Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 392

Fri, 21 Nov 2008

• 1. Re: Sephardi-ism: some food for thought (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Sephardi-ism: some food for thought (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: Sephardi-ism: some food for thought (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: a troubling halacha (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. Blessed in Everything (bakol) (SBA)
• 6. Re: a troubling halacha (Zev Sero)
• 7. Bitachon (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Bitachon (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Some thoughts on Shemonah Perakim (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Some thoughts on Shemonah Perakim (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 11. Re: Some thoughts on Shemonah Perakim (Micha Berger)

Chana Luntz wrote:
 
> The Rashi on Beitza cited by RYK says that it is better to teach the kula
> "shehakol yochlin l'hachmir v'afilu b'dvar mutar".
> 
> That is, every Tom, Dick or Yankel is able to be machmir and assur, whether
> or not the thing is in fact mutar.
> 
> That being the case, we don't need a great posek to tell us something is
> assur, we can all manage to do this ourselves.  What we do need a great
> posek for is to teach us what is mutar, because that we might not be able to
> work out ourselves.
> 
> Thus, one of the fundamental roles of a great posek is to teach the kulos
> (just as, on the same principle, the gemora preferred to teach the kulos
> rather than the chumros when faced with a direct choice).  You should
> therefore expect that the halachic teachings of a posek, which are found in
> his written teshuvos, would be replete with kulos rather than chumros.  In
> other words, one of the primary purposes of writing such teshuvos is koach
> d'hetera adif, to make known the kulos, because they are the bigger
> chiddushim and need to be taught.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't see it, either in that Rashi or
in RYK's post.  All Rashi is saying is that if you want to show that
someone really holds a particular shita, give an example where it leads
him to be mekil, because if the only examples you have are chumrot then
it doesn't prove that he really holds that way.  Maybe he's not sure,
and that's why he's machmir, or maybe there were other reasons that he
didn't want to give a heter, even though he held that one was possible.
But if we find him being mekil then he must really be sure of himself,
because one can't permit something if it's really forbidden.

For instance, when the Chazon Ish paskened like (his understanding of)
the Baal Hamo'or and the Kuzari, his famous telegram said "ichlu bar'vi'i
vetzumu bachamishi"; the reisha is the chidush that shows he really held
that way, and was not just being machmir misafek.  That he was willing to
take on his shoulders that they would eat on the day that rov chachmei
yisrael of that day had paskened was Yom Kippur showed how sure he was of
his position.  Similarly, in his letter to R Avrohom Chaim Noeh about his
position on shiurim he admits that he has no real proof, but "libi omer
li" that he is correct, and he would pasken that way "afilu lehatir eshet
ish".  IOW if a man were to throw a get to his wife, and it were to land
within four CI-amot of her, the CI would allow her to remarry.  That's
the koach dehetera that he found to demonstrate how strongly he held his
position.


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

For instance, when the Chazon Ish paskened like (his understanding of)
the Baal Hamo'or and the Kuzari, his famous telegram said "ichlu
bar'vi'i vetzumu bachamishi"; the reisha is the chidush that shows he
really held that way, and was not just being machmir misafek.  That he
was willing to take on his shoulders that they would eat on the day that
rov chachmei yisrael of that day had paskened was Yom Kippur showed how
sure he was of his position.  Similarly, in his letter to R Avrohom
Chaim Noeh about his position on shiurim he admits that he has no real
proof, but "libi omer li" that he is correct, and he would pasken that
way "afilu lehatir eshet ish".  IOW if a man were to throw a get to his
wife, and it were to land within four CI-amot of her, the CI would allow
her to remarry.  That's the koach dehetera that he found to demonstrate
how strongly he held his position.


-- 
Zev Sero              
=========================================

This is an interesting statement - does the "how strongly he held his
position" apply to the particular shiur or to that libi omer li (i.e. it
could be a reflection on this issue or to the halachik heart issue.)
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.

RMP notes:

> RMM echoed R'Micha:
> > I agree with R' Micha that Sefaradim seem to rely on
> majority-vote...whereas Ashkenazim rely on sevara.... <

Eek.  I know that ROY dominates Sephardi psak these days, and this is often
said about him  - although I confess I think people are often confusing the
fact that he indeed lists pretty much every opinion ever stated (which
unquestionably he does) and takes them seriously, with number crunching.  I
think if you really read his teshuvos you see they are a lot more
sophisticated than that.  But he certainly canvasses all opinions and is
prepared to rule against some of those he quotes.

