Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 119

Wed, 29 Jun 2011

• 1. Re: kulanu zadikim?? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Ten Tribes (was Yovel) (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Ten Tribes (was Yovel) (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: yovel (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. Re: yovel (Poppers, Michael)
• 6. Re: Rakia, Maaseh Bereishis, Halachah (Hankman)
• 7. Re: Rakia, Maaseh Bereishis, Halachah (Arie Folger)
• 8. R. Hirsch as a Modern Orthodox Leader (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 9. forum takanah (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: yovel (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Ten Tribes (was Yovel) (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: yovel (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: yovel (Lisa Liel)
• 18. Re: Ten Tribes (was Yovel) (Allan Engel)
• 19. Re: Ten Tribes (was Yovel) (Micha Berger)

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 06:12:33PM -0700, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Harvey Benton <harvw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> if we are all tzadikim, then home come all of us do not get to go into olam
:> haba??

: I think you're understanding it backward.
: "Kol yisrael yesh lahem chelek laolam haba, shenemar, "v'amech kulam
: tzaddikim..."."

Which the Rambam says isn't all Jews. "Yisrael" here means those who
believe the iqarim. Which is why he lists the iqarim in his introduction
to Pereq Cheileq (Sanhedrin pereq 11 or 12, depending on edition).

Someone who doesn't believe the iqarim has no guaranteed cheileq le'olam
haba. He also is an apiqoreis, kofeir or min WRT halakhos specific to
the community of believers, such as drinking the wine they touched. Same
community of "Yisrael" in both these dinim and "cheileq le'olam haba".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 29/06/2011 2:06 PM, Allan Engel wrote:
> A sofek mamzer is muttar to marry mideoraysa.

But assur mid'rabbanan.  So how does that help?

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 03:02:36PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> It's been a while since I learned the fourth perek of Kiddushin, but I 
> thought it was Mashiach who was going to identify tribes by Ruach 
> HaKodesh.  Am I mistaken?
====================================================
Either way it's an interesting application of lo bashamayim hi not meaning
that HKB"H won't intervene, only that he will intervene on mitziut not
lamdut! (although I don't really understand what that means since in
telling us, for example, whether someone is a mamzer, there may be an
element of psak of certain machloket in lamdut, unless he just tells us
here's the lineage, you figure it out)
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.

Referring to my earlier post, R' Eli Turkel wrote:

> I was completely lost by the argument below. The original
> discussion was the 10 lost tribes.
> If someone intermarries we have 2 possibilities.

I'm going to respond to these 2 possibilities in reverse sequence.

> If a non-Jewish man marries an ephraim woman then the child is
> Jewish but not from Ephraim since the tribe follows the father.
> Hence, in any case of intermarriage the child is lost to the
> tribe.

I thought that the only truly tribe-less Jew is the ger. Why wouldn't a
child of an intermarriage belong to the mother's tribe, that is, the
maternal grandfather's tribe? But that's off topic; you want to stick to
the laws of inheritance. Okay.

There are two possibilities: The mother had one or more brothers, or the mother did not have any brothers.

If his mother had brothers, then the father's land would go to the child's
uncles, and not to him. But that would be true even if the child's father
had been Jewish, so her choice of a partner would have had no effect at all
on the tribe's land.

But if the mother did not have any brothers, then the mother (and her
sisters) would indeed inherit some of Ephraim's land. (Is this not what we
learn from Bnos Tzelafchad?) And then, when the mother dies, why wouldn't
he inherit his mother's land?

My conclusion is that in the case of a Jewish woman who marries a non-Jewish man, the tribe ends up with the same amount of land as if she had married a Jew.

Now to RET's first case:

> If an ephraim man marries a nonJew then the child is not Jewish.

That's true. And so, because the child is not related to him, and not his
heir, the land will go to the father's brothers, who are also from Ephraim.
If the father's brothers also married out, then the inheritance will go to
a second cousin, or a third cousin, but in any event it will go to
*someone*. (That's why, when the Gemara needs to concoct a case of a person
who died without heirs, that person is a childless ger.)

