other psatim for the
above mentioned midrashim please let me know
Elie Ginsparg

On Sat, 17 Oct 1998, Cheryl Maryles wrote:

> understand the midrashim which say that the tree didn't follow Hashem
> when it was commanded to have the bark taste like fruit or how the moon
> and the sun can have a fight. If we can say that these midrashim refer
> to the angels in charge of these items because they have bechira it
> makes a lot more sense. If anyone has any info on the subject or other
> psatim for the above mentioned midrashim please let me know Elie
> Ginsparg
> 

I personally feel that the malachim in question are considered no longer
"kamei Kudsah Berich Hu" when associated with earth, grass. etc, and
therefore do have bechira then.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

For an extraordinary peshat in the Nachash's words to Chava, as an
encouragement to her to commit an Aveira Lishma - and die for it! - see
the Meshech Chochmo there.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Eli Turkel on 10/13:
 2. On the authority of the mishna , I recall a Rashi that says the mishna
 is authoritative because it was done by all the gedolim of that generation
 and so is a psak of the sanhedrin.

Rich Wolpoe on 10/16:
     Back to the Mishno.  I suspect sure Rebbe rejected many braisos
     consiously, not because he was unaware of them.  

On the relationship of Rebbe to the Mishna:  I just went through a sugya
on Meg. 30a (mid) which seems to indicate pretty clearly that Rebbe authored
the Mishnah in accordance with his own opinions.  The issue is the statement
of the Mishnah that "if [R.H. Adar] falls in the midst of the week, we push 
[the reading of Shekalim] back to the shabbat before".  Rav & Shmuel disagree, 
Rav taking a literal reading of the Mishnah, Shmuel making an exception for
Friday, that one should read on the following Shabbat.  It turns out that 
this is based on a machloket Tannaim, between *Rebbe* and R' Shimon b. Elazar.
And it isn't resolved until the Rishonim: the Rif says that "we follow Rav
therefore Rav wins".  So it's an unresolved machloket Tannaim, which becomes
an unresolved machloket Amoraim, yet only Rebbe's opinion is recorded as
the anonymous (usually taken to be the majority?) opinion in the Mishnah.

This indicates to me, at least, that Rebbe is putting his personal stamp
on the Mishnah: he records *his* opinion as *the* psak, even though in the 
global sense it's still an unresolved machloket.  This would seem to be a
counterexample to R' Turkel's Rashi - it wasn't necessarily the opinion of 
the Sanhedrin, it was in at least some cases the opinion of the author, Rebbe.

Another counterpoint to R' Turkel's Rashi: if the Sanhedrin's power to 
resolve machlokot ceased with the departure from the Lishkat haGazit, in
what sense is the Mishnah done as a "psak of the Sanhedrin"?  They had no
power to pasken in a universally acceptable way at the time of Rebbe, 150
years later.  Is this where we need to get into Neusner's division of the
Mishnah into laws decided before 70 CE vs. laws decided between 70 and 135,
and laws decided after 135?  Semi-tangentially, what role did the San-
hedrin have after they left the Lishkat haGazit until they disbanded in
the early 4th century, if they couldn't resolve machlokot and they couldn't
decide dinei nefashot?  Did it exist solely to sanctify the months?   

In a message dated 98-10-17 23:36:26 EDT, you write:

<< 
 I was discussing with RYGB on Friday if it's possible to say that angels
 (malachim) have bechira. After doing a little research it seems clear
 that angels don't have a yetzer hara but that doesn't exclude them from
 having bechira (much like Adom before the sin). RYGB proved that it's
 possible to say that angels have bechira when they come down to Earth but
 we were debating if you could say they have bechira in heaven as well. If
 someone can bring a source which says they do then we can better
 understand the midrashim which say that the tree didn't follow Hashem when
 it was commanded to have the bark taste like fruit or how the moon and the
 sun can have a fight. If we can say that these midrashim refer to the
 angels in charge of these items because they have bechira it makes a lot
 more sense. If anyone has any info on the subject or other psatim for the
 above mentioned midrashim please let me know
 Elie Ginsparg
  >>
What was the proof that they can have bechira on earth? While not conclusive,
I would think that the angels not being able to destroy sdom(as Rashi says-
sheen hadavar brshutan) or the medrash re: 2 angels on Friday night being
"forced" to say "let it be like this next week" implied a lack of bchira.
Having said that, I've never been sure how to understand the tree/fruit
medrash.

