Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 36

Thu, 24 Jan 2008

• 1. Re: eilu v'eilu (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 2. What would a Torah government look like (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: What would a Torah government look like (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: What would a Torah government look like (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Diberah Torah (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 6. assisted suicide (Gershon Seif)
• 7. What would a Torah government look like (Shmuel Weidberg)
• 8. Re: What would a Torah government look like (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: What would a Torah government look like (Shmuel Weidberg)
• 10. Re: What would a Torah government look like (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Cave or desert island (Doron Beckerman)
• 12. Re: assisted suicide (Shmuel Weidberg)
• 13. Re: assisted suicide (Liron Kopinsky)
• 14. Re: THREE Interesting Facts (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Fasting on YK (Micha Berger)

R' Mordechai Cohen:
Yesterday someone told me a pshat that I had never heard before, that he
heard directly from r Chaim kanievsksy shlita
r Chaim told him that eilu v'eilu only applies to the daas of chazal, but
eilu v'eilu does not apply to anyone after chasimas hashas.
ie rishonim etc




The obvious ramification would be that it would be OK to say, for example,
"Well, R' Avrohom ben HaRambam (or whomever) held like this, but he was
wrong, so one may not hold like him."

KT,
MYG
 

(I think this thread belongs here, not Areivim. Reposting accordingly.
Feel free to do the same, add replies, etc...)

The Torah describes a system of checks and balances between three
branches of gov't.

The judicial branch, comprised of Beis Din haGadol and the rabbinate.
The kehunah, providing moral, educational and spiritual leadership.
The executive branch which had its own internal checks and balances
between the melekh and his court navi.

The melukhah, nevu'ah and kehunah each had to be distinct people.
Either could (and often did) serve on beis din. And so, we speak of
Shlomo ubeis dino. And yet, David listened to Nasan, even though it's
hard to believe that meant Nasan was the greater navi.

The US constitution is a collection of laws about how to make laws. An
almost empty framework. Halakhah gives a lot more guidance. But to
actually run a society, one would still need to fill in such holes in
cases that aren't assur, but posing a hazard.  The core law is
halakhah, but beis din created further takanos for organizing society,
and the melekh made decrees to address its needs.

For example, even during bayis sheini, I picture that most crimes were
handled in ways other than those spelled out in seider neziqim. Chiyuv
misah is very hard to qaulify for. Death by dry barley also requires a
certain level of certainty -- just a lack of 2 eidim. But there had to
be a place to put someone who is a danger to society.


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

_______________________________________________
Areivim mailing list
Areivim@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org



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

Continuing my thought... A discussion of a non-messianic Torah gov't
would require my knowing the laws of zayin tuvei ha'ir much better
than I do. But there is a proxy notion for the executive branch
without a melekh or navi, and the rabbanim pick up the role (beyond
the BHMQ) that in an ideal world terumah would have freed up the
kohanim to do. Even without real musmachim, the judicial branch goes
on already.

I do not think beis din would try to impose shemiras hamitzvos on a
society that ignores them. As in the past, I would argue that that has
much to do with why Sanhedrin left har habayis. Previous discussions
with RSZ has left this topic at a standoff, but that's where my biases
are. When society is such that living among Jews can create a tinoq
shenishba, you get into issues of mutav sheyihyu shogegim, of trying
to avoid becoming a beis din "chavlanis" (which depends on whether
makos is included in that notion, or only misah), etc...

(BTW, why is the mishnah about a BD being called chavlanis at the end
of pereq Eidim Zomemim [Makkos 1]? What's the connection?)

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

Continuing my thought... A discussion of a non-messianic Torah gov't
would require my knowing the laws of zayin tuvei ha'ir much better
than I do. But there is a proxy notion for the executive branch
without a melekh or navi, and the rabbanim pick up the role (beyond
the BHMQ) that in an ideal world terumah would have freed up the
kohanim to do. Even without real musmachim, the judicial branch goes
on already.

I do not think beis din would try to impose shemiras hamitzvos on a
society that ignores them. As in the past, I would argue that that has
much to do with why Sanhedrin left har habayis. Previous discussions
with RSZ has left this topic at a standoff, but that's where my biases
are. When society is such that living among Jews can create a tinoq
shenishba, you get into issues of mutav sheyihyu shogegim, of trying
to avoid becoming a beis din "chavlanis" (which depends on whether
makos is included in that notion, or only misah), etc...

(BTW, why is the mishnah about a BD being called chavlanis at the end
of pereq Eidim Zomemim [Makkos 1]? What's the connection?)

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

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, January 24, 2008 12:36 pm, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> : This assertion is only true regarding the usage by Chazal. In the time
> : of the rishonim the expression was used to describe allegorization and
> : idioms.
>
> And "chadash assur min haTorah". Yes, quotes are often taken out of
> context and reused.
>
> (The quote from R' Hai Gaon is off topic, and Rashi splits the words
> and is arguably not using the idiom.)
>
> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha
>
>   
I am not sure what you mean "taken out of context" Over time words and 
phrases acquire new connotations. For example Prof. Jacob Katz has an 
article [Tarbiz #27 1958] of how the expression "Israel even though they 
have sinned is still Israel." Sanhedrin (44a) was given halachic 
significance when it is not used that way by Chazal. I am not sure that 
there is a prohibition of using phrases differently than Chazal. I doubt 
that there is kefira or rejection of Chazal in doing so.

