Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 132

Thu, Jun 24, 2010

• 1. Re: Klalei horaah (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 2. Re: Aseres haShevatim (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Re: Korach Question (T6...@aol.com)
• 4. burning of the talmud (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: using a pat of butter (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. Re: Klalei horaah (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Klalei horaah (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 8. Re: Klalei horaah (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Klalei horaah (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Aseres haShevatim (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: better not to have been born (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: better not to have been born (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 13. Re: better not to have been born (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 14. Lo Sachmod (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 15. Lemino/leminehu (Gershon Dubin)
• 16. Re: ethics outside of Torah (Micha Berger)

this is the Chavis Yair question #94 and he answers it there

Rich, Joel wrote:
> Why did the gemara come up with klalei horaah (rules for psak) rather
> than deciding each disagreement on its own merits?(e.g. was Rav always
> right in cases of issurin?)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100621/f1d4dd64/attachment-0001.htm>

Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:53:04 -0400
From: Micha Berger  <mi...@aishdas.org>

>> There are two things odd about the south-west corner of the
map. First, the Gaza Strip is not included, and second, the tribe of
Shim'on lives in an island within Yehudah's land.

These two are connected. Shim'on never succeeded in conquering its
promised portion of Israel, and therefore settled within an empty part
of the Judean desert. ...


...In response, I was asked -- well then how did Shim'on end up exiled
and lost with the aseres hashevatim? Did Ashur penetrate Yehudah and
manage to exile the Shim'on settlement in their midst?


...One might be tempted to explain that some of the aseres hashevatim
were exiled by Ashur and assimilated among nachriim, but others
assimilated into Yehudah. ... Now if all Shim'on did to get lost from
history is assimilate into Yehudah, why would they be included along
with Malkhus Yisrael for such a harsh judgment?
....I replied with an "I don't  know". Thoughts?


--
Micha  Berger





>>>>

You also asked about Ephraim and Menashe -- I deleted that part because
I have no thoughts. But re Shimon, well, Yakov's bracha (Ber.49:7) says
about Shimon and Levi: "Achalkem beYa'akov, afitzem beYisrael--I will
separate them in Yakov, I will scatter them in Yisrael." Levi we know had
no contiguous land mass, but only scattered cities. As for Shimon, Rashi
 says they
were poor people, sofrim and teachers of children, and therefore
they were scattered, for their work or to collect tzedakah. It is
reasonable to assume that some of them assimilated into Yehudah and
that many assimilated into all the other tribes among whom they lived
for their parnassah. Therefore most of them would have ended up going
into exile with the Ten Tribes.



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

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100621/499cce1e/attachment-0001.htm>

From: Richard Wolberg <cantorwolb...@cox.net>
>> If Korach questioned Moshe as to the authenticity of the
Torah, at what point was the Torah already revealed? In other words,
the parasha Korach is part of the Torah. Did Korach know that? If so,
he would know his fate. If not, what part of the Torah was he claiming
Moshe wrote on his own? Also, wasn't Korach present at Har Sinai?
Didn't all the people hear/and or see the actual voice of HaShem for
the first 2 Commandments? So how could Korach, after witnessing this,
deny it? <<


>>>>

The Torah was revealed bit by bit, as events occurred. Otherwise, the
Bnos Tzlafchad would not have had to ask Moshe about inheriting land in
the absence of brothers -- they could have just read the Torah till the
end to see
 what the answer was. Likewise, Moshe could have/should have avoided
hitting the rock -- so that he would be able to go into Eretz Yisrael --
or conversely, Moshe had no choice BUT to hit the rock, since the Torah
said he hit the rock!

However in actuality the parts of the Torah that deal with events that
occurred and questions that arose after Matan Torah were given to Moshe
and added to the Torah after Matan Torah, the whole Torah not being
finalized until Moshe's death. What was given on Sinai was the main
body of law and the history up till that point.

BTW Korach did not deny the Torah, he only denied Moshe's authority.
Well, OK, the Torah says that Moshe acted on G-d's authority so denying
Moshe is tantamount to denying the Torah, but that's from our perspective
after all the events occurred. From Korach's perspective, he could well
have known that Moshe went up to Har Sinai and received the Law there,
and still have assumed that Moshe was arrogating to himself and to his
brother more power than Hashem had actually given him. In a way he was
like today's Conservative rabbis who claim to believe in the Torah (and
some actually do) while at the same time reading the Torah the way they
want to read it and denying the authority of Chazal.

