Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 324

Thu, 11 Sep 2008

• 1. Re: HaShem as God's Name (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. Re: Chumros (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: Y'fas To'ar (Marty Bluke)
• 4. Rape of a Woman (Cantor Wolberg)
• 5. Re: Y'fas To'ar (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Rape of a Woman (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Rape of a Woman (Gershon Dubin)
• 8. Re: Rape of a Woman (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: [Areivim] idf (Michael Kopinsky)
• 10. Re: [Areivim] idf (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: HaShem as God's Name (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 12. Re: Reciting l'Dovid Hashem Ori... (T613K@aol.com)

R' Micha Berger suggested:
> But before we simply dismiss the trend, isn't this exactly
> what happened to replacing sheim havayah with the triple
> yud (eg Siddur R' Saadia Gaon) which became yud yud which
> in time became the purvey of siddurim only and now treated
> as sheimos after all? Maybe this is actually the way things
> are /supposed/ to go.

I don't know if this is how it is *supposed* to go, in the sense that He
might want these changes. But it seems very clear to me that these changes
are a very natural and normal part of language development. Specifically,
I'd say it is an example of the phenomenon known as Euphemism Creep or
Euphemism Treadmill. (For more info, see Wikipedia article at http://tinyurl.com/mjer3)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click to become an artist and quit your boring job.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3mzjsFKEX155Xxg3PT8yN5xxYIjH1g96XPwBO2nR7csBajHM/

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Moshe Y. Gluck <mgluck@gmail.com> wrote:

> R' MB (on Areivim):
> > I think chumrot are great -- if people would retain the line between
> > baseline halakhah and chumrah, so that they could know when they're
> > being machmir on someone else's cheshbon, and when they are violating
> > ikkar hadin BALChaveiro to fulfil a chumrah in BALMaqom.
>
> I agree with you in principle, but in practice, don't Chumros and Minhagim
> often have a Din Neder? So, yes, someone might be acting inflexibly, but
> only because he doesn't have a Chacham right there to be Shoel his Neder...
>
> KT,
> MYG
>


This is a very complex point

Many humros are very beneficial and many can be harmful. It's like medicine,
an overdose can be fatal but sometimes you need to increase your dose, too.

A humra that is a "syag" is basic to rabbinic Judaism, it's fundamental in
Maseches Avos etc.

However, sometimes you get some kind of real off-the-wall ideas.

For exmaple, someone caame into the Chinese Restaurant where I wokred and
DEMANDED that:
Since we are a Koswher REstauratn
Therefore we MSUT have a mezuzah.

This restaurant is owned by a Gentile, He does NOT need to sell his chamez.
He does NOT need to toveil his keilim. But now he needs a Mezuzah?   This
kind of mentality is really misguided.   I don't know of too many rabbanim
who would go for this idea [some whom I have told them this story chuckled!]
And anyway I suspect the guy demanding the mezuszah was himself a sofer. [
he was wearing a light blue smock. Nu go prove his profession.]

But go figure out this one. How come we are machmir on pas paltar for 10
dyas of Tehuva and not the rest of the year.  Waht does it buy is if on the
11th of Tishrei we go back to old habits? I have always had a problem with
this one.

Now to NOT eat pas Plaster on EVERY Shabbos during the year makes some sense
to me. AT least we are re-inforcing the qedushah of Shabbas year-round




-- 
Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for the New Year 5769
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080909/213bc2ce/attachment-0001.htm>

On a related topic, Yosef is called Yosef Hatzaddik becauase he
resisted the temptations of Potiphar's wife. It always bothered me why
he is called a tzaddik for that for a number of reasons:
1. Basically he didn't violate the issur of arayos, does that make you
a tzadik? If a man resists adultery he is a tzaddik?
2. What is so special about this? there are numerous Jews who have
been tempted by married women and have not given in, why aren' they
all called tzadikim? Many people who work have faced this challenge in
some way or form and passed it.

We see that people can withstand these types of temptations (including
yefas toar type situations) and therefore I agree that the pat answer
is too pat.