Shavua Tov,
Joel Rich

On Sat, 17 Oct 1998 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> What was the proof that they can have bechira on earth? While not conclusive,

1. The episode at the end of this week's parasha: "Va'yovo'u Bnei Elokim
al bnos ha'adam."

2. The sin of those sent to destroy Sdom: "Ki mash'chisim *anachnu* es
ha'ir."

There are probably more.

> I would think that the angels not being able to destroy sdom(as Rashi
> says- sheen hadavar brshutan) or the medrash re: 2 angels on Friday
> night being "forced" to say "let it be like this next week" implied a
> lack of bchira.  Having said that, I've never been sure how to
> understand the tree/fruit medrash. 
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Chana asks


>> I wasn't suggesting they were in isolation, but I was suggesting they
>> were not cooking either kodesh or chullin which was being treated as if
>> it was kodesh.  I am rather fascinated to know how:

>> a) you knead flour and bake bread;

>> b) you kasher and cut up meat;

>> c) you cook meat;

>> d) you milk a cow/goat and make cheese; or

>> e) you draw water from a well and carry it back to your house;

>> without touching the relevant item of food except via a utensil that is
>> not mekabil tumah.


I asked around and got some answers some more srious than others

1. Anything not in contact with water is not "muchshar: to become tameh.
   In particular if one roasts the meat it should not be a problem.

2. As I previously mentioned use stone vessels for drawing the water.

3. Have the husband do much of the work

4. Hire help

5. Have a lot of children so the wife is constantly pregnant!

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

In v2n19, Daniel Eidensohn talks about the SA "ignoring the traditional
approach of trying to Truth". As a halachic pluralist, I have to
disagree.There is no single Truth for the SA or anyone else to find. The
question is the means of mapping "eilu va'eilu" to produce a single
p'sak.

Eilu v'Eilu means that those who have done their best to understand an
issue and have come up with the best solution that they can find have
produced 1) a manifestation of Truth - michtav m'Eliyahu 2) might have
failed to find the Truth but it is considered Torah study anyway - Intro
to Igros Moshe

I have not found any source prior to the Beis Yosef who says that he is
not going to even try to answer the many profound questions raised but
instead will use a mechanical strategy of determining halacha l'maaseh.
I would appreciate any source that says the purely mechanical approach
is considered Hora'ah or Truth. In fact the acceptance of the Shulchan
Aruch was simply an acknowledgment that he had found an approach that
worked. His innovation of producing a code which can not be totally
consistent on a conceptual basis - is a major revolution in the history
of halacha.

In sum, the approach of the Beis Yosef is not covered by the concept of
Eilu v'Eilu. As pointed out by Rav Ben Tzion Abbah Shaul - the authority
of the Shulchan Aruch came from its acceptance. In contrast the
authority of the Arizal comes from it being True. 

The Beis Yosef states:"It occurred to me to posken the halacha and
decide amongst the sevorahs because this is the goal to produce a single
Torah and a single law but I saw that if I decided amongst the poskim
with assertions and talmudic proofs but Tosfos, Ramban, Rashba and Ran
are full of claims and counterproofs to every single position and who
would be so arrogant to introduce new claims and proofs. And even if
some one was so self confident to attempt to decide between these giants
it would still be impossible to do it on the basis of claims or proofs
because we don't fully understand them properly in any case and surely
we are incapable of producing a superior understanding of the halacha.
Furthermore even if it were possible to go in this path of [clarifying
the halacha based on understanding and proofs] it is impossible because
of the effort involved. Therefore I decided to base myself on the
majority of the Rif the Rambam Rosh...

                            Daniel Eidensohn

For that reason alone, you should move to Eretz Yisroel. The Beit Yoseph
Hashkacha meats (and Rav Machfud and other Sephardi Hashkachos) are less
expensive than the Ashkenazi Badatz meats.