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

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







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100621/e2c03e88/attachment-0001.htm>

<<PS. One of the Maharam's students was the Rosh, who later fled
to Spain and taught Torah there, resulting in the cross-fertilization
of Torah between the Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities (not the only
time such cross-fertilization occurred, of course).>>

This is a common fallacy. Actually the Rosh was relatively little
influenced by sephardic halacha. His yeshiva in Toledo continued for
many years fairly isolated from the surrounding sephardic community.

The main advocate of combined ashkenazi-sephardi learning was in fact the
Ramban who learned from Baalei hatosafot and truly combined the best of
sephardi tradition with that of the Tosafot. This was expanded by his
talmid the Rashba and then the Ritva all with their chiddushin.

It is tru that the Tur quotes from the Ramban but in fact not much is
known of the yeshiva of thge Rosh until 1492 though we know it existed
it didnt produce anything of lasting influence after the Tur, See Ta
Shma for extensive discussion

--
Eli Turkel

R' Michael Poppers asked:
> ... can one use solid butter on Shabbos (I'm thinking of 'shmearing'
> a pat onto baked goods, but I guess the Q would also be relevant to
> placing a pat onto a hot food)? Seemingly involves not only a
> change from solid to liquid but also (more importantly?) m'macheiq.

Rav Eider, p 254, says that putting the butter on a hot potato would be
bishul d'Oraisa, but in footnote 85 there, he clarifies that this is only
if the butter was made from UNpasteurized milk. This is repeated on pg
317, and in both places he references Teshuva 19 of Rav Moshe Feinstein
printed in the back of that volume (and reprinted in Igros Moshe O"C 4,
pg 135, #6).

If the melting would be a problem, it would surely have been mentioned,
which it wasn't. In fact, Rav Moshe's argument is that the butter "is
made from cooked milk, and once it solidified, it became a Davar Yavesh,
to which Bishul Achar Bishul doesn't apply, as explained in Magen Avraham
#40 regarding fat which solidified..."

Regarding memachek, this doesn't apply to spreading butter on bread --
Mishne Brurah 321:82.

Akiva Miller

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:58:07AM -0400, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Rich, Joel wrote:
>> Why did the gemara come up with klalei horaah (rules for psak) rather
>> than deciding each disagreement on its own merits?(e.g. was Rav always
>> right in cases of issurin?)

> this is the Chavis Yair question #94 and he answers it there

Where are you reading from? To me it looks like he denies the premise... The
kelalei pesaq are not the hard-n-fast rules of an algorithm, but the
rules-of-thumb of a heuristic. (Search the list for that word to see RRW's
and my long debate on that subject.)

IOW, you can assume that Rav's argument has more merit. But in a singular
case in which the bar plugta's shitah appears demonstrably stronger, it
ends up an exception to the rule.

(Also why the SA violates his own rule about following 2 of the three
preexisting major codes. It's a kelal, not hard-n-fast.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
mi...@aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)

I agree he is denying the premise. I simply said he raises the question.
There is another view that the Talmud was edited to conform with the
klalei horaah. In other words according to this view the Talmud is not
a historically accurate record of who said what

Micha Berger wrote:
> Where are you reading from? To me it looks like he denies the premise... The
> kelalei pesaq are not the hard-n-fast rules of an algorithm, but the
> rules-of-thumb of a heuristic. (Search the list for that word to see RRW's
> and my long debate on that subject.)

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Micha Berger wrote:
> Where are you reading from? To me it looks like he denies the
> premise... The kelalei pesaq are not the hard-n-fast rules of an
> algorithm, but the rules-of-thumb of a heuristic. (Search the list for
> that word to see RRW's and my long debate on that subject.)
>

So are you saying that a rishon could paskin like rav bmamonot with no
indication in the gemara that there was a reason not to assume that
the particular case at hand was an exception to the general rule
stated in the gemara?

KT
Joel Rich

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 07:05:19AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:>                  The kelalei pesaq are not the hard-n-fast rules of an
:> algorithm, but the rules-of-thumb of a heuristic. (Search the list for
:> that word to see RRW's and my long debate on that subject.)

: So are you saying that a rishon could paskin like rav bmamonot with
: no indication in the gemara that there was a reason not to assume that
: the particular case at hand was an exception to the general rule stated
: in the gemara?

That would also violate acharei rabim and another of other rules of thumb.

Having rules that can be violated when a strong enough alternate rule
comes into play isn't the same thing as anarchy. (I mentioned searching
the archive for the word "heuristic" to find RRW and my many discussions
on this topic. The idea that one can violate a system even when the
system has fuzzy boundries was a recurring topic.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger                     "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org                person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org -- Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 02:16:13AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
:                                       As for Shimon, Rashi says they
: were poor people, sofrim and teachers of children, and therefore they were
: scattered, for their work or to collect tzedakah. It is reasonable to
: assume that some of them assimilated into Yehudah and that many assimilated
: into all the other tribes among whom they lived for their parnassah.
: Therefore most of them would have ended up going into exile with
: the Ten Tribes.

