Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 235

Wed, 02 Jul 2008

• 1. Re: Science and Truth (Harry Maryles)
• 2. Taxes (Efraim Yawitz)
• 3. Re: Taxes (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: the cohen gadol and marriage to a pubescent girl (T613K@aol.com)
• 5. Binyamin - Ben Oni (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Feeling and Judaism (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: the cohen gadol and marriage to a pubescent girl (Josh Skolnick)
• 8. Re: the cohen gadol and marriage to a pubescent girl (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: the cohen gadol and marriage to a pubescent girl (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: the cohen gadol and marriage to a pubescent girl (Moshe Y. Gluck)

Note: I am sending this to Avodah as well as I think it qualifies for both - HM
?
--- On Mon, 6/30/08, T613K@aol.com <T613K@aol.com> wrote:



?If scientists don't believe that science is objective truth, they believe
that science is the process by which objective truth can be discovered --
and?if something is?not subject to experiment or observation (if it cannot
be proven or disproven), then by definition, it is not science.
?
Nevertheless, they believe all kinds of things that can never be proven or
disproven, things that are not subject to experiment or observation, and
they nevertheless call those things "science." For example, they believe in
spontaneous generation.? Oh no, not the spontaneous generation of
maggots?or of lice -- rather, they believe in the spontaneous generation of
amino acids from the primordial soup.? They also believe that the?universe
was not created, but just popped into existence for no reason.? They are
allowed to teach their creation story in a science class, but they are not
allowed to mention that there is a different possibility, other than "it
just happened randomly."? And most adherents of TuM seem to be fine with
that.? 
--------------------------
?
Science is - one ? method of determining objective reality. But science
does not deal in absolutes. It deals in degrees of probability. The more
you can repeat results in laboratory trials the higher degree of
probability it is that it is one has discovered an objective truth of
nature. This is why we can get on an airplane without fear and confient
that the many tons of heavier than air metal will actually take off and
fly. Based on scientific experimentation ?and repeated identical results,
there is a high degree of probability that it will not crash. 
?
No scientist will say that anything science knows today about nature is the
absolute objective reality and cannot ever be refuted. A scientist who says
that is not truly a scientist. He is a believer.
?
Religion deals in absolutes. Those absolutes are based on belief. Belief is
based on many factors having to do with observation, tradition, inductive
reasoning, and intuition. Belief it can be argued is much stronger than
science. Belief can neither be proven or disproven and is therefore not so
easily refuted. 
?
Science relies on observation and?experimentation ? things we can measure
and deduce from via our ability to reason. The scientist is Rav
Soloveitchik's quitessetial 'Cognitive Man'. 
?
Mesorah and intuition are not measures of science. Religion relies not on
the measurable - but the immeasurable. It dictates to us what the objective
reality is without necessarily requiring the use of reason. Religion and
science -two different thought systems. Neither of which can objectively
proven with 100% certainly that they are the objective reality. Every
scientist knows this Frum and not Frum. Both the scientist and the believer
act on their beliefs. The only difference is how they developed those
beliefs. 
?
The second paragraph is your assertion and I don?t accept it. The big bang
is not discussed in terms of First cause. A scientist can neither say it
was spontaneous or that it wasn?t. An individual teaching the Big Bang
brings with him a personal perspective. So an atheist will say that it must
have been spontaneous. A believer will say that there was a First cause.
Neither belief is science but belief as neither can prove his position
regarding that. He or she ought to take care (perhaps even manated) not to
let his or her bias about religion enter scientific discussions in the
public school science classroom. 
?
In a public school - if a student asks whether the Big Bang ?just happened?
or whether there is a First cause, the teacher should answer that this
question does not belong in a science classroom any more than an answer of
?Buddha created it? does. 
?
If there is an atheistic bias on the part of science teachers in the
classroom it should be routed out.? But let?s be clear. Atheistic biases
are not science any more than Orthodox belief in the Creator is.
?
HM?

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

?


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080701/39f53d46/attachment-0001.htm>

With the recent discussion of "dina d'malchusa" on the list, I would
like to get a more precise definition of what our obligations to the
government are, since some people seem to be presenting this as a very
black-and-white issue.

I don't know if this is really true, but I read once that in Italy, if
one would try to obey all the tax laws on the books, he would have to
pay something like 200% of his income to the government.  Are we
really obligated to follow "dina d'malchusa" to this extent?

