Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 135

Thu, 01 Jul 2010

• 1. The Cult of Pe'or and Darwinism (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Beis Yosef Meat (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Re: Beis Yosef Meat (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Beis Yosef Meat (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Beis Yosef Meat (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Beis Yosef Meat (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Sheva Brachot (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Sheva Brachot (Gershon Dubin)
• 9. Re: Sheva Brachot (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Beis Yosef Meat (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Beis Yosef Meat (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Fw: Partnership Minyanim by Aryeh and Dov Frimer (Chanoch (Ken) Bloom)
• 13. Correcting a baal korei (Dov Kaiser)
• 14. Re: The Cult of Pe'or and Darwinism (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 15. Re: Correcting a baal korei (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Correcting a baal korei (Micha Berger)
• 17. Rav on Women's Ordination - Rambam and whether he is a daas yachid (Chana Luntz)
• 18. Herod and Shlomozion (Chana Luntz)

At 06:16 AM 6/30/2010, Yitzchok Schaffer wrote:

>On 6/27/2010 11:16, Yitzchok Levine wrote:
> > The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bamidbar 25:
> >
> > /*The cult of Pe?or is an illustration of the type of Darwinism 
> that glories
> > in man?s descent to the level of the beast, where, stripping himself of
> > his Divinely-given nobility, he comes to regard himself as merely a higher
> > species of animal.
> >
>
>... which is why we need a different type of Darwinism, that which does
>not limit its world to the material, and sees man as a higher species of
>animal *plus* a Divine soul.

Two questions come to mind.

1. Why do we need any type of Darwinism?

2. Would this "different type of Darwinism" be science? After all, 
science is interested in explaining how things occur, not the 
underlying why.  The simplest explanation that explains a given 
phenomenon is the one that is almost always used. It seems to me that 
science has no need for spiritual considerations.

YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100630/058976d1/attachment-0001.htm>

At 06:16 AM 6/30/2010, Reb Micha wrote:

>I think it would include assuming their standards are in compliance with
>an acceptable pesaq. (Acceptible for them, eg not that a Sepharadi must
>assume an Ashkenazi would only eat Bet Yosef meat.)

In response to the following question:

Am I correct that if meat were slaughtered only according to the 
standards of the Bais Yosef and the standards of the Rema were 
ignored, then Ashkenazim would not be allowed to eat it?

R Seth Mandel replied

Yes.

Today the new buzzwords in Flatbush are Beit Yosef. But this is 
really another misnomer, since what is today called Beis Yosef is 
slaughtered and inspected according to the standards of both the Beis 
Yosef and the Rema.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100630/507f90dc/attachment-0001.htm>

Prof. Levine wrote:
> In response to the following question:
> Am I correct that if meat were slaughtered _only according to the 
> standards of the Bais Yosef_ and the standards of the Rema were ignored, 
> then Ashkenazim would not be allowed to eat it?

I don't know about shechitah, but it's my understanding that nikkur
according to minhag Sefard, which is more lenient than minhag Ashkenaz,
was accepted by the Ashkenazim of Yerushalayim, mostly for lack of
a choice: the Turks didn't allow them to have their own shechitah.
And therefore to this day, the minhag Yerushalayim on nikkur follows
the BY and not the Ramo.

(Note: I'm not sure what the exact issue is, that constitutes this
difference; I vaguely recall some mention of veridim, but I may have
misheard or misunderstood or just misrecollected.)

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 06:30:19AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> I don't know about shechitah, but it's my understanding that nikkur
> according to minhag Sefard, which is more lenient than minhag Ashkenaz...

I don't know about practice, but the amoraim are choleqim on the shiur
for shehiyah, the Rif, Rambam, Tur and Mechabeir all have a shiur,
and we Ashk (starting at least with the Rama) hold it's a mah shehu.

