Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 22

Tue, 08 Feb 2011

• 1. Re: The Vilna Gaon and Secular Wisdom (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 2. Halachic Triage (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: God of Love (David Riceman)
• 4. Re: God of Love (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: Dollar Bills In the Bathroom? (S.)
• 6. Celebrity Gossip; Muttar/Assur and Why/Why Not? (Harvey Benton)
• 7. Is it Loshon Hora? (Daniel Bukingolts)
• 8. Re: Secular knowledge (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: The Vilna Gaon and Secular Wisdom (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Is it Loshon Hora? (Rich, Joel)
• 11. hilchos aveilus (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 12. Re: hilchos aveilus (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Must A Women Subject Herself To A Caesarean Delivery? (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Halachic Triage (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Must A Women Subject Herself To A Caesarean Delivery? (Zev Sero)

On 2011-02-06 18:17, Prof. Levine wrote:
> R. Israel of Shklov (d. 1839) wrote:
> ...
> all the branches of secular wisdom, including algebra, trigonometry,
> geometry, and music. He especially praised music, explaining that most
> of the Torah accents, the secrets of the Levitical songs, and the
> secrets of the Tikkunei Zohar could not be comprehended without
> mastering it

I've always wondered how much of "music" would fall under this banner. 
The Gra was contemporaneous with Mozart, so he presumably had access to 
Classical-period music. I think Baroque music was out of favor at that 
time, and Bach (for example) was relatively obscure. Not sure about 
Medieval/Renaissance music. I suppose it depends on how much the Gra 
would have delved into then-historical music.

But in the end, what is "it" that informs understanding of the Tikkunei 
Zohar? Musical forms and compositional styles are so varied, and I would 
guess that the Levitical songs were a good way off from anything 
happening in Europe in the Gra's time.

-- 
Yitzchak Schaffer

In Minchat Shlomo Tanina (2-3) siman 86 R'SZA in discussing medical triage
says (my translation) - see mishneh and gemara in horiyot....but I think in
our time it is very hard to conduct ourselves according to this.

Is there any insight as to whether R'SZA was saying this from a practical
point of you (i.e. we should follow priorities in horiyot but what can you
do no oone will listen) or that something has changed in the halachic
&/or fact realm that means these priorities no longer apply?

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110207/40747378/attachment-0001.htm>

On 2/5/2011 12:11 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>
> The Holocaust was subjectively just that no amount of sophistry can 
> change it into something
> of mercy when millions of little children are murdered
>
Can you come up with some sophistry which would enable you to describe 
it as justice?  It fits neither paradigm.

David Riceman

I agree 100% though somehow some gedolim seem to feel it is justice
dont ask me to explain them
RYBS states explicitly that many things like this are simply beyond the
understanding of
finite mortals and it is absurd to try and categorize it

Eli



On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:49 PM, David Riceman <drice...@optimum.net> wrote:

> On 2/5/2011 12:11 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>
>>
>> The Holocaust was subjectively just that no amount of sophistry can change
>> it into something
>> of mercy when millions of little children are murdered
>>
>>  Can you come up with some sophistry which would enable you to describe it
> as justice?  It fits neither paradigm.
>
> David Riceman
>
>


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110207/067af0a9/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Rafi Hecht


>What then do we say about our script font?


In the Rambam's opinion, the semicursive Hebrew which most people use to write it, was introduced in order to use it for divrei chol.


See here:


http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1733&;st=&pgnum=73


Interestingly, the Rema is of the opinion that the semicursive was introduced to write torah she-be'al peh, which is prohibited in square letters (!).


http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19551&;st=&pgnum=48


SW

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110207/5a9bea4b/attachment-0001.htm>