There are quite a few citations - from the Rishonim on - that the phrase 
was used to indicate allegorization. Instead of citing more examples let 
me just quote the Encyclopedia Talmudis.

??????????? ??????? ??? ?, ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? [??? ??]

 

????????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ?? 
????? ????? ???: ?? ?????? ???? - ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???"? - ?????? 
????? ?????? ???????, ??? ??? ?????? ??, ??? ?????: ???? ????? ????65, 
?????? ???????66, ???? ?? ?'67, ?????? ???, ?? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? 
????? ??? ???68.

65. ????? ? ?.
66. ????? ?? ??.
67. ?? ?? ??.
68. ????"? ??? ??' ?? ???' ?"? ????; ???"? ????? ????? ?"? ??"?, ??"? 
???"? ?"? ??"? ???"? ???"?.

My wife (who is a lobbyist for Agudah) was in Madison, WI yesterday to join a long list of people/organizations who came to voice their objection to a proposed bill to allow physician assisted suicide.

Some of the people who spoke in favor of the bill tried to show how Shimshon would have been in favor of assisted suicide. 

Can you all help me out here with some mareh m'komos about Shimshon and suicide? I know it's discussed (maybe even a mefurishe Gemara) but I don't recall where.

What are the basic chilukim between Shimshon's situation and a person suffering from a teminal illness, that would allow him to do what he did, and yet forbid assisted suicide? 

My first hunch is that by Shimshon it was only a grama. And it might even be a safek, whereas what the assisted suicide wants to allow would be a vadai and quite direct.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080124/238e0ed9/attachment.html 

On Jan 24, 2008 12:28 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> The Torah describes a system of checks and balances between three
> branches of gov't.
>
> The judicial branch, comprised of Beis Din haGadol and the rabbinate.
> The kehunah, providing moral, educational and spiritual leadership.
> The executive branch which had its own internal checks and balances
> between the melekh and his court navi.

I don't think there ever was a court Navi. For one thing, Shmuel who
would presumably have been Shaul's court Navi does not seem to have
stayed with the court. And it's not clear that Nosson stayed in
David's court. And we find no such concept by any of the other kings.
In any case, the Navi was independent of the King completely.

>
> The melukhah, nevu'ah and kehunah each had to be distinct people.
> Either could (and often did) serve on beis din. And so, we speak of
> Shlomo ubeis dino. And yet, David listened to Nasan, even though it's
> hard to believe that meant Nasan was the greater navi.

I assume you're comparing the greatness of David and Nosson in the
category of nevuah. I think it is totally irrelevant who is greater.
Hashem chooses who will be his messenger, but regardless of the
greatness of the messenger, the words are those of Hashem.

>
> The US constitution is a collection of laws about how to make laws. An
> almost empty framework. Halakhah gives a lot more guidance. But to
> actually run a society, one would still need to fill in such holes in
> cases that aren't assur, but posing a hazard.  The core law is
> halakhah, but beis din created further takanos for organizing society,
> and the melekh made decrees to address its needs.

The Mishna does mention gozrei gezeiros in the time of the Bayis
Sheni. It sounds like they were independent of the Sanhedrin, although
possibly a subcommittee.

> For example, even during bayis sheini, I picture that most crimes were
> handled in ways other than those spelled out in seider neziqim. Chiyuv
> misah is very hard to qaulify for. Death by dry barley also requires a
> certain level of certainty -- just a lack of 2 eidim. But there had to
> be a place to put someone who is a danger to society.

I would presume so. I wonder if there is any direct mention of long
term jails under the auspices of a halachic government.

Regards,
Shmuel

Continuing my thought... A discussion of a non-messianic Torah gov't
would require my knowing the laws of zayin tuvei ha'ir much better than
I do. 