And I guess if you go back in time, the Shulchan Aruch (himself a Sephardi)
does say this about himself in that that he decides by majority vote between
the Rif, the Rambam and the Rosh.  

But still I think this is a huge generalisation.  I can't say I am an expert
on the Ben Ish Chai, but what I have read does not come across that way at
all (if anything he is very very influenced by Kabbalistic considerations,
which the majority do not necessarily take into account).  Nor does he cite
encyclopaedically like ROY does.  Much more like the Ashkenazi poskim, he
will often cite one or two opinions (the Chida is influential, in what I
have come across, but you periodically get citations to all sorts of other
poskim, half the time, Ashkenazi) and that is it.  But you will get told to
do all sorts of things (or do them in a certain way) that are clearly
sourced in kabbalistic concerns, without it being exactly clear (at least if
you are as unlearned in kabbala as I am) on what precisely the concerns are
based.  Where the kabbala does not come into it, there seems to be a
reasonable amount of svara, from the little I have learnt.

I have had even less exposure to the Morrocan poskim (who seem from what I
can tell to form quite a different stream), but again I don't think they are
like that at all.  They seem more capable of ignoring Ashkenazi psak from
what I can tell (whereas ROY quotes zillions of Ashkenazim, some of whom
most Ashkenazim have probably never heard of).

> Where does the MB fit into this dichotomy?

Well if you are going on stereotypes, then the stereotype of the MB is that
he neither poskens based on sevara nor relies on majority vote, but tries to
go l'chumra for all shittos (ie let's try and devise a way to keep everybody
happy, whereas ROY is more prepared to have "winners" and "losers" and RMF,
if you want a svara based approach, generally doesn't see the need to
mention other people's approaches to the problem, certainly if they are any
later than the Rishonim).

> All the best from
> --Michael Poppers via RIM pager

Regards

Chana

I asked:
> Could it be  that this halacha is based on the presumption
> that people would prefer to observe the relatively easy
> halachos of delayed information, and that they did not
> want to observe the relatively difficult halachos of
> timely  information?
> If so, then the next question is: What changed? Why do we
> prefer the full burden of the timely-information halachos?

R"n Toby Katz suggested:
> Perhaps it was because premature death was so common that
> people would have been constantly sitting shiva for
> parents, sibling and r'l children in the old days.

I must be misunderstanding your answer. To be "constantly sitting shiva", a
person would need literally dozens upon dozens of siblings and children,
AND to outlive them. Quite unlikely. The way I calculate it, if their
family size was approximately the same as our family size, then the only
effect of premature death would be to mourn the same number of people, but
over a shorter period of time.

I wrote:
> I really can't imagine that modern communications are the
> cause of these changes. Halacha does prescribe certain
> brachos to be said when close relatives or friends see each
> other after being out of touch for a long time. But those
> cases were rare. The common case was that people *were* in
> communication with their relatives.

R"n Chana Luntz suggested:
> I don't think you are right here.  I think communication was
> often sporadic at best.  Even your assumption that the postal
> system worked is something relatively recent (last couple of
> hundred years).  Before that I do not believe it was anything
> like that reliable.  People basically remade their lives with
> only extremely limited communication with where they had come
> from.

I concede that communication between distant places was unreliable. But how often were these relatives in distant places?

I've been led to believe that until the Industrial Revolution, it was quite
common for a family to stay in the very same town for many generations.
Those who did move out of town would still be only a few towns away at
most.

Yes, there were people who moved very far away, even many countries away.
And communication was so poor that upon seeing each other, they would have
such a feeling of "Baruch Mechayeh Hameisim!" that Chazal required them to
say a bracha on it. But as I wrote, these cases were very rare. In most
cases, even the poor communication was good enough that relatives two towns
away were not totally out of a person's awareness.

"People basically remade their lives" -- Did they really? Back in the
Mechaber's day? Let's not confuse the last 200 years with the many
centuries before. OTOH, if I am mistaken, please correct me.

RCL brought many stories and personal experiences, including:

> If my mother had lost a parent in those early days, there
> would have been nobody in Australia who would have known
> that parent to offer comfort except my father (and he did
> not know them well), and she would not have been able to
> receive any sort of comfort from mourning together with her
> brother and sister.  I can well see the logic, in that case,
> of not necessarily imposing the full burden of aveilus on
> her then, whereas it seems to me inconceivable that she
> should have been deprived the opportunity to sit shiva with
> her brother and sister in South Africa when in fact her
> parents pass away a few years ago.  That to me is the
> difference.

