Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 151

Sun, 15 Jul 2007

• 1. Re: Tisha B'Av and aveilus (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: kesuvah (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Required beliefs (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Required beliefs (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Re: kesuvah (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 6. Re: Falling Tallis (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. Adam vs. Ish (Eli Linas)
• 8. Yeshivish masechtot (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Falling Tallis (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Determining Shemitta by prozbul (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 11. Re: kesuvah (Arie Folger)
• 12. Re: Required beliefs (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Re: Determining Shemitta by prozbul (Zev Sero)
• 14. Fw: [Areivim] A Picture Perfect Friday Night (SBA)
• 15. kamztah and bar-kamztah (Eli Turkel)

On Mon, July 9, 2007 11:34 am, R Jonathan Baker wrote:
:> Aveilus is a mitzvah that channels and harnesses the feelings of
:> loss.
:> As RJR writes, it takes it as a given that those feelings are there.

:> The notion he attributes RYBS, that the qiyum of aveilus is the
:> sadness, doesn't seem muchrakh. Aveilus starts with sadness and
:> teaches how to express it.
:
: In the normal course of things, yes - you start from the death, when
: the feelings are strongest, and the aveilus allows you to direct them
: in productive ways, as they guide you towards reintegration into
: normal
: life.  The feelings are there, the aveilus acts on them to reduce
: them.

Shapir ke'amres. I retract my suggestion.

...
: In parallel with that, the fasting/inuyim, exactly parallel to Yom
: Kippur, invokes feelings of teshuvah, davka *because* of Yom Kippur...
...
: IIRC from R' Mayer Twersky - that the inuyim, while parallel,
: are supposed to have different effects - for Tisha B'Av, to increase
: the
: "feeling bad", for Yom Kippur, to separate us from the cares of the
: world
: so that we focus on our true selves and teshuvah.

For YK, the innuyim are probably a mega-shevisah. That's R' Moshe
Soloveitchik's explanation for why the Rambam (Hil Shevisas Asor 1:5)
links the innuyim to the expression "Shabbos Shabbason". I was going
to explain it at length, but I see it is already done at
<http://www.vbm-torah.org/roshandyk/yk57-ral.htm>, notes from a shiur
by R' Aharon Lichtenstein.

This dits what your recall from RMT. Yom Kippur is about shevisah from
olam hazeh and our nefashos beheimiyos.

But one could still preserve the parallel... Aveilus is there to
create remorse and sadness. Innuyim are there at the crescendo of the
mourning to channel it into teshuvah via memories of teshuvah. The the
role is not the same as YK's, as it would make 9 beAv's innuyim about
remembering YK, whereas YK is about shevisah from everything but
teshuvah.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, July 9, 2007 12:21 pm, M Cohen wrote:
: does anyone have any maareh m'komos or insights into the current
: minhag not
: to pay kesuvah?
: (the minhag in EY may be different)

In dinei mamunus, norms often trump the letter of choshein mishpat.
Whether because hamotzi meichaveiro, or the other was implicitly
mocheil by never expecting more, hefqeir BD, or the power of tov'ei
ha'ir...

For example, when selling chameitz, after all the traditional qinyanim
are performed, one closes with a handshake. Because in our lands,
that's how deals are closed.

And so, I am unsurprised that the norm is to look to the "halachic
will" or local inheritance law rather than the words of the kesuvah.
(I am assuming the alternative would have been to make it in
addition.)

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Thu, July 12, 2007 11:49 am, Rich, Joel wrote:
: 	Are there any opinions out there who take issue with the
: Rambam's requirement that to be a "full fledged" ben noach you must
: not only carry out the 7 mitzvot but do so because you believe HKB"H
: gave Moshe the Torah...

Actually, the Rambam (Melakhim 8:11) only discusses two possibilities
-- someone who keeps them because they were reaffirmed by Moshe at
Sinai, and someone who keeps them because they are logically
compelling. (Who isn't a ger toshav [regardless of passing other
requirements] nor chasidei umos ha'alom, but is a chakham.)

I therefore do not know what he would say about someone who keeps them
because of the berisim of Adam and Noach but not believe in Torah
miSinai. Besides, while such a belief system is possible, how likely
is it that someone believes in a historical Adam or Noach with whom
Hashem made a beris, but not ma'amud har Sinai?