However, RYL asked RSM, who is *the* authority on how meat is shechted
lemaaseh. If R' Mandel said that all Seph meat is kosher to Ashk, I
assume they lemaaseh do niqur and avoid shehiyah in ways that make
that statement true.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Micha Berger wrote:

> However, RYL asked RSM, who is *the* authority on how meat is shechted
> lemaaseh. If R' Mandel said that all Seph meat is kosher to Ashk

Nope.  He said that the meat which is sold in the USA as "Bet Yosef"
is kosher for both.  This says nothing about minhag Sefard, especially
as it was practised in EY in the days of the Old Yishuv or as it's
practised there today.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:06:46AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> However, RYL asked RSM, who is *the* authority on how meat is shechted
>> lemaaseh. If R' Mandel said that all Seph meat is kosher to Ashk

> Nope.  He said that the meat which is sold in the USA as "Bet Yosef"
> is kosher for both.  This says nothing about minhag Sefard, especially
> as it was practised in EY in the days of the Old Yishuv or as it's
> practised there today.

Actually, RSM's job is international. Anything the OU gives a hashgachah
to on the imports -- whether directly or as an ingredient. Although I
agree I doubt the US imports too much Bet Yosef meat from Israel...

The whole chiluq I was trying to make is between the machloqes in theory
and whether or not we have to be chosheish for any Seph actually using a
heter an Ashk can't eat from. Thus my repeated "lemaaseh" in my earlier
post, as in "I assume they lemaaseh do niqur and avoid shehiyah in ways
that make that statement true." So I'm not sure what the "days of the Old
Yishuv" have to do with the conversation once I shifted from a machloqes
in theory to what one may rely on in practice.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

R' Chanani Sandler asked:
> Since there is a halacha to "bentch" on a Kos Shel Bracha, why do
> we call it "Sheva Brachot" if there are really only six Brachot
> that are associated with the occasion?

Here are a few possible answers, just off the top of my head:

1) Even though Hagafen would be said anyway, we *are* saying a total of seven on this occasion.

2) Perhaps we count Hagafen toward the seven because of the many occasions when we *don't* use a kos shel bracha for benching.

3) I suspect the most likely answer might be that our use of the term
"sheva brachos" for the week-long meals is only a carryover from using that
term at the chupa. And at the chupa, all seven count, even the Hagafen,
because "a kallah without seven blessings is forbidden to her husband." (I
hope I'm not misquoting that line; I can't find its source at the moment.)

Akiva Miller




____________________________________________________________
TODAY: MacBooks For $103?
New laptops auctioned up to 90% off Everyday w/ our unique bidding site
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4c2b3b03a8949104a52st01vuc

From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" kennethgmil...@juno.com

<<"a kallah without seven blessings is forbidden to her husband." (I
hope I'm not misquoting that line; I can't find its source at the
moment.)>>The quote is from the beginning of Maseches Kallah, and
refers to kalla belo beracha, no mention of a number.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com
____________________________________________________________
Project Management Cert
Villanova PMP&#174 & CAPM&#174 Classes. Average Salary For PMPs is $100K
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c2b482b96e615d0fdst04vuc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100630/74d65eec/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:38:10PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: R' Chanani Sandler asked:
:> Since there is a halacha to "bentch" on a Kos Shel Bracha, why do
:> we call it "Sheva Brachot" if there are really only six Brachot
:> that are associated with the occasion?
...
: 3) I suspect the most likely answer might be that our use of the term
: "sheva brachos" for the week-long meals is only a carryover from using
: that term at the chupa...

Actually, haGafen has a different halachic status the entire week than
it usually does after bentching. Recall the whole rigamarole we do to
mix the wine? The reason for two cups is because we do not make chavilos
out of the birkhas hamazon and sheva berakhos. And because the "haGafen"
is on both we need to mix both cups -- but that turns the haGafen into
being both birkhas hanehenin and birkhas hamitzvah.

See EH 62:9 and nosei keilim, or find the sources the way I did --
cheat off RPFeldman of Kollel Iyun haDaf at
http://www.dafyomi.co.il/sotah/halachah/so-hl-008.htm (the archive of the
original email names the author, but this version is easier to read).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:06:46AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> However, RYL asked RSM, who is *the* authority on how meat is shechted
>>> lemaaseh. If R' Mandel said that all Seph meat is kosher to Ashk
> 
>> Nope.  He said that the meat which is sold in the USA as "Bet Yosef"
>> is kosher for both.  This says nothing about minhag Sefard, especially
>> as it was practised in EY in the days of the Old Yishuv or as it's
>> practised there today.
> 
> Actually, RSM's job is international.