I totally agree with everthing you wrote, the only exception being how
relevant it is to Life In The Old Days. I would be very surprised to learn
that in the Mechaber's day, so many people lived so far from their families
that the standard halacha was "They have no family to mourn with, so let's
withhold the info so they can follow the easier halachos."

In fact, I think it is reasonable to say that even today, most people do
live near their families. My evidence is in your own post, which says that
"in the case of my husband, his immediate family all live within a short
distance of each other", in contrast to several people of your family who
are very distant from the others.

R' Danny Schoemann told us about his grandfather:

> He was rarely in touch with them and - when in his 70's - he
> had to sit Shiva twice in a year for a "forgotten" sibling
> he was not impressed.
> So for the 3rd sibling we simply didn't tell him until it was
> "old news" at which time he only had to sit for an hour. He
> really appreciated that.
> Maybe we're simply too young to appreciate not having to sit
> Shiva every few months for people we barely know.

I totally sympathize with such a situation, and I'm confident that you are
grateful for this halacha which allowed you to withhold the info until it
was "old news", and in fact, which would have allowed you to withhold the
news forever, had you so chosen. My only problem is that the halacha does
not include any sort of qualifications which suggest doing this only in
cases such as your grandfather's, but seems to say that withholding the
news forever is Standard Operating Procedure.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Free information on becoming a Graphic Designer. Click Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/
PnY6rw3huHmUZeS8VHwpS8zWNaq15vxNLTJNfv1X6ZHO1g5TKjRcW/

From: Yitzchok Levine Subject: 
RSRH's commentary on Chumash Bereishis.
24:1 Avraham was old; he had come through the days, and God had blessed
Avraham in everything.

Avraham's happiness came to expression in that he was blessed bakol, in
everything. A person may succeed in everything that he does, everything that
he owns may prosper, and yet he himself may remain unhappy amidst all this
blessing. All his assets may grow and thrive, but in his heart there is no
simcha, he does not grow or flourish spiritually. Avraham, however, did feel
himself blessed, and flourished through all his blessings.
>>

Probably  better explained by the Ikkar Sifsei Chachomim on that pasuk:
"...veremez beteivas 'bakol', ki ad shelo haya lo ben, amar 'ma titein li', 
ve'achshav kol habrachos shelo nishtalmu."

(Which explains why Rashi says that 'bakol' is begematria 'bein'. 
Why not say "VaHashem berach es Avrohom ba'bein'? "
The answer being that he now had a 'bein' which meant that he had
EVERYTHING.)

SBA

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:

> I concede that communication between distant places was unreliable.
> But how often were these relatives in distant places?

Perhaps not that often, but those who stayed in their birth town
would naturally hear about the death, it would be impossible to keep
it from them, and so this whole topic would not be relevant.  The
question of whether to tell, how to tell, and how long to wait, only
arises when someone is far away (as R Chiya was from Rav's parents)
so that if nobody tells him what happened he won't know.


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

I want to share one of the ideas from last Sunday's "Mussar Kallah"
<http://www.mussarinstitute.org/learning-kallah.htm> that I really took
with me.

What does it take to trust a doctor? You need two things:
1- The doctor needs to be competent. If the doctor is unable to help
you, you have no reason to put your trust in him.
2- You have to be confident that the doctor cares about your wellbeing
and is motivated by your best interest.

When speaking of bitachon, trusting HQBH, we also need the same two
elements -- knowledge of His Awesome power, and a loving relationship with
Him. Bitachon requires the combination of yir'as Shamayim and ahavas H'.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
mi...@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

I just posted:
: I want to share one of the ideas from last Sunday's "Mussar Kallah"
: <http://www.mussarinstitute.org/learning-kallah.htm> that I really took
: with me.

Since I really need the geulah, I must add, this thought was given by R'
David Lapin, author of the Torah at iawaken.org, great-nephew and talmid
of R' Elya Lopian. (Actually a numbewr of famous people, but it was that
connection that brought RDL to be invited to the kallah.)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 07:53:41PM -0500, R Yitzhak Grossman continues
our discussion of his blog entry at <http://tinyurl.com/5sl3hy>:
:> About the title of the post... "Two Chief Rabbis On Rabbinic Wills
:> And Halachic Ways" This is somewhat misle[a]ding...