Except that we see from Yehoshua 19:1 that "vayhi nachalasam besokh
nachalas Benei Yehudah." (This pasuq was the original source of my
question.) And we later learn from Divrei haYamim I 4 that some went to
Gedor (pasuq 39), which is South-East of Beis Lechem, and 500 continued
to Har Seir (South East of Yam haMelakh) to exterminate the Amaleiqi
settlement of Har Seir (4:42).

So it's unlikely that most were in the North.


Their being teachers is in Medrash Rabba. The Jewish Encyclopedia gives
the mar'eh meqomos Bereishis Rabba 98:5, 99:7 and Bamidbar Rabba 21:8.

It's interesting that both shevatim that were rebuked by Yaaqov for
Shechem ended up being scattered teachers. I guess they learned savlanus
somewhere along the way.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org               - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 01:33:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>                              But from Hashem's point of view, He wants
> [geirim] so much that He sent us out among the nations for the sole purpose
> of finding and recruiting them.

That's R' Elazar on Pesachim 87b, using the lashon "Lo hiflah HQBH es
Yisrael levein ha'umos ela kedei sheyosifu lahem geirim."

And yet we know there are other reasons, such as our needing an
onesh.

Why does R"E use such absolute language?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Micha Berger wrote:
> That's R' Elazar on Pesachim 87b, using the lashon "Lo hiflah HQBH es
> Yisrael levein ha'umos ela kedei sheyosifu lahem geirim."
> And yet we know there are other reasons, such as our needing an
> onesh.
> Why does R"E use such absolute language?

Maharsha(Pesachim 87b): Jews were not sent into exile except so converts
could join the Jewish people - Because if it were merely a punishment
then it would be possible to punish them in another way. Therefore it
must be in order that converts could join. In other words exile serves
to publicize the Jewish faith amongst the nations.

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 01:33:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>                              But from Hashem's point of view, He wants
>> [geirim] so much that He sent us out among the nations for the sole purpose
>> of finding and recruiting them.

> That's R' Elazar on Pesachim 87b, using the lashon "Lo hiflah HQBH es
> Yisrael levein ha'umos ela kedei sheyosifu lahem geirim."

> And yet we know there are other reasons, such as our needing an
> onesh.

An alternative explanation is that of the Kabbalists:

*Rav Tzadok(**Pri Tzadik -- Parshas Parah #3): *... This that it says in
Pesachim (87b) that G-d exiled Israel only in order to have converts
join them.. This is explained [Arizal] that it doesn't mean actual
converts but rather the gathering of sparks of kedusha and vitality
which are found amongst the nations. These sparks are extracted from the
nations by means of Jewish exile....

*Rav Tzadok**(Pri Tzadik -- Prashas Metzora  #6): *The purpose of exile
is in order to extract the holy sparks from the nations as it says in
Pesachim (87b) that G-d only exile the Jews in order that converts would
join them. The holy books state that this doesn't mean for the purpose
of non-Jews converting but rather that the Jews will acquire the
holiness that exists amongst the nations. This is similar to the
statement describing the Egyptian exile that the Jews despoiled Egypt
and made it like a trap that had no corn for bait or like a pond that
had no fish (Pesachim 119a). The term "fish" alludes to the basis and
source of life as Bereishis (1:20) described them was "living soul".
Thus this describes the spoils which they took from the nations of the
world as it says in Tehilim (119:161): "I rejoice at your word, like one
who finds great booty."

*Rav Tzadok**(Pri Tzadik - Parshas Behar #11):* As it says in Pesachim
(87b) that G-d did not exile the Jews except that they should have
converts join them. This is referring to the sparks of holiness that the
Jews extract during exile and consequently also obtain converts from the
nations from those whose essence is good and need to become part of the
Jewish people...**

*Rav Tzadok**(Pri Tzadik -- Parshas Eschanon #1):*... The purpose of
exile to extract from the nations the source of life which is that Oral
Torah which they have. However in relationship to them this life is in
exile within them because they take this life force and reverse it. This
idea is found in Pesachim (87b) that G-d only exiled the Jews in order
that the converts join them. That is referring to the sparks of holiness
which they extract. When the Jews extract all the Oral Torah then that
will be the end of the kingship of Moshiach...And Shabbos which
corresponds to the attriubte of kingship there is also a revelation of
the Oral Torah as I have explained many times.**






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100622/d84f193a/attachment-0001.htm>

Ibn Ezra famously gives a parable of a villager seeing a princess, and
it not even occurring to him to desire her, as she is so far above his
station that it does not even enter his mind as a possibility; so, too,
he says, we must consider something which is forbidden to us as so beyond
the realm of possibly being ours, that we refrain from even desiring it.