From <http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/noach2.html>, footnote 53:
> Rabbi Yosef Engel, Beit Otzar Marechet 1-1: '7, 9. "The seven Noachide
> commandments are still obligatory to Jews, and their authority derives
> from their pre-Sinai obligation. The Torah... merely added to
> Noachide laws..."

This footnote is on an interesting statement of the Meshekh Chokhmah
that a child who is a bar da'as WRT the 7 mitzvos must keep them,
since legabai the 7 mitzvos, there is no din of bar mitzvah -- it
begins with comprehension. And the Seridei Eish speaks of Noachide
Marriage when a couple wedded in a manner pasul for a Jewish one.

The subject relates also to the connection between when they were
given, where in the Torah they're recorded, and the nature of the
chiyuv. See footnote 28.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

 


From <http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/noach2.html>, footnote 53:
> Rabbi Yosef Engel, Beit Otzar Marechet 1-1: '7, 9. "The seven Noachide

>commandments are still obligatory to Jews, and their authority derives

>from their pre-Sinai obligation. The Torah... merely added to  Noachide

>laws..."

This footnote is on an interesting statement of the Meshekh Chokhmah
that a child who is a bar da'as WRT the 7 mitzvos must keep them, since
legabai the 7 mitzvos, there is no din of bar mitzvah -- it begins with
comprehension. And the Seridei Eish speaks of Noachide Marriage when a
couple wedded in a manner pasul for a Jewish one.

The subject relates also to the connection between when they were given,
where in the Torah they're recorded, and the nature of the chiyuv. See
footnote 28.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

========================================================================
======
If this literally mean " merely added to  Noachide laws..." -  why would
we need the concept of there is nothing forbidden to Non-jews is
permitted to jews?
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.

R' Mordechai Cohen asked:
> does anyone have any maareh m'komos or insights into the current
> minhag not to pay kesuvah? (the minhag in EY may be different)

I am astounded that such a minhag exists.

It is difficult to imagine that people who have a minhag to write a 
kesubah would also have a minhag not to pay it.

My guess is that RMC meant something other than what it sounds like 
to me. Can you please explain what you mean?

Akiva Miller

R' Dov Kay wrote:
> I recall seeing that R. SZ Auerbach in Halichos Shlomo also
> paskens that one does not make a new b'rocho in this case.
> Can't remember his sevara, though.

Halichos Shlomo, Tefilah 3:14 says: "If ones tallis fell during 
Tefila, when he goes back and puts it on he does not say the bracha, 
even if it fell entirely off, but if it fell after the end of the 
Tefila he does have to say the bracha."

The notes there explain: A tallis ought to follow the same halacha as 
in Mishne Brura 25:44, which says that nowadays, if the tefillin 
moved from their place during Tefila, we do not say a bracha when 
replacing them.

He also quotes MB 25:43, which says that if when saying the bracha on 
his tefilin, he had in mind that he'd be taking them off and 
replacing them several times that day, this too eliminates the need 
for a bracha if the tefillin happened to move from their place. 
Therefore, he concludes, "it's pashut that nowadays, when everyone 
normally wears a tallis, and it is embarrassing to sit without one. 
As it is explained in [Shulchan Aruch] 13:3, it is a kavod habriyos 
situation, so everyone holds we don't make a bracha unless it fell 
after the Tefila ended, because when he first put it on, he certainly 
had it in mind to wear it for the entire Tefila, and such is the 
minhag."

(Based on this reasoning it is clear to me (though others might 
disagree), that when he referred to the end of the Tefila, he did NOT 
mean the end of Shmoneh Esreh, but that he meant the end of the time 
when it is normal to wear a tallis, i.e. the end of Shacharis/Musaf.)

Akiva Miller

									Bs"D
Shalom all,
	Anybody have any yedios about the difference between adam and ish 
(aside from Meir Shapiro's arvus vort)? Please give mekoros?
Eli

I realize the "tradition" of certain masechtot being learned in yeshivot
while others were  "orphaned" stretches back to the gamara itself but
what were the reasons and were they consistent through time (e.g.
practical  applicability,  grounds for deep analysis...)
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/20070713/fdb76355/attachment.html 

 


He also quotes MB 25:43, which says that if when saying the bracha on
his tefilin, he had in mind that he'd be taking them off and replacing
them several times that day, this too eliminates the need for a bracha
if the tefillin happened to move from their place. 
Therefore, he concludes, "it's pashut that nowadays, when everyone
normally wears a tallis, and it is embarrassing to sit without one. 