: It is not misleading.  It is indeed a nod in the direction of Ms.
: Greenberg, but not an endorsement of her view, whatever exactly that
: might be.  It is merely an admittedly provocative challenge to the
: reader to carefully consider the relationship between Rabbinic wills and
: Halachic ways.  I did not claim that the former necessarily, always, or
: even usually or usually implies the latter.

I didn't say you intended to mislead, just that it does mislead, and in
fact, I approached the whole topic with a false assumption about where
you were going. I think I would have avoided offending you had I written
"I was misled, and I think I wouldn't be alone".

(Here we pause to allow RnTK celebrate my remembering to omit the "a" in
"misled". <g>)

Although, some of my assumption about what thesis you're trying to
develop was because I have been coming across too many citations of R'
Uzziel lately by people trying to prove he believed in kulah shopping. (As
someone noted to me in a personal exchange recently, it seems I tend to
bring too much history to new conversations.)

I suggest referring to the web page while reading this post (ask me for a
copy if you have email only access).

It is clear R' Uziel writes in terms of the case at hand:
> Rav Toledano apparently felt that the desparate circumstances of such
> children born out of wedlock should motivate the Posek to find a basis
> for obligating the putative fathers to support them, in spite of ...
> the earlier precedents...

That it's an issue of "vedal lo tehedar berivo". The question is whether
that's R' Uziel's only point, or is he saying something beyond cases of
competing litigants.

Because of the title line, I was predisposed to find such things in
R' Uziel's words, so perhaps he doesn't. (A partial retraction of my
earlier email.) I see the paragraph beginning "Sanhedrei gedolah" to be
an argument for a more objective attitude toward halakhah in general,
not just in cases of two litigants. A search for amitosan shel hadevarim,
yiqov hadin es hahar, even though ein ladayan mah she'einav ro'os. Even
though the paragraph has the words "baalei din", the argument has
nothing to do with it. It's a straightforward statement of an obligation
to get as close to Truth as possible.

...
: A careful reading of the Zevin quote reveals that a) he is
: referring to Rav Spektor's attitude toward Psak in general, and he
: only cites Agunah as a particularly striking example and b) he refers
: explicitly to a much broader spectrum of Agunah than "Agunah
: Me'd'rabbanan" and includes, IIUC, those that are certainly Me'd'oraisa.

I don't understand R' Zevin's citation of RYESpektor, since the gemara
already singles out hataras agunos as one of the few special cases, and
therefore I don't see how it can be proof of what to do in general. Just
as citing an example of a din Torah between two parties can't be used as
a proof for objectivity in general.

I earlier asked how RYG can draw this conclusion, I still can't see it,
but being RSYZevin's conclusion, I presume there is something else I'm
just not getting.

As for whether he refers to "a broader spectrum of Agunah" rather than
the derabbanan case -- actually, of real agunos, nearly all cases of
question are derabbanan, particularly once the telegraph was invented.
As for mesarvei get, there one gets into deOraisos, but ones caused by
"kol hameqadeish..." and therefore gives chakhamim some power as well.

But regardless of how we justify Chazal having the power to say "search
for ways to avoid an agunah", they do. And so RYES's attitude toward
agunos could be explained entirely by the gemara's known statement that
hataras agunos is one of a few special cases. For that matter, because
Chazal have a need to give this rule WRT agunos, eiruvin, perhaps a
subsection of mamzeirus (any other cases?), I would actually conclude
that the general rule in the rest of Torah is not to engage in this kind
of seeking!

: I do concede that the matter is not quite as simple as I originally
: claimed, since, as RMSS pointed out to me off-list, Rav Uziel does
: mention the illegitimacy of distorting the Halachic process to be
: lenient in a question of bastardy. which certainly seems to be an issue
: Bein Adam Le'Makom.  Nevertheless, I stand by what I said, that his
: primary concern seems to be the unfairness of non-neutral application
: of Halachah to one litigant's detriment.

And I would say he is addressing that case, where the argument is
stronger, but is mentioning along the way that hunting for leniency is
wrong in general (except for a couple/few special topics, as per above).

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:47:57 -0500
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

...

> I didn't say you intended to mislead, just that it does mislead, and in
> fact, I approached the whole topic with a false assumption about where
> you were going. I think I would have avoided offending you had I written
> "I was misled, and I think I wouldn't be alone".

As I wrote to RMB off-list, God wrote (or caused to be written)
"na'aseh adam", even though the phrasing allows for heretical
misinterpretation, because He had a point to make.

...

