Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 22

Tue, 23 Oct 2007

• 1. Re: Rav Schachter on Kiddushei Ta'us; and a hypothesis re: Annulment (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. What happened to the nefesh asher asu b'charan? (david guttmann)
• 3. Birchos HaTorah after parshas HaTamid (Dov Kay)
• 4. Re: Minhag Yisroel and Gra on 2 Matzos vs.3 Matzos (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Re: Religion and Falsifiability (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: What did they learn in the yeshiva of Shem and Ever (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Why does Rosh Hashana come BEFORE Yom Kippur? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Religion and Falsifiability (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Re: Religion and Falsifiability (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Re: An-im Zemiros (Richard Wolpoe)

On 10/22/07, Elazar M. Teitz <remt@juno.com> wrote:
>
> <RRW's Hypothesis [caveat: this is probably based upon one of the Rishonim
> but I am not sure]:
> Hazal only use afk'inhu in the presence of a Defective Get. However, in
> the total absence of a Get, they do not use annulment.>
>
>      Afk'inhu is found in the g'mara in five cases:
>
>        1. When a get was given al t'nai, and an oness prevented the
> condition from being fulfilled (K'subos 3a)
>
>        2. When a get was sent by shaliach, and the husband nullified the
> shaliach, not in his presence (Gittin 33a)
>
>        3. When a sh'chiv meira gave his wife a get and then recovered, in
> which case midin haTorah the get is no get since it was given only in
> anticipation of death (Gittin 73a)
>
>      In these three cases, there is a defective get.  However, we also
> have
>
>        4. When a man compels a woman to agree to kiddushin (Bava Basra
> 48b)
>
>        5. When a man married a minor (kiddushin d'rabanan), and when she
> reaches maturity he prepares a chuppah to make his mariage d'oraisa, only to
> have someone else come and be m'kadesh her before the first one can (Y'vamos
> 110a)
>
>        In these two cases, there is no get, yet afk'inhu is applied.
> (These cases, however, are different in another regard as well: the
> hafka'ah is not a retroactive one, but is applied at the very beginning of
> what would otherwise be valid kiddushin.  Retroactive nullification is
> indeed only found in cases of a get with a defect.)
>
> EMT
>
>
AISI, #5 is a special case because it is not a real marriage entered to by
adults.
#4 MIGHT be a close to a  mikach ta'us.  IOW jsut as a man COMPELS a
marriage, it it could be conceivealbe that if he DECEIVED A marriage would
be similar  Dochak no doubt.

At any rate, regardless of the hypothesis, the nature [tzad hashaveh] of all
5 cases is indeed pretty narrow.  There is little evidence that Hazal would
have gone along with a more liberal annulment policy.

OTOH, can a legitimate Takkanah - like a prozbol - be done to  help prevent
agunos by some means of a prenuptial agreeement that would be Halachically
solid and NOT based upon speuclation?

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071022/04d9c542/attachment-0001.htm 

Again I am jumping into the middle of a discussion. I posted this a while
back based on the Pirush of a Talmid of R. Sa'adyah Gaon and also reported
by R. Yehudah Hachassid in the name of his father in his controversial (see
Iggerot Moshe) Pirush al Hatorah. It is in the introduction to Divrei
Hayamim in the Da'at Mikrah Tanach by R. Yehudah Kill.

http://yediah.blogspot.com/2007/01/egyptian-land-grab-real-story.html

According to this , though I did not see that specifically in either of the
two pirushim nor in R. Kill's discussion , there were remnants of the Nefesh
that Avraham and Sarah recruited all through the Mitzraim Galut working for
the children of Yosef and possibly [my conjecture] they helped during the
conquest at the time of Yehoshua. (Was Rahav a marrano?). 

In the scholarly world I remember reading an article by Prof. Ben Zion Luria
about the "Semitic" influence that existed in K'na'an at the time of the
"conquest" of EY . I don't remember if he used the Avraham story as the
basis (I doubt it knowing his mindset) but he also had this idea that there
was a monotheistic population in EY helping the conquerors. (I tried finding
the article but it was long ago and could not). He claimed that this
monotheistic belief was widespread in that area all the way to parts of
Syria which explains the Levo Hamat in the time of Shlomo Hamelech
(melachim1;8;65). Hamat is quite high up in Syria and the fact that Shlomo
had people coming from there to the inauguration of the Beit Hamikdash shows
that there was an interested population there.


David Guttmann
 
If you agree that Believing is Knowing, join me in the search for Knowledge
at http://yediah.blogspot.com/ 
 
Ve'izen vechiker (Kohelet 12:9) subscribe to Hakirah at www.hakirah.org 

A couple of weeks ago, we discussed the ideal time for saying Birchos HaTorah (BHT).  We clarified that the original minhag Ashkenaz was to say it immediately before parshas HaTamid, after birchos HaShachar, and I mentioned that I thought this was also minhag HaGra.  R. Wolpoe disagreed, arguing that it was inconsistent the Gra's well known position in OH 47 that one must make BHT on hirhurei Torah (contra the Mechaber).  He then argued, IIRC, that the attribution of this position (ie BHT before parshas HaTamid) comes from the Maasei Rav and was therefore unreliable as compared with Biur HaGra.
 