This may be a far-out example, but less extreme cases abound.  Is
there some limit beyond which governmental power becomes illegitimate?
 Even governments which are freely elected have their excesses.  (The
Nazis were freely elected in Germany, and this is not the only example
of dictators rising to power through peaceful channels.)

Kol Tuv,

Ephraim

On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 07:08:31PM +0300, Efraim Yawitz wrote:
: I don't know if this is really true, but I read once that in Italy, if
: one would try to obey all the tax laws on the books, he would have to
: pay something like 200% of his income to the government.  Are we
: really obligated to follow "dina d'malchusa" to this extent?

DDD applies to the law as practiced, not as codified. And while there
are machloqesin about its limits, even Tosafos include a fair (as opposed
to antisemitic) tax.

RHS's forumulation, based on shutefim, would include the gezeilah from
any other shutefim as part of the issur, regardless of one's take on
gezel aku"m. (Unless one was the only Yehudi in the tax base.)

Speaking of gezel aku"m, see
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n347.shtml#11>, by R' Mark
Dratch, which has a well dosumented discussion of the topic. I would just
reiterate the SMa"G's observation that the discussion is only theoretical,
since risking chilul Hashem would make it assur either way. Interestingly,
the Rambam raises two side issues (he himself holds assur, but no chiyuv
to return the merchandise): chilul Hashem, and the negative impact on
one's middos.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha


Taxation and Dina Demalchusa
Rabbi Hershel Schachter
Taxation 
Copyright (C) 2005 by The TorahWeb Foundation. All rights reserved.
Editor's Note: This essay was originally printed in Einayim L'Torah,
Volume 20, Number 9. Reprinted here, at Rav Schachter's behest, with
permission.

In the days of the Talmud taxes were collected for the purpose of
enriching the king. Based on the parshas hamelech in Sefer Shmuel (Shmuel
I 8:11), the Rabbis formulated the principle of dina demalchusa dina
(Nedarim 28a), literally, the "law of the land is binding": everyone
must pay taxes. In Shulchan Aruch (Chosehn Mishpat 369:8), the Rishonim
are quoted as having pointed out that if the taxes are unfair, or
discriminatory (which is also unfair,) this would not constitute "dina"
demalchusa -- "the law of the land," but rather "gazlanusa" demalchusa --
"the embezzlement of the land," and such tax laws are not binding (see
Nefesh Harav p. 269). A system of graduated income tax is considered
fair and reasonable (see LeTorah Velemoadim by Rav Zevin, p. 118).

There was a theory among some of the Baalei HaTosfos that the idea behind
paying taxes is the principle of rent. The land of each country belongs to
the ruler (or the government) of that particular country, and the owner
of any real estate is entitled to charge rent from all those who want
to live on their property. The one exception to this rule (according to
this view) is Eretz Yisroel, which the Torah declares belongs to Hashem
(Vayikra 25:23). Since Hashem is the true property owner, and He has
encouraged all of Bnei Yisroel to live in Eretz Yisroel, no government
in control there ever has the right to charge taxes (rent) because they
are not the rightful landlord. The Landlord (with a capital "L") has
granted permission for all of Bnei Yisroel to live in His country (what is
called the "paltin shel melech" -- "the palace of the king".) This view
is quoted by the Ran in his commentary to Nedarim (28a). There are many
religious people who are not that knowledgeable of any other comments
made by the Ran on Nedarim, either before or after page 28 and are only
familiar with this one position of the Ran. The truth of the matter is
that not only has this view not been accepted in Shulchan Aruch (Chosehn
Mishpat 369:6), it didn't even gain honorable mention. The Shulchan Aruch
quotes verbatim from the Rambam that one is obligated to pay taxes both
in Eretz Yisroel as well as in other countries.