Benjie Gerstman 
(a former landsman of yours)

> 
> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:21:11 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Sammy Ominsky <sambo@charm.net>
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #19 More on chumros
> 
> R. Wolpoe wrote:
> 
> >      I don't think of Glatt Kosher as a chumro anymore.  I think of it
as 
> >      the PSAK of the Beis Yoseph,
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but "Glatt" is not the psak of the Beit Yoseph. The standards
> for glatt are not the same, and are not acceptable to those of us who do
> keep Halak. Apparently "glatt" includes also those lesions that are
easily
> removed, while Halak Beit Yosef preludes _any_ lesions. There are Sefardi
> families here in Baltimore (including my own) who do not buy beef at all
> because we can't get halak here without considerable trouble or expense.
> So we "make do" with lamb. Personally, I don't mind so much, as I prefer
> the flavor of lamb anyway.
> 
> 
> >      Only I recongized that it's not practical to have separate 
> >      slaughterhouses for Ashkenazim and Sephardim.  
> 
> Why would seperate slaughterhouses be necessary? Only seperate labels and
> reliable mashgihim.
> 
> 
> - ---Sam
> 

I've been having technical difficulties (bad cable in the street) for
two months, so I'm entering a lot of discussions in the middle.  Here
are a few comments:

1.  The Gaon's comment to R. Chaim which Rabbi Teitz quoted is a little
puzzling, since, unlike the many other opinions, both Rashi and Rabbeinu
Tam tefillin have legitimate continuous histories (the Gaon may not have
known the archaeological evidence; he surely knew the Rambam's tshuva).
    I prefer to understand the comment differently.  There is a class of
minhagim which cannot legitimately be predicated of a place because they
are confined to small numbers of exceptionally pious people (Ashkenazim
davening nusach Ari used to be an example).  The question then is
whether they are independent of place, or whether it is still necessary,
only not sufficient, that they be a local custom in order for the
exceptionally pious person to adopt them.  The answer is the latter.

Incidentally, I once encountered a case containing three pairs of
tefillin.  Its owner was not present.  My best guess (with which I'm
still not satisfied) was that it was owned by a pair of Siamese twins -
two heads, one left arm - of exceptional piety.  Any better suggestions?

2.  The Beith Yosef gives two reasons for picking the voting rule: (i)
who would dare ... ? (ii) deciding rationally would take too long.  They
certainly seem contradictory.
  Could it be that deciding rationally would make the book useless as a
sefer psak (it would still, of course, serve as useful collection of
sources)? The user's reasoning need not parallel the Beith Yosef's. 
Compare the Raavad's first hassaga to the Rambam's hakdama.
  I have not read all of Maggid Meisharim, but I have never encountered
a psak in it.  I don't have the impresion that the Maggid taught halacha
to the Beith Yosef.

3.  I vaguely recall a gemara which indicated that women were not
permitted to bake bread at Rebbi's house, to ensure that the challah
would be tahor.

4.  Once a sefardi is in an Ashkenazi house he surely should realize
that stam keilim einan bnei yoman.  I imagine that you wonder whether
you should put yourself in that position at all.

5.  (New subject)  What is the relationship between the American
institution called a synagogue and the halachic institution called a
kehilla?

David Riceman

Richard Wolpoe wrote:

<<
 I believe IMHO 
 Rashi does this in Chumash a lot, i.e. stretching peshat here so that 
 it does not lead to a stiro there.
>>

Rashi writes ( B'rashis 3:8 ) "There are many medrashim, and I only come
"lifshuto shel mikra" and the Aggada that resolves the words of the psukim...'
Many people assume that Rashi is bringing p'shat.  Rashi, by his own admission
here, uses d'rash to resolve p'shat difficulties.  

P'shat, in its simplist ( p'shat ) sense, means literal translation of the
words.  Of course, halacha does not work along these lines, as we well know.
Halacha works on d'rash.

What has happened over the course of the centuries of using Rashi as a primary
source to explain the Chumash is that we have supplanted p'shat for Rashi's
d'rash explanation.  What Nechama Lebovitz tried to do, and succeeded in doing
with her gilyonot, is to reintroduce p'shat.  Her famous question: "Mah kasheh
l'Rashi?" forces us to look at the words of the text and try and figure out
what true p'shat is, and then see what the difficulty was that Rashi was
trying to resolve.

When Rashi wrote his perush, he probably figured that people would see the
difficulty immediately, and look to see how he answered it, rather than assume
that his explanation is what the words actually mean.

Eliyahu Teitz

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]