Celebrity Gossip: Muttar/Assur and Why?
1. Is there a difference in talking about loshon hora (lh from herein) when it 
refers to a jew, or a non-jew. do we go according to the rov (majority of the 
person's religious status) if/when making this distinction? (this would apply 
here as most-rov hollywood movie-stars/celebrities are not-jewish). Would there 
be a difference if the person being talked about was a hollywood/movie/music, 
etc, celebrity, or a national/regional/israeli jewish/not-jewish 
political/banking/public figure??
2a. must there be a presumption of truthfullness about a topic that makes 
discussing it muttar? for instance, when a state-controlled media such as iran 
or n. korea issues a report about something, are we allowed to discuss it, or, 
since we can probably assume it is false, or at the least slanted (this would 
probably apply to slanted arab coverage of jewish events) we would be forbidden 
from discussing it? If the halacha is that we are NOT allowed to discuss it, 
would  the applicable issur-halacha be a lh one? or a midvar sheker tirchak one? 
or any other one?
2b. Some people believe celebrity gossip to be basically false, and mostly 
engendered to sell magazine/print copies. What preponderance of truthfulness of 
a possible story would make it muttar/assur to discuss? e.g. If 80% of gossip 
stories are false (=20% true) can we discuss it? or need it be 50%-50% 
true/false? or 51% or above likelihood of truth (rov-majority)? or any other 
yardstick?
3. If something is a public matter, certain halachos apply making it more 
permissible to discuss. Would such lieniencies apply to celebrity gossip, any 
more/less so than yesterday's superbowl game highlights?
4. Many stories in chazal are midrashim, guzmas, as well as rebbeshe maisos and 
baal shem tov stories. These are taught and told to inspire us and to teach us 
to behave in a torah-derech. However, some of these stories are not true. Would 
the same yardsticks of  truthfullness (as asked in question 2a above) be 
applicable to torah inyanim, being as they are meant to instruct us and can 
therefore be argued to be doing a useful and positive purpose? Or, would they 
not be permitted to be discussed (highly doubtful as they are chazal's). Either 
way, would these storie's /chazal's fall under the same yardsticks as asked in 
2a above, and if so, why/why not? What if any distinction(s) would be made for 
discussing them vs. the superbowl highlights or current events or gossip 
columns? Would the applicable halachos again fall under the distinctions of 
lhora, midvar sheker tirchak, chukas hagoyim, etc. ?
Thanks much. 


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110207/543b15aa/attachment-0001.htm>

After a brief discussion on Twitter, I decided to post the question
here.

Is there Loshon Hora against a person who is 100% annonymous on the
Internet the same way as if the person was using his/her real name?

Adar sameach,
Danny Bukingolts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110208/b58e0c7f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:08:26PM -0500, Hankman wrote:
: I think the more interesting question is: Are all things (Chachmos,
: ideas or logic) derived from Torah, themselves Torah? ...

Do we focus on the fact that the 6 qanim that emerge from the menorah
are distinct qanim, or that "mimenah yihyu"? We could actually ask a
parallel question about Shabbos -- today is Yom Shelishi *beShabbos*,
but certainly not Shabbos Qodesh.

At what point is a derivative a distinct thing?

RCM's question touches on a long email exchange RMShinnar and I had a
few months back. I mentioned that I personally was uncomfortable with
an understanding of a pasuq or any aggadic position that doesn't help
address some "internal" issue to the Torah. To my mind, if the Torah
is truly temimah, then every position should be able to grow out of
a need to answer a Torah question, or by implication from an already
stated opinion. RSM, OTOH, objected to this entire notion of internal
vs external material, since everything that exists is from HQBH, and
thus science is not less revelation. "Kikar zahav tahor ya'aseh osah".

The seven wisdoms referred to by the Maharsham cited in the devar
Torah that started this thread are the trivium (basic education, thus
the evolution to the word "trivial"):
    grammar, rhetoric and logic
and the quadrivium (higher education):
    arithmetic, music, geometry and astronomy.
I get that not directly, but from R' Tzadoq (Peri Tzaddiq
<http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=22211&;st=&pgnum=137> amudah
1). Rav Tzadoq clearly knew that the seven wisdoms he lists are a list
known from Greece.

Tir'u baTov!
-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

On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 09:51:04AM -0500, Yitzchak Schaffer wrote:
> I've always wondered how much of "music" would fall under this banner.  

Sorry, I should have combined this with the previous post.

Note the quadrivium: arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. Music was
seen as applied arithemetic -- the simpler the ratio between two notes,
the more they fit together in the same chord. Although sometimes you want
that tension. Similarly, astronomy was handled as applied geometry.