I must correct this position.  The Biur HaGra to OH 46:8 makes it abundantly clear that the practice of saying BHT immediately before parshas haTamid is to be found in all old siddurim "mimei avoseinu", and is endorsed by the Ramban in the Yad, R. Amram Gaon and the Avudraham, among others.  I think the problem with relying on Biur HaGra to determine the Gra's halakhic positions is that he is often just giving a source for the position of the SA or Rema under discussion without endorsing that position.  In this case, however, there is no such uncertainty, as the Gra is ma'arich on this point and clearly sees the shift of BHT to just after Elokai Neshama (or Asher Yatzar, l'fi the Rema) as a later development and erroneous.  It seems odd to me that R. M. Sternbuch, who describes himself as nin v'neched m'haGra in all his seforim, writes somewhere that BHT should be said as soon as possible after waking, without even referencing the Gaon's view.
 
As against R. Wolpoe, I do not think there is any contradiction between the Gra?s positions regarding hirhurei Torah and BHT.  The latter is clearly based on the question whether divrei Torah said b?derech tefillah also require BHT (the subject of OH 46:8).  The Mechaber says ?yesh lochush? for the opinion they do and the Rema says that the custom is that they don?t.  The Gra paskens that they do not.  This is a different question from whether hirhurei Torah b?derech limud, as opposed to b?derech tefillah, require BHT.
I hope this clarifies matters.  
 
Kol tuv
Dov Kay
_________________________________________________________________
Celeb spotting ? Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes
https://www.celebmashup.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071023/4eee7228/attachment-0001.html 

 


On Monday, 22. October 2007 18.01:14 Rich, Joel wrote:
> OK try this one - 1 shoel has an issue. ?If he takes it to R' X ?he 
> gets one response based on R' X's struggle. ?If he takes it to R' 2X 
> he gets a different response based on R' 2x's struggle. ?Is it your 
> contention that either result is the most fully appropriate dvar 
> hashem for the shoel (implication - HKB"H really doesn't have an 
> opinion on the eventual act, just the process)

No. It is my contention that it is inappropriate to go shopping, particularly after having asked R' X. 
<SNIP>


BTW, I do not know how important it is to ask what HKBH's opinion is. He already taught us in His Torah lo bashamayim hi, and in the case of tanur shel achnai we learn that there may be a difference kaveyakhol, between earthly halakhah pessuqah and G"d's "intent".
--
Arie Folger
-----------------------------
Sorry for the lack of clarity, I meant the above as a thought experiment, not that the same shoel actually went to 2 poskim.

I always assumed the posek is trying to channel the ratzon hashem as he understands it.

Anyway, I think we've taken this as far as we need to on list. Thanks for the insights.

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.

On Fri, October 19, 2007 9:35 am, R David Riceman wrote:
: Suppose, however, that someone asked you for an example of evil
: behavior, and then produced a survey showing that observant Jews were
: evil in that way more than <picture your favorite control group here>.
: Would that affect you?

To be honest, all it would do is prove my suspicion that there isn't a
statistically meaningful population of people who actually follow the
Torah. Mitokh shelo lishmah ba lishmah doesn't necessarily apply to
the FFH (frum from habit; the keepers of mitzvos anashim meilumadah).

I could also write about the communal shift from aspiring for
ehrlechkeit to frumkeit and what it means in terms of selective
observance, but since I couldn't get that kind of thing past Areivim's
moderators, I'll leave it here with just a "vehameivin yavin".

IOW, it would only falsify our claims that we are "Torah true Jews".
Not the Torah itself.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Mon, October 22, 2007 1:12 pm, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: There is a timeline on pp 596-7 of Vol 3 of The Torah Anthology....
: 2085: Isaac enters Shem's academy
: 2121: Jacob goes to academy
: 2158: Shem dies; Jacob returns from academy
: 2171: Jacob goes to Eber's academy
: 2187: Eber dies

: I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that the academy was headed by
: Shem and Ever.

Actually, check out leshon Chazal, as transmitted pretty faithfully by
Rashi, the Mei'Am Lo'eitz, RAKaplan and now RAM.

It is Sheim's academy in Yitzchaq's day, then it's Eiver's in Yaaqov's
later trip. I do not know if there was a time when both ran academies
simultaneously. Also, it's possible that from 2158 to 2171 there was
no academy. Nor do we have indication Eiver's academy was necessarily
in the same location.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Mon, October 22, 2007 1:16 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Why does RH come BEFORE YK?  Wouldn't the ideal model be to gain
: Kapparh FIRST and then have yom Hadin?

The answer I proposed relied on the difference between a melekh and a
mosheil. A melekh is by public acclamation, a mosheil has to impose
his will -- even if that will is for everyone's good.

Ideally, "vehayah Hashem leMelekh", "malkhusekha malkhus kol olamim".
But for now, "umemshaltekha bekhol dor vador -- "umosheil bagoyim".