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

```````````````````````````````````````

Good Luck - I can supply many marei mkomot. My current thinking is that
this was left open as an issue for each generation to decide how best to
delegate the responsibilities (and Imho we need to diffentiate national
from local).  Defining where zayin tuvei start versus where bet din ends
seems ambiguous and imho may turn on your prior email as to what
"branch" their authority flows from.


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 Jan 24, 2008 2:52 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> I do not think beis din would try to impose shemiras hamitzvos on a
> society that ignores them.

Yoshiahu hamelech tried to do that. He had two talmidei chachamim go
to everyhouse to inspect for avodah zarah. The avodah zarah was carved
into the two adjacent doors so that when the inspectors came, they
would be broken apart and hidden by the doors being open.

In any case, it didn't work. But it is not clear what Yoshiahu should
have done. There is no indication that he did the wrong thing.

> As in the past, I would argue that that has
> much to do with why Sanhedrin left har habayis.

Lulei demistafina, I would say that midinei adam there is no chiyuv
misah for certain crimes, when there is no Sanhedrin. Part of the
point of hasroas eidim is that the person gives away his life. If
there is no Sanhedrin there is no true giving of permission to be
judged for death. It could be that even if Moshiach came tomorrow,
such people could not be given misah. However, that might not apply to
talmidei chachamim who don't require hasraah.

Regards,
Shmuel

On Thu, January 24, 2008 3:05 pm, R Shmuel Weidberg wrote:
:> I do not think beis din would try to impose shemiras hamitzvos on a
:> society that ignores them.

: Yoshiahu hamelech tried to do that. He had two talmidei chachamim go
: to everyhouse to inspect for avodah zarah....

I understood Yoshiahu as trying to create a wave of kiruv, and then
enforced the law only after he was under the mis-impression it was
successful. He spent 6 years cleaning up AZ from the country,
culminating with grinding down Yeravam's altar in Beis-El (why wasn't
that first?), then the greatest qorban Pesach ceremony since Shelomo
hamelekh, and only then did he set up the police force. Yirmiyahu 3,
the pasuq quoted by the gemara RSW cites, called the BY "meshuvah", a
return to the old.

It would seem that Yoshiyahu's error was in thinking that such rapid
change could be both deep and permanent. He changed the people -- now
even children mastered taharos -- but the depth of their commitment
faded. (A return to the learning gemara while smoking on Shabbos
discussion?)

...
: Lulei demistafina, I would say that midinei adam there is no chiyuv
: misah for certain crimes, when there is no Sanhedrin. Part of the
: point of hasroas eidim is that the person gives away his life....

If you are saying that misas beis din has more to do with the
rebelliousness of willing to do it even after hasra'ah and the onesh
spelled out than the issur itself, I would agree.

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

R' Michael Makovi writes:

>> But the purpose of the Torah is to perfect the society! As Rabbi Aryeh
Carmel puts it in Masterplan, the aim of the Torah is not the
perfected individual, but rather the perfected society.

Any individual by himself can be righteous. And it's not because it's
easy. Rather, there's nothing to do! True, I haven't stolen or lied or
injured, but I couldn't if I wanted to! There's a saying, something
like "When there's nothing to steal, the thief regards his virtue as
real". So it isn't merely that the achievement was easily won. Rather,
there's no achievement at all whatsoever! <<


It may be true that the ultimate goal is to perfect society, but if the
choice is living in a corrupt society and trying to influence them, or
becoming a hermit/going to live in a cave for fear of them influencing you,
the Rambam in 6th Perek of Hilchos Deos is very clear on which option to
choose...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080124/15f27ce1/attachment.htm 

On Jan 24, 2008 3:07 PM, Gershon Seif <gershonseif@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My wife (who is a lobbyist for Agudah) was in Madison, WI yesterday to join
> a long list of people/organizations who came to voice their objection to a
> proposed bill to allow physician assisted suicide.
>
> Some of the people who spoke in favor of the bill tried to show how Shimshon
> would have been in favor of assisted suicide.

Shimshon wasn't a suicide. He was a kamikaze. His goal was to
assasinate the entire leadership of the Plishtim. And he was quite
successful. The gemara (sorry no mareh makom offhand) says that he
caused more trouble for the Plishtim through his death than he did
throughout his life.

There was no element at all of taking his life because he was
disabled. Rather, it is because he was disabled, that he was able to
do what he did.

Regards,
Shmuel

Speaking of Shimshon - an interesting question that was asked to me
recently:
Who are the 4 people in Tanach who committed suicide to correspond to the 4
mitot Beit Din?

~Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080124/52295b17/attachment-0001.html 

On Thu, January 24, 2008 3:04am, Cantor Richard Wolberg wrote:
: 2) Hope you had your Buckwheat last Shabbos:
: There is a custom of eating black buckwheat (kasha) on Shabbos Shira.

Obvious "qasha" on this: why?

...
: The difference between the numbers one, two and three are as follows:
: ?One? stresses that from the very outset there exists but one thing;
: ?two? is indicative of divisiveness ? the antitheses of unity.
: ?Three,? however, sees a uniting of disparate entities ? making ?one?
: out of ?two.?

Three is the human condition, the "I" who has to choose between the
yeitzer hara and yeitzer hatov, the three elements of Naran, Torah,
Avodah, gemilus chassadim, etc...

(The Notzri version of a threefold deity is the usual effect of
creating god in man's image. Not very different than Ba'al, Asheirah,
Molekh.)

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 Wed, January 23, 2008 8:27 am, chana@kolsassoon.org.uk wrote:
:                                         That means that, cooking on
: shabbas for the person who is already sufficiently sick is completely,
: al pi halacha, mutar.  Going to get the food from the neighbour
: therefore is a chumra, and we do not (at least according to RSZA)
: impose a chumra in the case where it will cause tzar.

Assuming, as you do, hutra. What if dechuyah? I thought that was the
whole nafqa mina of that machloqes. (I also thought that lema'aseh
we're chosheshim that shabbos is only dechuyah.)

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



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 36
**************************************

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..."