Irrelevant.  His statement was about the "Bet Yosef" meat that is
common today in Flatbush.


> The whole chiluq I was trying to make is between the machloqes in theory
> and whether or not we have to be chosheish for any Seph actually using a
> heter an Ashk can't eat from. Thus my repeated "lemaaseh" in my earlier
> post, as in "I assume they lemaaseh do niqur and avoid shehiyah in ways
> that make that statement true."

I am almost 100% sure that that is false, and in Y'm it's false even for
Ashkenazim, since they follow minhag Sefard in this regard.  Though I
wouldn't go so far as to say that one *can't* eat it, just that it isn't
100% according to minhag Ashk, and allows things that minhag Ashk. is
not to allow.  It could be that this is only lechatchila, i.e. minhag A
is to cut more and S is to cut less, but once it's been butchered A'im
can still eat it.  And I can think of at least two other heterim.  But
I know that there are those in EY who avoid Yerushalmi meat for this
reason.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

PS: Of course I could be completely mistaken.  This isn't a subject I
know a lot about.

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 07:31:21PM -0500, Ira Tick wrote:
> Someone brought to my attention the Levush, who rules that women do not
> shecht out of fear of fainting.
> 
> It makes more sense to me that the Rema's ruling is echoing the
> Levush. Many decisions in halacha, even those canonized in the
> Codes, are often much more banal than is assumed by later-day
> analysis.

I'm not sure "echoing" is the right word. The Levush is a talmid of
the REMA, and the Levush is essentially contemporaneous with the
REMA's glosses on the Shulchan Aruch.

--Ken

-- 
Chanoch (Ken) Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/

I wrote:
 
> Drifting into Avodah territory, do you know where R. Yaakov said this, 
> as it contradicts a pretty clear Rema in OH, 142 that we do correct 
> mistakes that change the meaning of the words (contra the Manhig, who is 
> concerned about embarrassing the baal korei)?
 
R.ZS wrote:
 
<<Actually not contra the Manhig; the Ramo actually paskens
*according* to the Manhig, as he's understood by the BY and most other
poskim, i.e. that he's talking only about mistakes that don't change the
meaning. Only the Bach understands him to be talking about all mistakes,
and pretty much only the Bach paskens that way, that a baal koreh should
never be corrected or made to go back. (The Chayei Adam and the Biur
Halacha say that if the mistake was not realised until after leining was
already over, so that correcting it would require reopening the sefer torah
and making new brachos, then we can rely on the Bach.)
 
The opinion contra the Manhig is the Rambam, who holds that one must
correct for *every* mistake, even if it doesn't affect the meaning; and
that is the way the Tur and the BY pasken.
 
(Thanks to a discussion on Mahpach a few days ago, I just looked up all of these.)>>

 
 
Thank you for the elaboration.	I confess that I based my comments on the
AhS, because it is available online (http://tinyurl.com/32c6m7o) and I
was without other seforim at the time.	
 
The AhS quotes the Tur as follows: *The Baal Hamanhig wrote:  if the
reader, or the chazzan reading to him, erred, it is good not to correct him
over his error in public, in order not to shame him, because even though he
erred, he has fulfilled his obligation, as it is taught in the Midrash,
that if he read Aharon as Haron, he has fulfilled his obligation.*
 
The Manhig, as quoted, does not qualify his statement.	Therefore, the AhS,
in an attempt to harmonize him with the Rambam, states that the Manhig was
talking about a mistake in taamei mikra, while the Rambam was talking about
saying the wrong word.	The difficulty with this explanation is that Aharon
to Haron is not just a mistake in taamei mikra, and although the AhS has an
explanation for this, it is a bit forced.

Anyway, I am still surprised that R. Yaakov paskened like a daas yachid
(i.e. the Manhig, as understood by the Bach) against the Rema and acharonim
that you cite, which is why I asked where it recorded that he said this.  I
do not have access to Emes l?Yaakov on SA.
 
