Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 138

Tue, 19 Jul 2011

• 1. Re: Women and Tefillin (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: TWO COMPELLING QUESTIONS (Micha Berger)
• 3. Dina d'Malchuta Dina (Lisa Liel)
• 4. dina demalchuta (Eli Turkel)
• 5. is this muttar? (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 6. beis shammai chanukah?? (Harvey Benton)
• 7. Re: beis shammai chanukah?? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: True Peace (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: is this muttar? (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Re: TWO COMPELLING QUESTIONS (Richard Wolberg)
• 11. Re: beis shammai chanukah?? (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: is this muttar? (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: dina demalchuta (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: dina demalchuta (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: dina demalchuta (Micha Berger)

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 09:48:27PM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: The bet yosef (and the taz following him) (yore deah 182) ask why isn't
: shaving in areas that normally only women do assur midoraita from
: beged ishah - and they answer that the issur d'oraita doesn't apply
: to something that is hidden...
: 
: The bach does disagree, as this distinction is not explicit in hazal -
: but the bet yosef and taz are rauy lismoch...

In any case, I assumed we were talking about wearing her tzitzis her
out, or wearing a tallis. Undergarments are explicitly excluded from
keli gever.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 18:57:56am EDT, Richard Wolberg wrote:
... [2nd "compelling question:]
: Regarding speaking to the rock, the Torah commands Moshe to gather
: the eidah and Aharon and speak to the rock so that it will give its
: waters. First, the Torah doesn't tell him WHAT to say and the commandment
: is "v'dibartem" which is the plural. Logistically, how were they all
: to speak together when they weren't even told what to say? Perhaps,
: Moshe was so overwhelmed not knowing what to say or how they could
: all speak together that his frustration led him to strike the rock.
: (B'midbar 20:8).

Wouldn't "vedibartem" refer to Moshe and Aharon, not the entire Benei
Yisrael? In which case, planning while walking to the rock wasn't too
onerous.

Besides, why guess what Moshe was frustrated without looking at what
he himself says about it? "Listen now you rebels, from this rock are
we to bring forth water for you?" I would have said either it was the
demand for water or this expectation that the gifts come from people
doing magic -- depending upon whether "for you" (lachem) or "we" (NOtzi)
was emphasized. Trop has "notzi lakhem" with a mercha-tipcha, so that's
no help. Rishonim explain it both ways.

Rabbeinu Chananel's "Do you think WE can bring forth..." harkens back to
the egel; again they're overly relying on Moses the middleman. Emphasizing
the "for you" ingrates would be more like the meraglim -- they can't
picture life without G-d handing them everything on a miraculous silver
platter.

There are other rishonim who give other opinions as to what the sin was,
but they presume that MRAH was angry without telling us why. The Ramban
says the sin was making it sound like they too were waiting to see if G-d
could bring forth water. That contradicts Rabbeinu Chananel, but could
fit the "ingrate" theory. Similarly Rashi (hitting rather than speaking)
and Ibn Ezra (lack of kavanah and shirah made the speech insufficient,
necessitating the hitting) just presume his anger motivated a misstep,
but not what the anger was about.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 7/18/2011 9:04 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> I renew my objection to those who casually step from Shmuel's statement
> that "dina demalchusa dina" to a conclusion that there is an obligation
> to obey the law, or a prohibition on breaking the law; how do you get
> from step A to step C? Nobody has yet even attempted to demonstrate
> step B; every time I raise the issue I'm answered by obfuscation and
> assertion and arguments from dubious authority.

Zev, that's what the words *mean*.

Lisa

for some details of DMD see

for the requirement to pay taxes see Eli Clark
http://www.jlaw.com/Commentary/payingtaxes.html

http://rabbiarthursegal.blogspot.com/2008/04/rabbi-arthur
-segal-dina-de-malchuta.html

http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5765/vaetchanan65/specialfeatures_jewishl
aw.htm

http://koltorah.org/ravj/Beit_Din_and_Dina_DeMalchuta_Dina_1.html

Everyone holds that when DMD is valid one must not may follow the local law.
Of course when DMD conflicts with halacha it is complicated and the
poskim deal with this
in each case what to do

-- 
Eli Turkel

>That said, I would agree that if this kidnapping (1) actually occured,
and (2) was a BD-ordered "kofin oso ad sheyomar rotzeh ani", DDD wouldn't
trump halakhah.