We may not know who that person is, but there is definitely someone who
gets it, and that person will be from Ephraim (unless the entire shevet
died out) and my understanding is that Eliyahu Hanavi be the shadchan for
each person and his land.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e0b901f602d0126d29st04vuc

In Avodah V28n117, R'Micha wrote:
> RZS summarized Rav Aharon
Lichtensteins "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity" at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n008.shtml#04>
> Quoting part of RZS's post:
>>    His case boils down to the gemara on Yevamos 17a about the ten tribes.
    Assuming that Yirmiyahu didn't bring them back, and that they remained
    in the places named in Tanach, where they made up a majority of the
    population, the gemara first says that if a goy from those places
    is mekadesh a Jewish woman she needs a get. This is then rejected,
    for one of two reasons: 1) The women of that generation of the
    10 tribes miraculously became barren, so that they have no Jewish
    descendants; or 2) "They" [presumably the Sanhedrin of the time]
    "made them complete goyim", which the gemara bases on a pasuk in
    Hoshea that says they had goyishe children ("bnei neichar").
>>    RAL follows the second answer, and seems to assume that this was
    not a gezera but a psak din about anyone whose children are "bnei
    neichar", which he is medayek to mean that they feel like strangers
    to Am Yisrael, and therefore the same applies to anybody who is
    completely alienated from Am Yisrael.... <<
> But whether it was a one-time gezeirah or a general rule, the gemara
itself tells us that the 10 shevatim either no longer exist (no Jewish
descendents) or are no longer Jewish. <
Wouldn't that understanding of the sugya have grave implications for Shavei Yisrael?  Thanks. 

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

RMB wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:29:53AM -0400, Hankman wrote:
> : Given that certainly a star whose distance is many (maaaaany)
> : light years away and even a satellite is certainly not in a chatzer
> : hamishtameres nor the owner betzidoh.

 How do you know if my yard is mishtemeres of if I am betzidahh? Are you
 arguing these are requirements for the cheftzah, not (as the idiom seems
 to indicate) the chatzeir?

CM responds:
What I assumed, is that all the avir above your karka is just more of your 
very laaaarge extended chatzer all the way up to the rakia. Certainly the 
part of your chatzer that is very distant is not mishtameres nor are you 
betzidoh. Nothing to do with the cheftzah.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster


 

RMB wrote:
> Reshus hayachid olah ad laraqia (Shabbos 52b, Eiruvin 7a).
>
> So, whether or not that sattelite is on my reshus would depend on
> whether ad laraqia is the top of the clouds, or ad infinitum. (Unless
> the universe is finite, in which case...)

Given the responsum by RSZA that we discussed recently, re: chametz
being battel after all, if the quantity is exceedingly small, like a
loaf of bread falling in the Kineret, and given that some Ovedim found
my analysis thereof (Warning: I never actually read that teshuva - can
anyone tell me which one it is, for a sanity check? Thanks)
convincing, namely, that if such bittul happens, it is not the result
of a lack of ta'am, as that standard is reached much earlier, but
rather that at some point, something becomes so insignificant that it
is no longer perceived, if so, I wonder whether we should apply a
similar reasoning here. Namely...

Is "Reshus hayachid olah ad laraqia" literal, or can flying objects be
so far removed from human experience (astronauts are not being
perceived by the people on the ground), that they are no longer reshut
haya'hid, that, perceptually, they are like ba-raqia'?

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Meditating on the Tragedy in Japan
* Ode an das Pessachfest und den Fr?hling
* Denkmal an den deportierten l?rracher Juden
* Holiday Art
* Will the Judge of the Entire World Not Do Justice?
* When Theodicy Is No Theodicy

1--R Hirsch  would clearly not be comfortable in a  DL/RZ  setting

2-- He probably would be uncomfortable in a typical  MO environment, 
though one could envision him as a rav in an MO congregation that aspires 
to greatness--- he would be at least as successful as rabbi riskin was in 
his time

3-- The more interesting question would be where would be the comfortable 
fit in the haredi community;  in the post-Slifkin era would he be 
self-censoring?
       Or is emes a greater  midah than capitulation?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110629/27975633/attachment-0001.htm>

In the most recent issue of techumim (31) there is a long article by
R. Ariel on the halachic status of takanah forum and whether it has
the status of a bet din. In particular he mentions that it is composed
of people from various professions. In particular there are legal
experts who decide whether the individual case is required to be
presented to the authorities or not.