Kol tuv
Dov Kaiser
                                          
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100701/f2af53eb/attachment-0001.htm>

On 6/30/2010 06:15, Prof. Levine wrote:
>> ... which is why we need a different type of Darwinism, that which does
>> not limit its world to the material, and sees man as a higher species of
>> animal *plus* a Divine soul.
> 
> Two questions come to mind.
> 
> 1. Why do we need any type of Darwinism?
> 
> 2. Would this "different type of Darwinism" be science? After all,
> science is interested in explaining how things occur, not the underlying
> why. The simplest explanation that explains a given phenomenon is the
> one that is almost always used. It seems to me that science has no need
> for spiritual considerations.
> 

1. I don't mean to imply that we necessarily need Darwinism, rather that
/if/ one accepts some kind of Darwinian view on evolution, one needs to
limit it to the realm of the physical (and biological).

2. When I read the excerpt from RSRH, I think of those who equate success
of evolution with that of philosophical materialism - the whole is merely a
sum of its material parts. Miller in /Finding Darwin's God/ has a chapter
on this (The gods of disbelief) that I as a layman found useful. The case
has been made that evolution does not exclude the transcendent; see
RNSlifkin's comparison to Hashem's role in the events of Megillas Esther. 

-- 
Yitzchak Schaffer
Systems Manager
Touro College Libraries
33 West 23rd Street
New York, NY 10010
Tel (212) 463-0400 x5230
Fax (212) 627-3197
Email yitzchak.schaf...@tourolib.org

Access Problems? Contact systems.libr...@touro.edu

Dov Kaiser wrote:

> The Manhig, as quoted, does not qualify his statement.  Therefore, the 
> AhS, in an attempt to harmonize him with the Rambam, states that the 
> Manhig was talking about a mistake in taamei mikra, while the Rambam was 
> talking about saying the wrong word.  The difficulty with this 
> explanation is that Aharon to Haron is not just a mistake in taamei 
> mikra, and although the AhS has an explanation for this, it is a bit forced.

Indeed it's not just a mistake in ta'amim.  However it is a mistake that
doesn't change the meaning.  Harun is the same name as Aharon.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 10:52:59AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Indeed it's not just a mistake in ta'amim.  However it is a mistake that
> doesn't change the meaning.  Harun is the same name as Aharon.

The Y-mi has numerous dropped first letters:
    R' Bun (R' Avin)
    R' Lazer
    R' Liezer
    R' Hudah (who could also be Yuda or Yudan)

I'm sure they would be willing to call a R' Aharon, "Haron".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

I am responding to various points in RAF's posting piecemeal.  Firstly
because it is getting late, and I am not sure how far I am going to get.
But secondly, because they are all interesting issues, and I think sometimes
things can get a bit lost if lumped together into a longer post.  I would
suggest therefore to the moderator (not that he has to take my suggestion)
to treat them as separate postings, so the issues can be discussed
separately.

RAF writes:

> Indeed, Rav Moshe Feinstein maintains that Rambam is a da'at Yahid.
> However, he was unaware that we indeed find the Rambam's formulation in
> the Finkelstein edition of the Sifrei, Midrash Tanna'im, and Midrash
> Ha-Gadol.  In addition the Ritva also maintains like the Rambam.

Just to add to Rav Moshe Feinstein's view, Rav Hertzog also holds that the
majority of the Rishonim did not hold like the Rambam, although he agrees
that the Ritva did so (section on sererah b'isha in his book techuka
l'yisrael al pi hahalacha  (Mosad Harav Kook edition  printed 1989) p103).  

As I have also mentioned in a previous post on Rav Uzziel in Mishpatei Uziel
44, he also held that the Rambam was a minority view.

Now it is not clear from RAF's article or from the translation provided by
R' Gil Student (I confess that since the original requires purchasing, I
have not read the original) whether RYBS held that the Rema was ruling like
the Rambam in the face of the majority of the rishonim, or whether RYBS was
disagreeing with Rav Moshe, Rav Hertzog and Rav Uziel and holding that in
fact the majority of rishonim did hold like the Rambam.

I confess that the first position does seem difficult, as, while the Rema
indeed tended to give weight to later and Ashkenazi rishonim over the
Mechaber's triumvirate, to say that he would hold, with nary a comment or
justification, like a minority of rishonim (ie would use the Rambam and the
Ritva to upshlug the others) seems rather problematic.