---assuming the above is true,      1] is it a mitzva to break the law and 
go to jail?   2]   is it a  -chiyuv= to do so  [ ie  shev v'al taaseh not 
acceptable] ?
3] whose responsibility then is it to defend them, support their 
families---the beis din?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110719/50aeb6ce/attachment-0001.htm>

will it matter which order we put in the
chanukah candles (and/or light them)
when moshiach comes, 
and we hold like beis shammai??

(we hold for some reason that we 
need to put them in the opposite
order than lighting nowadays, 1. 
why is that? 2. we light the "newest"
one first now (most left) but in beis
shammai/moshiach times, the only 
"newest" one, will be the "first night's
candle"\, so it shouldn't matter which 
order we put them in and/or which one's
we light first????? (unless these two
concepts are somehow related nowadays
(which may or may not be the case later
on....
thanks much
hb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110719/36fd534c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 09:35:39AM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: will it matter which order we put in the chanukah candles (and/or light them)
: when moshiach comes, and we hold like beis shammai??

I'm not sure this will be true, as a literal change in halakhah. E.g.
Rabbi Aqiva didn't become a Shammuti when he took up Bar Kochva's arms.

But then, I was taught by Litvaks who in general are unlikely to draw
halachic conclusions from the Zohar.

But if we would, wouldn't Chanukah be undone, as the only remaining
holiday would be Purim? Now, this is problematic WRT the 3 regalim, RH and
YK, but with Chanukah it's no more a problem to unwind the din as it is
to start holding like Beis Shammai. Unless you use the chagim deOraisa
as proof that this mesorah about only Purim remaining is non-literal,
while still holding that the mesorah about Beis Shammai is literal.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:28:15AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bamidbar 25:12
: 
: 12 Therefore proclaim it: Lo! I give to him My covenant: Peace.
: 
: Here, the realization of the supreme harmony of peace is entrusted
: by God precisely to that spirit and to that activism which thoughtless
: people  anxious to mask their passivity and neglect of duty as love
: of peace  like to brand and condemn as disturbances of the peace.
...                                     There can be true peace among
: men only if they all are at peace with God. One who dares to struggle
: against the enemies of what is good and true in the eyes of God is 
: by this very struggle  one of the fighters for the bris sholom on earth.
...

Rav Dovid Lifshitz often discussed a similar understanding of shalom.
Summarizing from what I wrote at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/09/shalom-aleikhem.shtml> and
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2010/05/yom-yerushalayim.shtml>.

"Shalom lav le'ohavei sorasekha ve'ein lamo michshol."

Shalom rav is the unity and wholeness of self that eliminates all
obstacles from the path of the lover of Torah.

The rule with respect to tzara'as is "ein adam ro'eh nig'ei atzmo". This
has become a rabbinical aphorism, "people don't see their own faults",
which is probably the motivation of the law of tzara'as.

Rav Dovid elaborates on the impact of this truism. Because I can not make
a realistic assessment of my own shortcomings, I can not succeed without
participating in a healthy community. Thus, there can be no pursuit of
sheleimus without shalom and no shalom without sheleimus! One is simply
another manifestation of the other.

Shalom is not defined by a cessation of violence, although that is part
of it. Shalom is when "veyei'asu khulam agudah achas LA'ASOS RETZONEKHA
BELEIVAV SHALEIM." Unity through WHOLEhearted support of Hashem's agenda.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

>That said, I would agree that if this kidnapping (1) actually occured,
and (2) was a BD-ordered "kofin oso ad sheyomar rotzeh ani", DDD wouldn't
trump halakhah.
 ==============================================================
Do our batei dinim have the power to order corporal punishment? If so, my
guess would be that it's from the power of the melech, not the traditional
beit din.  If so, I'm not sure that DMD (at least according to those who
see it going beyond monetary issues)wouldn't trump.
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/20110719/12ac04b6/attachment-0001.htm>

Wouldn't "vedibartem" refer to Moshe and Aharon, not the entire Benei
Yisrael? In which case, planning while walking to the rock wasn't too
onerous.

The Pasuk clearly commands Moshe to gather the eidah together with him
and Aharon. The fact that the eidah is mentioned first and then followed by
v'dibartem is even a stronger reason to believe that they were all commanded
to speak to the rock. You ask: Wouldn't "vedibartem" refer to Moshe and Aharon, 
not the entire Benei Yisrael? Why WOULD it? If that were the case, it would have
been more logical to say: "gather the eidah," etc."and you and Aharon speak to the rock."