It is important to note that today the basis for taxation is totally
different from what it was in Talmudic times. Today, all modern countries
provide a variety of services: They provide streets and highways, and
maintain forests and museums. They provide fire, police, and military
protection. They collect garbage and deliver mail. They do medical
research to discover cures for diseases, etc. The taxes are collected
for the purpose of covering the annual budget, which pays for all of
these projects. The halacha views all of the people living in the same
neighborhood as "shutfim" -- "partners," sharing a common need for a shul,
yeshiva, mikveh and an eruv, and therefore, the "partners" can force each
other to put up the needed amount to further their partnership. So too,
all people who live in the same city, state, and country are considered
"shutfim" with respect to the services provided by that city, state, and
country. The purpose behind the taxes is no longer "to enrich the king"
in the slightest. In addition to all the other expenses, the government
officials have to be paid as well, but it is because they serve as the
employees of all the citizens for the purpose of looking after all these
services, and seeing to it that they are properly taken care of. In our
modern world, one who does not pay his proper share of taxes is no longer
viewed as cheating the king (or the ruler) of the country, but rather
as cheating (i.e. stealing from) his partners. The amount of money not
paid by the one who cheats will have to be taken care of by having the
rest of the "partners" put up more money from their pockets to cover
all the expenses of the partnership. And even if much of the tax money
goes towards expenditures that are not to one's personal liking and
that one gets nothing out of, such is the halacha of any partnership:
the majority of the partners have the right to determine what are the
reasonable needs of the partnership (Choshen Mishpat 163:1). Therefore,
this majority has the legitimate right to force the minority to contribute
their share towards properly furthering the partnership.

 
 
: True, but doesn't this get to an issue of the Torah was given for  all
: times and all places? [--RJR]


>>Well, not the laws of a kohein gadol.<<

-- 
Micha  Berger         



>>>>>
Given that the Torah was given for all times and all places, you must  
consider that where the Torah seems to contradict current mores, Torah trumps  
current mores and we are supposed to view current mores through Torah eyes  rather 
than view the Torah through the eyes of current secular mores.  A  classic 
example would be the Torah's attitude towards homosexual activity, which  it 
unequivocally calls "to'evah."  
 
(But I do agree that the idea of a 12-year-old girl marrying a man  of 40 or 
50 is quite distasteful, and I wonder if there are any other  opinions that 
would enable a widowed KG to get around that.)


--Toby Katz
=============

President Reagan talked with the Soviets while pushing ahead  with the 
deployment of Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe. He spoke softly ?  after 
getting himself a bigger stick.  --Mark Steyn




**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for 
fuel-efficient used cars.      (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080701/0a1e5b0c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 09:35:21AM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: As for Rochel, she longed for children but did not live to raise  them.  She 
: never even had a chance to hold Binyamin, and probably never  even saw him.  

Tangent: Someone showed me an article back when I was a teen that argued
that Binyamin was a Frank breach (legs bent over, feet near head, bottom
first. That would cause the tearing and a fatal amount of blood loss
given the state of medicine at the time.

His proof? Bereishis 35:17
    Vayhi beaqshosahh belidtahh
    vatomer lahh hamyalledes,
    "al tir'i
    ki gam seh lakh ben."

The meyalledes knew that he would be a boy WHILE Racheil was in labor.
Implying that it wasn't Binyamin's head that emerged first.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 06:28:18AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
: Judaism does not turn to feeling, is not satisfied with feeling, is 
: not a religion of feeling; Judaism turns to the intellect, wants to 
: be grasped by the mind to guide the will, to regulate the whole of 
: our workaday, breadwinning life with its pleasures and all its 
: ramifications and to subjugate it to God's law. Not feeling, only 
: cognitive reason, bright with the rays of God's word, can fortify 
: against life's trials and temptations awaiting the Jew.
: This quote is from page 63 of Modernity Within Tradition by Mordechai 
: Breuer, who attributes it to RSRH.

My first reaction was "Rachmana liba ba'i". But then I remembered thos
who translat Chovos haLvavos as "Duties of the Mind" -- who said that in
classical Jewish symbology that leiv = emotions?

Then I wondered about AYH -- aren't ahavah and yir'ah emotional
responses? And ve'ahavta lerei'akha is a kelal gadol.

RMBreuer could be read as saying that Judaism wants feeling harnessed
by intellect, and thus "is not satisfied with feeling" becayse "only
cognitive reason ... can fortify against life's trials and temptations".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
micha@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fullfilment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

There have been many responses so far implying that a change of outlook is
warranted, which I would agree with, however what should be the outlook.
What I mean by this is do we say that a young child can get married to
anyone, or only to certain people?  How do we view the desire to get married
to a young girl?  How should we view the "restrictive" current society that
doesn't allow these types of marriage?   Where do we draw the line regarding
our attitudes towards derech eretz, meaning do we allow the members of our
society to urinte publicly [though this was never really an issue of halacha
but of proper derech eretz, as opposed to a din from the torah] because in
previous times this didn't take on a negative connotation.