Akiva Miller

_______________________________________________

This wasn't the case in the time of the M"B?
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.

As is well known there  was a debate concerning the actual year of 
Shemitta. Rambam (Hilchos Shemitta chapter 10) following the views 
stated in gemora Arachin comes to a conclusion which is at odds with 
that of the Gaonim who apparently rely on a different tradition in 
gemora Avoda Zara. The Rambam ends up following the tradition of the 
gaonim - even though in a texhuva (#389 which is cited in part by Kesef 
Misha) he expresses doubts about this course of action.

The Rambam ends up relying on the  gaonim because they have a tradition 
that says that is what people do - even though it is against his 
understanding of Chazal. The question is why wasn't the question of what 
people have done resolved by simply looking at the prozbul documents. 
After all it is every seven years that a new set of documents is 
produced. There must be clear documentary evidence that predates the 
gaonim or at least is from the time of the gaonim.

1) Do we have ancient copies of prozbul?
2) Are they in agreement with the position of the gaonim?
3) Are they uniform in the system used or are some in agreement with the 
Rambam's understanding?


Daniel Eidensohn

RMCohen wrote:
> does anyone have any maareh m'komos or insights into the current minhag not
> to pay kesuvah?

The reason is that we cannot force women to accept a get, and hence, every get 
comes out of a negotiated settlement, which silently includes the ketubah.

KT,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

> 	Are there any opinions out there who take issue with the
> Rambam's requirement that to be a "full fledged" ben noach you must
> not only carry out the 7 mitzvot but do so because you believe HKB"H
> gave Moshe the Torah (e.g. what if an individual believed in them
> solely because he felt Adam Harishon got them )
> 	KT
> 	Joel Rich
> 	
	
=============================================================
		Note also that in hilchot mlachim by milchema the Rambam
says they must be given chance to make brit that they will accept the 7
mitzvot - I wonder if there too he means belief as well as action?
		
		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/20070713/5bda3628/attachment.htm 

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

> The Rambam ends up relying on the  gaonim because they have a tradition 
> that says that is what people do - even though it is against his 
> understanding of Chazal. The question is why wasn't the question of what 
> people have done resolved by simply looking at the prozbul documents. 
> After all it is every seven years that a new set of documents is 
> produced. There must be clear documentary evidence that predates the 
> gaonim or at least is from the time of the gaonim.

Documents?  At least in my experience, nowadays a pruzbul is verbal,
and I don't know why it would have been different in the Rambam's day.
And even if some people did write documents, where would they have
been kept for so many years, that the Rambam should have had access
to them, and why?  Even in the case of a bill of sale for land, which
is quite important, we assume that people only keep it for three years
unless they have reason to believe they'll need it later; a shtar
pruzbul would presumably be discarded as soon as the last debt was
collected, if not earlier.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

(Exported from Areivim)
From: Zev Sero <>
Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://www.lubavitch.com/top.html?ixobject=2019068
> Questions: Doesn't holding these events on Friday evenings between 5 and 
> 9 PM encourage Chilul Shabbos on the part of those who attend?

That was not the claim; it was that Chabad never does anything that is
even a bedieved, let alone against halacha. ...
People shouldn't drive on Shabbos, but if they drive to shul instead
of to the movies that's surely a good thing; 

I wonder if this is accepted by all - that mitzva habo be'aveireh is
preferable to aveireh habo be'aveirah..??

SBA

I was asked to move to avodah a discussion I started on Areivim based
on a shiur I just heard. In my response to some comments I will try and
give the major points.

First I would have great hesitancy of taking the stories historically.

Starting with the end - Beitar was destroyed after a multi year battle
and not strated by a minor irritant over some minhag. No one really heard
of Tur Malka. Josephus who records the battles leading to the churban in
great detail does not mention bar kamtza Nero died several years before
the destruction.

Interesting the person who made to the meal is not named while kamtza
who had nothing to do with the story is known.