I was thinking about this, and I think that the society we live in
conspires to make this Mitzvah much harder to keep. The American Dream
is all about upwards mobility; the "princess" is not beyond us - we
are taught from the youngest age (explicitly or implicitly) that we
can achieve our dream and that no goal is beyond our ability. Did the
Shtetl Yid - the "Ish Kfari" of the Ibn Ezra - dream of moving to the
Big City? But today, we are all looking for the next big thing, another
opportunity, a way to advance. So how can we be expected to understand
how to curb our desires?

Also, how does the Ibn Ezra jive with the Sifra (Kedoshim) that says that
R' EBA sad that a person should not say, "I don't want to wear Shaatnez,"
rather he should say, "I want to, but my father in heaven decreed upon
me that I can not!"?

KT,
MYG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100623/0ffc5480/attachment-0001.htm>

Can someone point me to a consistent and reasonably simple explanation
of why the Torah switched, for trees, from lemino at the tzivui, to
leminehu at the creation. In general, an explanation of what these
terms mean specifically would be appreciated.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 01:52:54PM -0400, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> So the question becomes how do we define "outside of halakhah". Are we
:> asking about ethics we would know even before the Torah was given? Do
:> we mean values relayed in aggadita that we must follow even though they
:> aren't amenable to codification as halakhah? Both?

: We all agree that any code of law including SA cannot account for every
: conceivable happening. Hence, one has to decide on occasion on things that
: are not in SA. I would not use the phrase prohibited but rather
: "correct behavior"....

We have a way of growing new law. Halakhah isn't the SA, it's the
process by which we reached the conclusions in the SA. So in theory,
I think halakhah could be applied to every conceivable happening.

AISI, the questions are:

1a- Do we have a definition of permitted but undesirable behavior? Or
are all choices not covered by halakhah equal?

Not just in terms of how many heteirim we're invoking, or relying on
a daas yachid, or whatever... Does the Torah relay values?

1b- Are there prohibited choices for reasons other than halakhah prohibits
that activity?

The answer I proposed for these questions is "yes", because we are
mandated not only in terms of issurim and chiyuvim, but there are also
chiyuvim to reach for particular ideals, to embody values -- what I've
called on this list QY"T mitzvos ("*Q*deshim tihyu", "ve'asisa ha*Y*ashar
veha*T*ov"), roughly -- Rambam hilkhos Dei'os.

Thus it's actually prohibited to be a naval birshus haTorah even though
that sounds self-contradictory (prohibited vs birshus). Not just inferior,
but outright assur.

The activity is permitted; the "doing" is fine. It's the "being" that
doesn't fit the Torah.

This feeds question 3:

2- Is the definition of who we are to be presumed to flow only from the
Torah? Or, as I put it in my earlier post (quoted above), "Are we asking
about ethics we would know even before the Torah was given?"

Naniach that there is a chiyuv to try to be an ever more yashar person.
Is "yashar" as defined in the Torah, or does it also include yashrus as
HQBH wired us to know instinctively.

: As I previously gave the example of RMF insisting on paying for the transportation
: of a talmid. RMF did not say he was required rather he thought that was the
: right thing to do.
: This has to based on some generally accepted societal attitudes.

Or, based on values relayed in halakhah, but taken lifnim mishuras
hadin. That is the difference between question 1 (both parts) and 2. One
can believe in a "lifnim", what we can know which direction is better
than minimum required of us, without belief that it's "accepted societal
attitudes", or the way humans were programmed (e.g. lo sirtzakh), etc...

: I note that some achronim actually use this for psak. Their is
: controversy about the
: extent of patent/copyright law in halacha...

This is the Shoel uMeishiv's position (see 1:44). He holds that (1)
there is ownership of ideas because of common morality, and (2) that
barring a qinyan, that ownership is eternal, as halakhah recognizes
eternal baalus. Even if secular law sets a horizon for copyright, the
SuM argues that we would be required beyond that -- so we're not just
talking about dina demalkhusa. As you write, it's based upon the notion
that we are obligated to keep contemporary morality. Not just should,
but must do so.

I first mentioned this in v7n58 (posts #4 and 13; that's Jun 2001),
after a shiur by R' Zev Reichman during the height of the legal action
around Napster (a music sharing service).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 132
***************************************

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..."