Anyway, I think we're talking about music theory, which has certain
universal truths whether speaking of a shiras haLeviim, klezmer, a minuet,
jazz or today's top 40.

As for drift... The Maharil taught that the "miSinai" tunes (guzma)
actually had an ancestry tracable back to the Leviim. Not the same
tunes, but the same musical tradition. If we look at the modes of music
generally used in Ashkenazi and Sepharadi music (as well as klezmer),
there are strong parallels.

In Sepharadi music, the underlying idea is maqam, which is not only
the mode (the kind of scale it's in) but also a feel for which motifs
"fit". In klezmer, the nearly parallel idea is called "sheiger".

That the Farsi call Maqam haMayun (the Royal Mode) is what
Sepharadim often simply call Tefillah. It is the same mode
as the most common one in Ashkenazi Music, "Ahavah Rabba",
named for the most-memorable tefillah in that mode. Klezmorim
would also call it Freygish, since it's a modified Phrygian mode
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrygian_dominant_scale>. That's not to
say the maqam and the shteyger are identical; they tend to use different
motifs.

And similarly the other modes generally used in music by various Jewish
qehillos. There is enough in common for me to find common ancestry quite
plausible, whatever influences we picked up since from our host cultures.

More on the subject from a musical / Klezmer angle by Josh Horowitz
<http://www.budowitz.com/+Main_Klezmer_Modes.html>

R' Chazan Sherwood Goffin is on a campaign to keep popular tunes
from overrunning the minhag of miSinai tunes. He therefore has a
discussion on the topic of various modes of music and our customs
about when a chazan uses which from a more nusach / minhag / halachic
perspective (the halakhos of breaking minhag). One example of which is at
<http://www.yutorah.org/togo/roshhashana/articles/
Rosh_Hashanah_To-Go_-_5770_Cantor_Goffin.pdf>
or <http://bit.ly/fsVoeb> but is a central theme in a number of his
shiurim on YUTorah.org.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

After a brief discussion on Twitter, I decided to post the question
here.

Is there Loshon Hora against a person who is 100% annonymous on the
Internet the same way as if the person was using his/her real name?

Adar sameach,
Danny Bukingolts

= ==========================
Certainly if it's a din in what it does to the speaker, and even if result
driven it's likely yes if the person has an online identity, it ruins his
online reputation.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110208/9aceba35/attachment-0001.htm>

http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2011/02/interesting-psak-learn
ing-hilchos.html 
  have heard that aveilum shouldput  whatever halachic material brought 
over on the subject should go into sheimos, , like  those who do that with 
kinos.....


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110208/414966c2/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 12:26:10PM -0800, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2011/02/interesting-psak-l
: earning-hilchos.html 
:   have heard that aveilum shouldput  whatever halachic material brought 
: over on the subject should go into sheimos, , like  those who do that with 
: kinos.....

This requires more beliefs than are necessarily true.

WRT qinos, one is assuming that "im tismahmameiha, chaqei lo" means that
I am to have bitachon that mashiach's arrival is immanent. I am not sure
this is a necessary interpretation of the iqqar. How could I ever apply
"im tismahmeiha" if I am supposed to think the delay is over? OTOH,
when I eagerly await my daughter coming back from school on a bus that
arrives at 7pm, I could still be waiting for her at 5, even though I
know she couldn't come yet.

This mashiach-is-always-immanent wasn't RYBS's understanding. I heard
more than one talmid quote RYBS as saying that he was loathe to bring
up the topic of mashiach in class since our generation appeared to be
so far from that possbility.

But here, there are more issues. When is techiyas hameisim in relation
to bi'as hamashiach. If world history is a 7,000 year week, mashiach
would arrive at the beginning of "tosefes Shabbos". But is techiyas
hameisim also part of the arrival of Shabbos? Or is it part of the
"shamayim chadashim ve'aretz chadashah" of the second week -- at the
END of that millennium?