RH is our chance to accept HQBH as Melekh.

This means that RH allows HQBH to act without having to impose His
Will. It makes "room" for Middas haRachamim within the din.

And therefore Malkhios, Yom Teru'ah must come before YK.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On 10/23/07, David Riceman <driceman@att.net> wrote:
>
> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>
> > The Torah is not about SELF-PERFECTION but creating SOCIETAL
> > perfection, i.e a mamlehces kohanim
> So would you find that hypothetical survey convincing? Incidentally, if
> that's the function of the Torah, wouldn't we be better off dismissing
> all failed Jews from the clan?
>
> David Riceman
>

In my own emotional  being I DO dismiss meshumaddim and others who have
renounced their Judaism. I do NOT  dismiss "failed" jews who are merely
mumar lete'avaon. BTW, I have ALWAYS felt this way, that any Jew while
outside the pale is outside the pale regardless of this mamleches kohanim
concept.

And I can tell you ma'asim where rich people are told NOT to perfect
themselvs but to be ba'alei tzedakkah instead in order to support the poor
of the community.  The  idea of 10% of society as doing nothing but
self-perfection is not a likely scenario in Judasim with apologies to any
ba'lei Mussar who might feel otherwise. Certainly we all work on middos to a
degree but self-perfection is not for he masses. Most of us have jobs to do
first. And this is not about parnasso, but about filing the community's
needs. Dcotors and hatzaala NEED to be ready to be mehallel Shabbos.  The
needs for piku'ach nefesh supersede the need for individual meditative
contemplation!   Thge whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

So nu what does it mean:  Yisroel af al pi Shechata - yisroel hu?
It means TO ME only thus, he needs NO GIYYUR to come back.  Othwerwise his
wine is stam Yenam, his kashrus is worthless etc. And As far as I am
concenred in my hypothetical universe, a meshumad can buy your hametz for
Pesach! Of course I would not pasken that way, but that is the way I EEL how
it ought to be.

And I feel that anyone seeking "God" can do it any way he feels [Rambam
notwithstanding] that the Torah is all about society/community.  See Rambam
hilchos Mamrim 1:1 that the Beis Din haagadol is the ikkar Torash Sheb'al
peh. There is not greater proof to me that Torah is about the societal
insitutions as opposed to studying texts etc. Those institutions include the
Beis Hamikdash, the Sanhedrin etc. it includes, shochetim, Soferim, poskim,
Kohanim, levi'im etc.  See Parshas Shoftetim -or for taht matter most of
Devarim Arei Miklat are next to asseres hadibros.  Torah was designed as a
national "constitution" of a quasi-theocracy to be housed in Israel.  And
FWIW No Meshumad is eligilbe for any of those positions, and possibly is
passul even after Tehsuva for many of the above.

Yisroel v'oraiso v'kudsha brich ahd hu.  As far as I'm concerned. sitting on
a dessert island with a Sefer is not Judaism.   If a Gentile or a Martian
discovered a library full of Torah and in isolation  followed Judaism to me
it is almost zero.  A Beis din is required fro Giyyur, NOT a heartfelt
commitment. If a Martian wanted to find God and remain in isolation I would
suggest some contemplative sect where he could meditate yoma volayla. If he
wanted to join a PEOPLE of God, then he MUst be Jewish. With the possible
exception of Tibetan, I know of know PEOPLE or NATION that sees itself as a
Godly People other than the Jewish People.
-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071023/183b4107/attachment.htm 

 


kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> Of course a religion does have an effect on its adherents. But other 
> things affect them too!
>   
I was (unsurprisingly) thinking like a statistician.  Of course you
can't know whether any particular action of a person is motivated by his
religion, but you'd expect that some actions of some people are.  
Suppose, then, that group A is religious and group B, otherwise similar,
is irreligious (yes, I know, it's hard to find these groups).  In the
aggregate you'd expect more of group A's actions to have religious
motivation.  If there's really no difference then what has their
religion accomplished?  And if it really doesn't accomplish anything
then why bother?

David Riceman
==============================================
Because maybe the A's were by nature worse and so their current
equivalence to B's results is a great difference from where they would
have been without religion!
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.

On 10/23/07, T613K@aol.com <T613K@aol.com> wrote:
>
>   From: RallisW@aol.com
>
>   If the majority of Ashkenazic shuls recite An'im Zemiros then ipso
> factor it must be mutar.
> *
> *
> *--Toby Katz
> =============*
>

No allowances for Minhag Ta'us? Minhag Sh'tus?

Re: Shbbos & Choleh Mishebeirach's
In some communites, Holeh Misheeirach's are very narowly limited. Chabad has
a really short version - bascialy just shabbos hi miliz'ok

In German communites the full nusach is used but ONLY for people in sxtreme
condition

Point? The Gemara SAYS: Shabbos hi mili'zok. But MOST communities ignore
this. Does that make it muttar ipso facto?

As mihaggim go, this ubiquitous use  is recent and  not time-honored.


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071023/80ee1e09/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 22
**************************************

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..."