> It is clear R' Uziel writes in terms of the case at hand:
> > Rav Toledano apparently felt that the desparate circumstances of such
> > children born out of wedlock should motivate the Posek to find a basis
> > for obligating the putative fathers to support them, in spite of ...
> > the earlier precedents...
> 
> That it's an issue of "vedal lo tehedar berivo". The question is whether
> that's R' Uziel's only point, or is he saying something beyond cases of
> competing litigants.

I'm not sure if we're really disagreeing at this point.  I agree that
distortion of Halachah is completely unacceptable, and you agree, if I
understand you correctly, that there's an additional problem when the
judge is partial to a litigant and attempts to manipulate the Din in
his favor.

> Because of the title line, I was predisposed to find such things in
> R' Uziel's words, so perhaps he doesn't. (A partial retraction of my
> earlier email.) I see the paragraph beginning "Sanhedrei gedolah" to be
> an argument for a more objective attitude toward halakhah in general,
> not just in cases of two litigants. A search for amitosan shel hadevarim,
> yiqov hadin es hahar, even though ein ladayan mah she'einav ro'os. Even
> though the paragraph has the words "baalei din", the argument has
> nothing to do with it. It's a straightforward statement of an obligation
> to get as close to Truth as possible.

I agree that Rav Uziel is also exhorting the reader toward objectivity
in Halachah in general, but I don't accept that his argument has
"nothing to do" with adversarial proceedings, since he constantly
interweaves Biblical and Rabbinic dicta concerning Din into his
discussion. as I have argued.

...

> I don't understand R' Zevin's citation of RYESpektor, since the gemara
> already singles out hataras agunos as one of the few special cases, and
> therefore I don't see how it can be proof of what to do in general. Just
> as citing an example of a din Torah between two parties can't be used as
> a proof for objectivity in general.

To which Gemara do you refer?

...

> As for whether he refers to "a broader spectrum of Agunah" rather than
> the derabbanan case -- actually, of real agunos, nearly all cases of
> question are derabbanan, particularly once the telegraph was invented.
> As for mesarvei get, there one gets into deOraisos, but ones caused by
> "kol hameqadeish..." and therefore gives chakhamim some power as well.

Rav Zevin refers to "misas ha'ba'al, gitin, kiddushin, sotah, etc."  It
seems to me that these encompass many situations of De'oraisa, unless
Rav Spektor's lenient tendencies are limited to those cases where there
is at worst only an Issur De'Rabbanan.

> But regardless of how we justify Chazal having the power to say "search
> for ways to avoid an agunah", they do. And so RYES's attitude toward
> agunos could be explained entirely by the gemara's known statement that
> hataras agunos is one of a few special cases. For that matter, because
> Chazal have a need to give this rule WRT agunos, eiruvin, perhaps a
> subsection of mamzeirus (any other cases?), I would actually conclude
> that the general rule in the rest of Torah is not to engage in this kind
> of seeking!

Again, which statement?
 
> : I do concede that the matter is not quite as simple as I originally
> : claimed, since, as RMSS pointed out to me off-list, Rav Uziel does
> : mention the illegitimacy of distorting the Halachic process to be
> : lenient in a question of bastardy. which certainly seems to be an issue
> : Bein Adam Le'Makom.  Nevertheless, I stand by what I said, that his
> : primary concern seems to be the unfairness of non-neutral application
> : of Halachah to one litigant's detriment.
> 
> And I would say he is addressing that case, where the argument is
> stronger, but is mentioning along the way that hunting for leniency is
> wrong in general (except for a couple/few special topics, as per above).

Once again, we do not diverge that widely anymore, although I
(following Rav Zevin) don't accept your distinction between Agunos and
the rest of Halachah.

> Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

Here's what I am (at this point) now trying to disagree about):

Other than cases of eiruvin and agunah (and maybe some instances of
mamzeirus), I just through of hefsed merubah (I think also only in
derabbanan), and perhaps other dinim of which I am unaware, would R'
Zevin tell the poseiq that being meiqil has value in and of itself,
as an expression of Beis Hillel's pursuit of midas hachessed?

Of course one can't use chessed to justify mutating pesaq, but it is a
"pro" to weigh -- or even to hunt out -- when faced with multiple
justifiable answers?

You're advocating doing so, except in cases of competing litigants,
as well as other cases you don't yet articulate but parallel RMSS's
example WRT mamzeirus.

I am saying there are a handful of cases where one would do so, although
hefsed merubah (even if only WRT derabbanan) is a frequently occuring one.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 392
***************************************

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..."