-- 
Eli Turkel

On 29/06/2011 4:49 PM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> I thought that the only truly tribe-less Jew is the ger. Why wouldn't
> a child of an intermarriage belong to the mother's tribe, that is,
> the maternal grandfather's tribe?

No.  We know that from the son of Shlomit bat Divri.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 29/06/2011 5:22 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> To answer RZS in an email I misplaced, near the beginning of his
> haqdamah to Pereq Cheileq, the Rambam discusses three katim of people
> WRT believing aggadic stories: The first think that all these stories
> are meant literally, believe them, and thereby belittle the Torah. The
> second kat think that all these stories are meant literally, find them
> absurd and therefore ridicule the Torah. The third kat understand that
> the rabbis were speaking in parable.
>
> He has very harsh words for those who assume the historicity of these
> stories.

No.  He has harsh words for those who insist that *all* stories *must*
be meant literally.  He never says or even hints that none of them
are meant literally.  And I don't believe he *ever* says that the
stories of R Chanina ben Dosa or R Pinchas ben Yair didn't happen.
I'm still astonished that there exist believing Jews who don't believe
those stories happened.


> Other risnonim and acharonim also tell you not to -- for that
> I again refer you to RDE's sefer and the excerpt at
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n052.shtml#13>. R' Mechy Frankel
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n152.shtml#06>  quotes R' Sheirah
> Gaon, R' Shemuael ben Chofni Gaon, R' Hai Gaon, and R' Shemuel
> haNagid.

None of whom, AFAIK, cast any doubt at all on these stories.


> This notion that no O Jew would question these stories is the effect
> of O counter-reaction after R and C minimalism.

No.  I'm 100% convinced that until the maskilim arose, every Jew
believed these stories.  There's nothing unbelievable about them,
after all.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 05:29:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> He has very harsh words for those who assume the historicity of these
>> stories.
>
> No.  He has harsh words for those who insist that *all* stories *must*
> be meant literally.  He never says or even hints that none of them
> are meant literally...

FWIW, that's all I claimed: "did not insist they were historical".

However, the Rambam says that people who take the more fantastic
stories literally make fools of themselves or of the Torah. You are
misunderstanding his position if you think that the Rambam would be happy
with the claim that the stories of R Chanina ben Dosa or R Pinchas ben
Yair happened as literally described.

Those are just the fool-making stories he's talking about!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
mi...@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 04:45:05PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 29/06/2011 2:06 PM, Allan Engel wrote:
>> A sofek mamzer is muttar to marry mideoraysa.

> But assur mid'rabbanan.  So how does that help?

There will be a Sanhedrin that is gadol mimenu bechokhmah uveminyan.
So perhaps it would.

In any case, I still don't think they're Jewish.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 29/06/2011 5:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> However, the Rambam says that people who take the more fantastic
> stories literally make fools of themselves or of the Torah. You are
> misunderstanding his position if you think that the Rambam would be happy
> with the claim that the stories of R Chanina ben Dosa or R Pinchas ben
> Yair happened as literally described.
>
> Those are just the fool-making stories he's talking about!

Since when?  What source do you have for that?  Clearly he's talking
about the stories that nobody can possibly believe literally happened,
such as those of Rabba bar Bar Chana.


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 29/06/2011 4:49 PM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> But if the mother did not have any brothers, then the mother (and her
> sisters) would indeed inherit some of Ephraim's land. (Is this not
> what we learn from Bnos Tzelafchad?) And then, when the mother dies,
> why wouldn't he inherit his mother's land?

He would; but how does that make him a member of her tribe?   

> My conclusion is that in the case of a Jewish woman who marries a
> non-Jewish man, the tribe ends up with the same amount of land as
> if she had married a Jew.