Second, according to the Ramban, the second life is eternal. According
to the Rambam and the Iqqarim, it would be far better (no external
challenges, only internal ones) and far longer (Adam's millennium),
but not eternal. Would hilkhos aveilus apply after the second death
or would our understanding of "life" in Shamayim be so clear, and our
selfish sense of our own loss so eliminated, that people wouldn't feel
aninus and aveilus, and Sanhedrin would repeal the dinim of aveilus?

Too much guesswork for me to advise people spending money replacing
such material.

I have less of a problem understanding such a minhag (which is new to me)
if the notion behind it is the problem of an aveil accepting presents.
Therefore, any material brought over shouldn't be held on to, because
that's a gift. That would justify such a practice without making all
these assumptions about le'asid lavo.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
mi...@aishdas.org        how can he appreciate the worth of another?
http://www.aishdas.org             - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef

On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 08:24:20AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://revach.net/article.php?id=4965
>
> Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach & Rav Elyashiv ybcl"c - Must A Women Subject 
> Herself To A Caesarean Delivery?

> If a woman cannot give birth naturally and her delivery will require  
> Caesarean section, can she refuse her husband's request to have children?
...
> [RSZA] goes as far as saying that even if right before childbirth the  
> doctors says that it may be dangerous for the child to be born naturally 
> and a c-section would prove to be a much safer alternative to delivering 
> a healthy child, she may still refuse on the grounds that she is afraid 
> to undergo the operation, even at the expense of the child.

What I find telling is what isn't discussed. It seems that risking the
life of the child can be decided without raising the issue of the life
of the child. The Nishmas Avrohom presents a machloqes in terms of the
woman's responsibility to her husband's qiyum of piryah verivyah. No
mention of piquach nefesh.

IS IT because neither held loss of a fetus was death? With obvious
implications WRT why abortion is assur??? Anyone know?

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 09:15:25AM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: In Minchat Shlomo Tanina (2-3) siman 86 R'SZA in discussing medical
: triage says (my translation) - see mishneh and gemara in horiyot....but I
: think in our time it is very hard to conduct ourselves according to this.

From tomorrow's daf Y-mi, Bikkurim 3:3 11a. The mishnah says that the people
sent from the BHMQ to greet those coming with the bikurim would be "lefi
kavod hanikhnasim hayu yotze'im." Upon which the gemara asks "Vekhi yeish
qatan vegadol (biY-m) [beYisrael]?" And the gemara answers that it's by
number, not stature.

It would seem that while a person must show kavod to those whose greatness
he sees, but we do not institutiolize this as a ranking by third parties.

Now, can someone resolve this democratic sentiment with the priority scheme
in Horiyos?

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 8/02/2011 5:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 08:24:20AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
>>  From http://revach.net/article.php?id=4965
>>
>> Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach&  Rav Elyashiv ybcl"c - Must A Women Subject
>> Herself To A Caesarean Delivery?
>
>> If a woman cannot give birth naturally and her delivery will require
>> Caesarean section, can she refuse her husband's request to have children?
> ...
>> [RSZA] goes as far as saying that even if right before childbirth the
>> doctors says that it may be dangerous for the child to be born naturally
>> and a c-section would prove to be a much safer alternative to delivering
>> a healthy child, she may still refuse on the grounds that she is afraid
>> to undergo the operation, even at the expense of the child.

> What I find telling is what isn't discussed. It seems that risking the
> life of the child can be decided without raising the issue of the life
> of the child. The Nishmas Avrohom presents a machloqes in terms of the
> woman's responsibility to her husband's qiyum of piryah verivyah. No
> mention of piquach nefesh.
>
> IS IT because neither held loss of a fetus was death? With obvious
> implications WRT why abortion is assur??? Anyone know?


1. The pikuach nefesh of one person can't be used to force another
person to put himself in even a little bit of danger.

2. Passively refusing an action that would save the baby's life is not
at all the same as taking action that would endanger it.

3. In the initial question there is no baby; the woman is choosing not
to become pregnant in the first place because if she does so she will
have to have a caesarean.  The extension of RSZA's psak to a case where
there is already a "ubar lefaneinu" doesn't seem to be the same question
at all; perhaps even RYSE might agree that if it comes down to the wire
and she says she can't go through with it she may refuse.

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 22
**************************************

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..."