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lays  
hold of her, and lies with her, and they are found. Then the man who  
lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver,  
and she shall be his wife; because he has humbled her, he may not put  
her away all his days. (Deut. 22:28-29)

This is even more troublesome to me than the y'fas to'ar.  First of  
all it makes rape a civil matter. Secondly, it says "if they are  
found" -- the implication being, if they are not discovered, then the  
rapist goes scott free. The poor woman being raped has no say in the  
matter.  How are we to understand this or come to terms with it?  I am  
at a loss.

Kol tuv.

ri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080910/f44eb302/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 01:07:51PM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote:
: On a related topic, Yosef is called Yosef Hatzaddik becauase he
: resisted the temptations of Potiphar's wife. It always bothered me why
: he is called a tzaddik for that for a number of reasons:
: 1. Basically he didn't violate the issur of arayos, does that make you
: a tzadik? If a man resists adultery he is a tzaddik?

I understood it that he risked his life in order to avoid arayos -- all
the while also resisting a culture where arayos were di rigeur. She owned
him. If he wouldn't comply, there was no reason to assume she wouldn't
just have him killed. Particularly since, if he was left around to speak
up, /she/ would be in trouble with her husband.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
micha@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 08:03:47AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: This is even more troublesome to me than the y'fas to'ar.  First of  
: all it makes rape a civil matter..

That is in addition to the usual laws for violent attack.

IOW, it sets the *additional* punishment to a fine equal to the loss
of kesuvah and (presumably in a case like date rape where the couple
otherwise get along) being unable to ever divorce her against her will.

In general, the laws of testimony, and the requirements we demand of
eidus and hasra'ah, I find it impossible to believe that "uviarta hara'ah
miqirbekha" was primarily filled by the Torah mandated punishment. Many
murderers can be identified by evidence, by invalid testimony (say if
Moshe Rabbeinu and Aharon haKohein were the eidim), by eidim who got the
onesh wrong when giving hasra'ah, etc... Is it fathomable that under
the 7MBN the courts would be required to protect society from them,
but BY are not to be protected?

My instinct is therefore that most of what was legislated to fulfill
"uviarta hara'ah" wasn't codified as a halakhah ledoros. What would be
"civil law" if our weltenschaung actually had such abominations as a
distinction between civil and religious.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

You assume she knows the rapist.  Assume otherwise and clearly, if they are
not found, he got away with it.  Her having a say or not is not relevant in
that scenario.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

-- Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolberg@cox.net> wrote:
If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lays hold
of her, and lies with her, and they are found. Then the man who lay with
her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall
be his wife; because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his
days. (Deut. 22:28-29)
This is even more troublesome to me than the y'fas to'ar.  First of all it
makes rape a civil matter. Secondly, it says "if they are found" -- the
implication being, if they are not discovered, then the rapist goes scott
free. The poor woman being raped has no say in the matter.  How are we to
understand this or come to terms with it?  I am at a loss.
Kol tuv.
ri
____________________________________________________________
Lose up to 20 lbs in one month with a new diet. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3mPb9O4wiBcQ9epyWQjBT7qPSKEsJ7a5PQ4Pk90IrhvR8PqS/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080910/a4a17c89/attachment-0001.htm>

Cantor Wolberg wrote:
> /If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lays 
> hold of her, and lies with her, and they are found. Then the man who lay 
> with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and 
> she shall be his wife; because he has humbled her, he may not put her 
> away all his days./ (Deut. 22:28-29)
> 
> This is even more troublesome to me than the y'fas to'ar.  First of all 
> it makes rape a civil matter.

And? Of course it's a civil matter, just as if he punched her in the
face.  If he harmed her he's still liable for the usual damages; in
addition, here he's liable for the extra damage he did to her shiduch
prospects.


> Secondly, it says "if they are found" -- 
> the implication being, if they are not discovered, then the rapist goes 
> scott free.

Just like anyone else who does something and doesn't get caught.
How else should it be?  How can we punish something we never find
out about?