Also, you didn't address the question that they were told to speak to the rock but
they weren't told WHAT TO SAY.



On Jul 19, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Micha Berger wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 18:57:56am EDT, Richard Wolberg wrote:
> ... [2nd "compelling question:]
> : Regarding speaking to the rock, the Torah commands Moshe to gather
> : the eidah and Aharon and speak to the rock so that it will give its
> : waters. First, the Torah doesn't tell him WHAT to say and the commandment
> : is "v'dibartem" which is the plural. Logistically, how were they all
> : to speak together when they weren't even told what to say? Perhaps,
> : Moshe was so overwhelmed not knowing what to say or how they could
> : all speak together that his frustration led him to strike the rock.
> : (B'midbar 20:8).
> 
> Wouldn't "vedibartem" refer to Moshe and Aharon, not the entire Benei
> Yisrael? In which case, planning while walking to the rock wasn't too
> onerous.
> 
> Besides, why guess what Moshe was frustrated without looking at what
> he himself says about it? "Listen now you rebels, from this rock are
> we to bring forth water for you?" I would have said either it was the
> demand for water or this expectation that the gifts come from people
> doing magic -- depending upon whether "for you" (lachem) or "we" (NOtzi)
> was emphasized. Trop has "notzi lakhem" with a mercha-tipcha, so that's
> no help. Rishonim explain it both ways.
> 
> Rabbeinu Chananel's "Do you think WE can bring forth..." harkens back to
> the egel; again they're overly relying on Moses the middleman. Emphasizing
> the "for you" ingrates would be more like the meraglim -- they can't
> picture life without G-d handing them everything on a miraculous silver
> platter.
> 
> There are other rishonim who give other opinions as to what the sin was,
> but they presume that MRAH was angry without telling us why. The Ramban
> says the sin was making it sound like they too were waiting to see if G-d
> could bring forth water. That contradicts Rabbeinu Chananel, but could
> fit the "ingrate" theory. Similarly Rashi (hitting rather than speaking)
> and Ibn Ezra (lack of kavanah and shirah made the speech insufficient,
> necessitating the hitting) just presume his anger motivated a misstep,
> but not what the anger was about.
> 
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
> 
> -- 
> Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
> mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
> http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
> Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110719/dc24e159/attachment-0001.htm>

On 19/07/2011 12:35 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> we hold for some reason that we
> need to put them in the opposite
> order than lighting

Huh?  Since when?

-- 
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 19/07/2011 10:51 AM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
>>That said, I would agree that if this kidnapping (1) actually occured,
>> and (2) was a BD-ordered "kofin oso ad sheyomar rotzeh ani", DDD wouldn't
>> trump halakhah.

> ---assuming the above is true, 1] is it a mitzva to break the law and go
> to jail? 2] is it a -chiyuv= to do so [ ie shev v'al taaseh not acceptable] ?

How can it be a chiyuv?  On whom exactly does this chiyuv lie?  How can
any individual be expected to sacrifice himself for this?  Is killing a
rodef or a moser, and assuming the risk involved, also a chiyuv?  Of
course not.  It's muttar, and even a mitzvah, but not a chiyuv.

> 3] whose responsibility then is it to defend them, support their
> families---the beis din?

Assuming the facts are as speculated, then it would be klal yisrael's
responsibility.  (Indeed supporting their families, if they're in need,
is klal yisrael's responsibility anyway.)


On 19/07/2011 1:16 PM, Rich, Joel wrote:
>>That said, I would agree that if this kidnapping (1) actually occured,
>> and (2) was a BD-ordered "kofin oso ad sheyomar rotzeh ani", DDD wouldn't
>> trump halakhah.

> Do our batei dinim have the power to order corporal punishment? If so,
> my guess would be that it's from the power of the melech, not the
> traditional beit din.  If so, I'm not sure that DMD (at least
> according to those who see it going beyond monetary issues)wouldn't
> trump.

This isn't corporal punishment; it isn't any kind of punishment at all.
It's compelling a person to obey the halacha, which is based on arvus.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On 19/07/2011 9:26 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> Everyone holds that when DMD is valid one must not may follow the local law.

Then you will surely have no problem in demonstrating "step B", by which
those words transform into such an obligation.