Rather chazal wanted to give examples of the sinat chinam leading to
the destruction rather than give a historical account.

1. I mentioned the treatment of the Romans - my statement referred to
this gemara only and not other discussions in shas.

I would contrast the Gemara in Gittin to the story of Chanukah.

There Antiochus is the evil king who starts up with the Jews. Mattisyahu
kills the local Syrian-Greek over an issue of Avodah Zarah In
Gittin the Romans are treated very sympathetically. Nero (whoever he
represents) when presented with the accusations of Bar Kamtzah demands
proof. He shoots arrows to determine G-d's will and finally runs
away and converts. Vespasian also treats R. Yochanan Ben Zakai very
graciously. Only Titus is considered a total rasha.

In the story of Tur Malka the Jews kill Roman soldiers and the general
forgives them because of a miracle. Only after the Jews celebrate their
"victory" does he return and kill them. Even with Beitar it is the Jews
that instigate the battle.

The Jews on the contrary always act without thinking of the consequences
(see last Tosafot Gittin 65b). Bar Kamtza destroys the whole country
including himself over a petty fight. The chachamim at the meal dont
seem to react. Zercharya ben Avkilus seems to completely ignore the
seriousness of the insult to the emperor. In the last two stories the
Jews start up with the Romans over minor customs that certainly are not
within "yehareg ve-al ya-aovor".

2. The worst is Zercharya ben Avkilus. He takes on every chumra without
any thought of the consequences of the chumra. It seems even the chachamim
dont over-ride him because he represents the chumra. He is constantly
afraid of what people will say. Everyone in the shiur kept on asking
the question of what happened to "pikuach nefesh".

<<Actually that whole gemara is easily read as saying that once Hashem
had determined to bring about the churban, nothing would have prevented
it; it demonstrates this by showing what trivial mistakes led to it.
If those had not happened, something else would have. >>

I read the gemara as demonstrating the sinat chinam of the generation.
They themselves brought on the churban. This is clear from the actions of
the zealots who burnt all the food in Jerusalem. I have no idea of the
ideology of Zercharya ben Avkilus but clearly he felt that his halachic
fears were more important than insulting the enemy. I again contrast
this with the Maccabees who fought over basics of Judaism. The last
two segments dealing with revolts are minhagim that were meaningless
confirms this.

The rabbi compared this to those that take on every chumra with Shemitta
even if it means helping Hamas in Gaza.

<<Of course it's possible to take on every chumra of shmitta *without*
helping Hamas in Gaza, by doing without the produce, or by spending the
extra money to buy from hydroponic greenhouses or to import from places
that are neither under shmitta nor Hamas. After all, surely helping
Hamas is also an avera, and one that Zercharya ben Avkilus would not
have sanctioned.>>

Agreed completely. The rabbi was not against all chumrot. He was against
chumrot that lead to helping the enemy which is exactly the case of
Zercharya ben Avkilus. There is nothing wrong with the fears of Zercharya
ben Avkilus in some other circumstances. What is wrong with his approach
is having far-fetched fears and as a result insulting the Roman emperor.

<<The Gemara refers to his anava; this fear is nowhere to be found
in this analysis. His fear of what people would say was not a fear of
the people, but of the erroneous halachic conclusions they would reach.
It's called yir'as Shamayim, as in ekev anava.>>

and that over-rides pikuach nefesh? Again Tosafot stresses that they
trusted in themselves too much. I think the gemara is contrasting this
whole attitude with that of R. Yochanan Ben Zakai who saw the dangers
and took steps to work with the Romans rather than insulting them.
An interesting question which is not discussed anywhere I could find
is where was R. Yochanan ben Zakai when Zercharya ben Avkilus made his
statements. It is fairly clear he was not consulted. What we do know
from Josephus is that the zealots took over and eliminated everyone who
disagreed with them including leaders which probably led other leaders
to keep their opinions to themselves.

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

As an aside I mentioned that every single agricultural element the Jews
left in Gush Katif has been destroyed and the land returned to the desert
status it was before.

and this represents what RYBS and many others have pointed out that EY
was desolate during the entire galut and flowered only when the Jews
returned. Here where the Jews left the land returned to its desolate
state.

-- 
Eli Turkel


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 151
***************************************

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..."