> The poor woman being raped has no say in the matter.

What, we should just take her word against his?  It's one eid against
another, with no reason to prefer one over the other, so the defense
must prevail.

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

Carried over from Areivim.

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Jews of first temple days living under Menashe or other kings who
> worship idols were not living in galus.


OTOH, you have the example brought by RMB about Galus Yavan, which was while
we were in EY, and we had the BHMK.

Why was Galus Yavan considered galus and the days of Menashe not?  I would
say that the relevant criterion would be whether we are subject to other
nations' rule, but we still have the problem of towards the end of Bayis
Sheni, when the Babylonians were essentially in power, even while we had the
BHMK. We don't call that period galus, and instead we say that our current
galus began with the Churban.

I would like to see some kind of answer to these seeming contradictions.

KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080910/95d9af81/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 03:50:51PM -0400, Michael Kopinsky wrote:
:> The Jews of first temple days living under Menashe or other kings who
:> worship idols were not living in galus.

: OTOH, you have the example brought by RMB about Galus Yavan, which was while
: we were in EY, and we had the BHMK.

Galus is defined by the Shechinah's exile. Since there were neviim
and nissim geluyim in Menasheh's day, it wasn't galus. But when Tzadoq
haKohein went lifnai velifnim the first YK of bayis sheini, he was in
galus. Galus Madai, to be exact. (Thanks RGD!)

IOW, galus is when there isn't a melekh, kohein gadol with working
choshen, nevu'ah, nissim geluyim, etc... When there is no tangible
presence of a nation led by G-d. Notice it's a "when", not a where.

Chazal used a different conjugation, "golah", to refer to Jewish life
in chu"l.

Since both galus and golah are to be avoided, noting that even those of
us in EY are in galus doesn't play down the importance of the rest of
us to leave the golah.

Rather, it emphasizes the gap between where we are holding -- even those
of us in EY -- and actual ge'ulah.


BTW, on the subject of galus Yavan... one source is Reish Laqish's words
(Bereishis Rabba 2:4), "Sohu" hints at galus Bavel, "vohu" is Madai,
"choshekh" is Yavan and "penei sehom -- zeh galus mamlekhes harsha'ah".

How is galus Yavan most similar to choshekh? "Shehikhshichah einehem shel
Yisrael" through their gezeiros. Thus galus Yavan's link to Chanukah, a
religious battle, rather than one that acheived autonomy, linked to light.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
micha@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 23:18:20 -0400
"Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgluck@gmail.com> wrote:

> People today have become averse to using the word "G-d" in normal conversations.? 
> --------------
> 
> Because it could be Assur? Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 6:3 (yes, the same one I cited before, but earlier in the Se'if).

If it's prohibited, then so is the Yiddish form.  I know people who
seem uncomfortable with the English, but not with the Yiddish.  Do you
know people who won't use even the Yiddish?

> MYG

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

 
 

>>It is clear that this custom, although widespread, is by no  means
universal, and the implication posted that not saying L'Dovid  is
tantamount to a lack of yirat shamayim is most  unjustified.<<


Saul Mashbaum




>>>>>
It all depends /why/ you don't say it.   Certainly, if one is following the 
custom of the Vilna Gaon, one cannot be  suspected of lacking yiras Shamayim.
 
If you prefer one authority over another or you have one community minhag  
and not another, then there is no problem.  
 
The problem is when a young person says, "All those authorities who have  the 
custom to say it are simply ignorant, as they are unaware of a  significant 
piece of information that I have uncovered, namely, that this  custom is of 
Sabbatean origin.  If they knew what I know, all Torah  authorities without 
exception would discontinue the saying of l'Dovid  Hashem Ori during Elul.  I can't 
follow those who do say it because  they simply speak out of ignorance."  
 
It is this attitude which I fear may suggest or may lead in some cases to a  
lessening of yiras Shamayim -- the subtle disparagement of Torah  authorities.


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






**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, 
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.      
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080911/e2ecd6cf/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 324
***************************************

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..."