On 19/07/2011 8:20 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> On 7/18/2011 9:04 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>> I renew my objection to those who casually step from Shmuel's statement
>> that "dina demalchusa dina" to a conclusion that there is an obligation
>> to obey the law, or a prohibition on breaking the law; how do you get
>> from step A to step C? Nobody has yet even attempted to demonstrate
>> step B; every time I raise the issue I'm answered by obfuscation and
>> assertion and arguments from dubious authority.

> Zev, that's what the words *mean*.

No, it most definitely is not. And that is my point.

On 19/07/2011 6:16 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:04:19PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> while halacha allows physical persuation, does dina dmalchuta override that practice?

>> How could it?   What has this got to do with "dina", that you should even
>> have a question? ...
> ...
>> I renew my objection to those who casually step from Shmuel's statement
>> that "dina demalchusa dina" to a conclusion that there is an obligation
>> to obey the law, or a prohibition on breaking the law; how do you get
>> from step A to step C?   Nobody has yet even attempted to demonstrate....

> I thought we would be done with this claim of lack of sources after
> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n155.shtml#10
> (Which was the end of the thread; RZS didn't challenge the list of
> shitos at the time.)

I got sick of beating my head against a wall.  None of the sources
were on topic; none addressed my challenge to demonstrate how you get
from A to C.  You keep citing sources that state *that* DdM is D, and
some that try to come up with reasons *why* DdM is D, or *when* it is,
but none that show the leap from there to where you want to go.

-- 
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 Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 02:39:18PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> I thought we would be done with this claim of lack of sources after
>> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n155.shtml#10
>> (Which was the end of the thread; RZS didn't challenge the list of
>> shitos at the time.)
>
> I got sick of beating my head against a wall.  None of the sources
> were on topic...

Let's see, in the post to which you're replying, I mention Rashi's
obligation to follow all secular laws that are legislated in fulfillment
of the 7 mitzvos, the Maharshal's obligation to follow those that make
for an ordered society, the Rashbam saying DDD means following any
gov't that rules by the concent of the governed, the Rashba (and the
BY who cites him) that DDD includes conducting a Jewish investigation
of a crime on behalf of the civil authorities -- who are responsible
for any punishment, and the Maharam Shick saying that DDD obligates
one to turn in a woman suspected of killing her husband even if halakhah
doesn't call for her death and her guilt hasn't even been determined
yet.

On topic, no? And I think that very firmly proves that in their opinion
DDD has a very broad scope.

Note that at least according to Rashi, the root of DDD is deOraisa.
I am not sure the Maharshal and Rashbam necessarily agree, but it is
certainly plausible that human safety and social contract are indeed
de'Oraisa.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 03:28:52PM -0400, I wrote:
: Let's see, in the post to which you're replying, I mention Rashi's
: obligation to follow all secular laws that are legislated in fulfillment
: of the 7 mitzvos...

I was referring to Gittin 9b, d"h "kesheirin" and "chutz migitei nashim".

The gemara (top of the amud) says that contract be'arka'os shel aku",
even if signed by aku"m are kesheirim, chutz migitei nashim veshikhrurei
avadaim.

Rashi:
    kesheirin: deDDD, ve'af al pi shehanoshein vehameqabeil Yisraelim
        heim
    chutz migitei nashim: because they aren't benei kerisus, they aren't
        shaykhi in Toras gitin veqidushin,
        aval al hadinim nitztavu benei Noach...
        (and then Rashi discusses why get shichrur)

Pretty clear -- the reason why their contracts are binding is because
DDD includes "hadinim nitzavu benei Noach". The gemara happens to be
an application to dinei mamunus, but Rashi's reason for why it works
includes everything the 7BMN makes applicable to them in general.

Not only R' Broyde (whose article I was summarizing in the post I linked
to earlier this thread) reads it that way. RHS has a similar understanding
of Rashi (Nidah 61a), that had Rabbi Tarfon actually determined the guilt
of the Jews who asked them to hide him, he would have been obligated
to turn them in. (Sidenote: Realize that R' Tarfon was facing the Roman
authorities of the period between churban bayis and Hadrian y"sh!)

Also, R' Benzion Uziel in Pisqei Uziel 71 takes Rashi this way.

Since RZS didn't reply, I have no idea why he thinks the Rashi is
irrelevent, but whatever his rationale is, it would seem his understanding
of Rashi is idiosyncatically his.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The true measure of a man
mi...@aishdas.org        is how he treats someone
http://www.aishdas.org   who can do him absolutely no good.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Samuel Johnson


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 138
***************************************

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..."