But even if she marries a Jew from a different shevet, her tribe loses
her land when her son inherits it.  Which is why in the first generation
that entered the land, heiresses were not allowed to marry out of their
tribe.  But once the land had been divided and everyone had their
portion that restriction was lifted, and eventually each shevet's
territory would be dotted with parcels that were owned by members of
other shvatim.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 05:37:22PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Those are just the fool-making stories he's talking about!

> Since when?  What source do you have for that?  Clearly he's talking
> about the stories that nobody can possibly believe literally happened,
> such as those of Rabba bar Bar Chana.

Look at the Rambam's words. He says that divrei chakhamim are melitzah,
and intepreting them literally is wrong. That part doesn't require
disbelieving that they aren't also potentially historical -- just that
there is no actual historical claim being made. Chazal do not repeat
a story any more because it's history than if it weren't. But then he
talks about people who "...vena'asu etzlam kol hanimna'os mechuyevei
hamtzei'us." The Rambam rules out such stories that defy nature.

BTW, I found a copy, with translation, on R' David Guttman's blog.

Kat 1:
http://yediah.blogspot.com/2008/01/foolishness-of-literalists-ramb
am-on.html

Kat 2:
http://yediah.blogspot.com/2008/01/evil-literalists-rambam-on-agadet
a.html

Kat 3:
http://yediah.blogspot.com/2008/01/rambam-on-aggadeta-correct-appro
ach.html


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

At 03:49 PM 6/29/2011, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
>If his mother had brothers, then the father's land would go to the 
>child's uncles, and not to him. But that would be true even if the 
>child's father had been Jewish, so her choice of a partner would 
>have had no effect at all on the tribe's land.

>But if the mother did not have any brothers, then the mother (and 
>her sisters) would indeed inherit some of Ephraim's land. (Is this 
>not what we learn from Bnos Tzelafchad?) And then, when the mother 
>dies, why wouldn't he inherit his mother's land?

>My conclusion is that in the case of a Jewish woman who marries a 
>non-Jewish man, the tribe ends up with the same amount of land as if 
>she had married a Jew.

You're assuming a lot. Since he isn't a member of Ephraim, why would
he inherit Ephraim's land? I don't know where the idea of the child of
intermarriage belonging to the maternal grandfather's tribe comes from.
Do you have any source for that?

Lisa 

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 04:45:05PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 29/06/2011 2:06 PM, Allan Engel wrote:
>>> A sofek mamzer is muttar to marry mideoraysa.

>> But assur mid'rabbanan.  So how does that help?

> There will be a Sanhedrin that is gadol mimenu bechokhmah uveminyan.
> So perhaps it would.

> In any case, I still don't think they're Jewish.

The Gemoro specifically states that while the shevet will be revealed,
whether someone is a mamzer or an eved will not be revealed, kiven
d'nitme'ah nitme'ah.

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:39:53PM +0100, Allan Engel wrote:
:> There will be a Sanhedrin that is gadol mimenu bechokhmah uveminyan.
:> So perhaps it would.

: The Gemoro specifically states that while the shevet will be revealed,
: whether someone is a mamzer or an eved will not be revealed, kiven
: d'nitme'ah nitme'ah.

Yes, but that doesn't change an entire community that weren't nitme`u
into the pool of kesheirim and contained numerous mamzeirim. An earlier
precedents was a similar question about the Qara'im.

My point was that if it's "only" assur derabbanan, the mechanism will
be in place to potentially repeal that derabbanan. Problem solved.

I wrote:
:> In any case, I still don't think they're Jewish.

And I still don't. I already cited an explicit gemara that an emergency
session of beis din either found their descendents to be non-Jewish or
enacted a ruling that de-Judaized them somehow. So I don't think the
lost shevatim are counted toward a rov in chu"l.

Nitpick: None of them are "Jewish". "Yehudi" means a descendent of
Malkhus Yehudah. But we all know what we mean here without switching
to "Benei Yisrael". Right?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 119
***************************************

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..."