Yosef Skolnick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080701/5edd05fe/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 03:32:27PM -0500, Josh Skolnick wrote:
: There have been many responses so far implying that a change of outlook is
: warranted, which I would agree with, however what should be the outlook.
: What I mean by this is do we say that a young child can get married to
: anyone, or only to certain people? ...

Interesting question: Is the implication that we ought to be getting
married that young, or that this is something specific to the kohein
gadol?

:                                          Where do we draw the line regarding
: our attitudes towards derech eretz, meaning do we allow the members of our
: society to urinte publicly...                                   because in
: previous times this didn't take on a negative connotation.

This I find less intriguing. The issue isn't that we shouldn't fit the
mores of the times. It's that those mores would conflict with halakhah
if we had a kohein gadol. In your original case, "darkhei no'am" would
have to be subsumed by a specific chiyuv. Perhaps we would say that it
must be more na'im in the long run. There is no chiyuv involved in this
scenario. So, what's the conflicting motivation against adopting current
mores?

Or in light of your earlier question, perhaps we would say that we are
wrong to be bothered by it or perhaps we would say that being married
to the kohein gadol should be such an exciting fate and mission in life
that the cost should be ignorable by comparison.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
micha@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 03:32:27PM -0500, Josh Skolnick wrote:
> : There have been many responses so far implying that a change of outlook is
> : warranted, which I would agree with, however what should be the outlook.
> : What I mean by this is do we say that a young child can get married to
> : anyone, or only to certain people? ...
> 
> Interesting question: Is the implication that we ought to be getting
> married that young, or that this is something specific to the kohein
> gadol?

Ought to be?  I know of very little (though not nothing) indicating
that girls ever "ought to" have got married that young; I think it
was always regarded as simply what people did, rather than as some
moral imperative.  I think we today should regard it much as we do
cousin marriages: morally neutral, used to be common, is no longer
common, there are perfectly understandable reasons *why* it's no
longer common, but if once in a while it happens, mazel tov.

In the course of my reading I've come to understand that many or most
USAn goyim feel an actual revulsion towards cousin marriages, that they
feel it's actually unnatural and immoral, rather than just unusual;
AFAIK no such attitude exists among those who have grown up O-Jewish,
even in the USA, and I don't think anyone would say that it should be
banned because of "darchei noam".

I think the same attitude should apply to young marriage, *if* the girl
and both her parents agree that it's right for her, and they seem to
know what they're doing; the fact that the outside world has newly
invented a revulsion to such marriages shouldn't affect us one way or
another.  There are many practical and rational reasons why young
marriage is inappropriate for 99% of girls today, but in those cases we
should oppose the marriage for those reasons, not because it's
*inherently* wrong; in the rare case where those reasons don't seem to
apply, or where those in the best position to know say they don't apply,
we should not oppose it.


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

R'n TK:
(But I do agree that the idea of a 12-year-old girl marrying a man of 40 or
50 is quite distasteful, and I wonder if there are any other opinions that
would enable a widowed KG to get around that.)

------


Interestingly, according to this article (http://en.wikipedia.o
rg/wiki/Marriageable_age) Girls in South Africa, Yemen, Brazil, and Sri
Lanka can be married at twelve; Tanzanian girls can be married even earlier
if the marriage isn't consummated until the girl is twelve. Lest you think
that these backward countries are of no import, in New Hampshire
marriageable age is, "14 for males and 13 for females, in cases of "special
cause" with parental consent and court permission."
I wrote in an earlier post, "You're making this assessment based on the
society you live in. If you were living in an era where the average
lifespan was 35, would you still feel this way?" R' Joel Rich responded,
"True, but doesn't this get to an issue of the Torah was given for all
times and all places?" R' Akiva Miller responded similarly, "I thought it
was abundantly clear that RYS was speaking specifically about a kohen gadol
in *our* society, and that in another society different rules would hold."
I want to clarify - my point was (as it was above) that marrying a
twelve-year-old is not, even today, considered inherently immoral -
otherwise we couldn't justify it even in a case of society which suffered
shorter lifespans.
(FWIW, I know a couple in a happy very-socially-unacceptable-due-to-age-differences marriage. Go figure.)

KT,
MYG



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 235
***************************************

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..."