On the other hand,  if RYBS did hold that there was a majority of rishonim
supporting the Rambam, it is not clear, certainly from the information
provided, how he got there, and how he dealt with the objections of Rav
Moshe, Rav Hertzog and Rav Uziel, for example, who held differently.

One other thing in the above piece puzzles me.  RAF writes that Rav Moshe
was " unaware that we indeed find the Rambam's formulation in
the Finkelstein edition of the Sifrei".  Given that Rav Uziel writing in
1920 in his psak on women voting (Mishpatei Uziel 44) knew of this addition
to the Sifri, it seems rather surprising to suggest that Rav Moshe, writing
fifty years later, was ignorant of it.

This of course also gets into the question about how we treat material that
may have been lost or fallen out of the Jewish canon, only to be "found" in
more modern times.  Questions arise as to the extent we trust historians to
tell us that this material is valid, and even if one wants to say it is
valid, whether it having fallen out of knowledge means that it could not be
properly analysed by the rishonim, and/or whether this is HaShem's hand in
history.  The place of "lost" material is not so straightforward, especially
if one is talking about positions taken by the majority rishonim and whether
they would have changed their minds if they had seen the material.

And certainly such material cannot be used to buttress a position as to what
the Rema was really saying, as he would not have known it either.

> Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer

Regards

Chana

Ira Tick itick1...@gmail.com summarising and questioning the position of
RYBS as set out by RAF

> >5) The other distinction made between gerim and women was based on the
> >Netziv, who proved from the acceptance of Herod as a Jewish monarch
> >that a ger may serve with serara if the need arrises--his convert
> >status does not invalidate his position. This idea is interesting,
> >though no actual reason was given as to why that distinction should
> >be made. The real problem though is the proof in its support. 

And RAF responded:

> Herod had a lot of bad traits, Josephus is full of his blood thirsty
> escapades.  Of course Haza"l didn't like him. But all that is is
> irrelevant to the question of whether his kingship was halakhically
> valid, and the Netsiv says "Yes."  Look at the Netsiv for yourself.
> The Hasmoneans should not have taken the kingship, certainly not
> permanently.  But it did not make them invalid Kings.   If you revolted
> against them you were mored be-malkhut.   Ahav was king of Israel, yet
> Eliyahu haNavi ran before his Chariot out of Kavod!!!  You may be
> inappropriate yet valid.

Just to note that Rav Hertzog used precisely the same argument from
Shlomozion to say that this proves that a woman can validly be a queen where
necessary.

If you have a look at his section on sererah b'isha in his book techuka
l'yisrael al pi hahalacha  (Mosad Harav Kook edition  printed 1989) p102,
second paragraph headed "Shlomozion hamalka".  He points out that nowhere in
the Talmud is there any questions raised as the psul of a woman to be queen
vis a vis Shlomozion, and he contrasts this with the situation with Herod
(Baba Batra 3b) and Agrippa (Sotah 41a) where it was stated that that they
were posel.  He suggests that since they did not bring this Sifri (ie melech
v'lo malka) vis a vis Shlomozion, one can derive from this that Chazal
believed it was an asmachta b'alma.  He does question why at least they did
not raise it and clarify it as an asmachta b'alma and perhaps suggest it was
a drabbanan.  His answer to this is that perhaps this was because of the
honour of that tzadekes (ie Shlomozion) that they did not recall the matter
at all, since according to their opinion there was no issur m'tzad hadin.

[And of course, I might add, if Chazal had said something, there is a fair
chance that, unlike Herod, Shlomozion might have listened.]

That is, Rav Hertzog was clearly of the view, contra the Netziv, that Herod
was indeed posul as a king.  But the logic of his writing is that if you
were to hold like the Netziv that indeed Herod was valid, then as a kal
v'chomer so was Shlomozion.  That is, if you hold that Herod was a valid
king even though he should not have been appointed, then it would seem from
this that kal v'chomer so was Shlomozion.

I will try and discuss other aspects of RYBS's position as brought by RAF in
some later posts.

Regards

Chana



 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100701/b08f30dc/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 135
***************************************

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..."