Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 54

Sat, 02 Jun 2012

• 1. Re: West Hartford Doctor Challenges GE On `Sabbath Mode' Oven (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Bene Israel of India (David Riceman)
• 3. Provence (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: West Hartford Doctor Challenges GE On `Sabbath Mode' Oven (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 6. Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today? (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: West Hartford Doctor Challenges GE On `Sabbath Mode' Oven (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: West Hartford Doctor Challenges GE On `Sabbath Mode' Oven (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 12. Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today? (Zev Sero)
• 13. BEAUTIFUL VORT ON NASO (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 14. Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today? (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 15. Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today? (Zev Sero)
• 16. ein haztibbur yachol ya-amod ba (Eli Turkel)
• 17. Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 18. Provence (Eli Turkel)

> An oven with a Sabbath mode bypasses the automatic 12-hour shut-off
> circuitry built into modern ovens for safety. He also assumed the
> Sabbath-compliant oven he bought had a time-bake feature that could
> be set before the weekend Sabbath to turn on automatically to reheat
> the pre-cooked food.

The question is why he assumed that.  What is it about the words
"Sabbath mode" that would make someone just assume a specific meaning
without bothering to inquire?   Especially since RMF held that such a
mode as he thought he was getting is impossible as a matter of halacha;
why would he assume that the Star-K was ignoring RMF's psak?

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

RZS:
> Provence counts as Ashkenaz (as opposed to Sefarad), just as France does.
> The line between A and S seems to correspond to that between Christendom
> and Dar-al-Islam.  Communication within each empire was easier than with
> each other.  When Spain became Xian its Jews might eventually have merged
> with Ashkenazim, but soon after there were no Jews there.
>
>
This is thoroughly anachronistic.  Provencal Jewry viewed itself as 
independent until its culture petered out in the aftermath of the 
Albigensian crusade.  For the Raavad in particular see Rabbi Twersky's 
biography, pp. 19-29, and see chapter 3 of Professor Ta Shma's biography 
of R. Zerahia HaLevi.  IIRC Professor Katz wrote something similar about 
the Meiri, but I don't have a copy available.

For a contemporary analogue see what happens if you describe a Teimani 
as Sefaradi.

The claim about Spain is also outrageous.  Ramban, Rashba, the Ran, all 
were Sephardic poskim who lived in Christian Spain and who defended 
Sephardic traditions against Ashkenazic incursions.  Not only did the 
cultures not merge in 300 years, but, numerically, we Ashkenazim were a 
small minority compared to Spanish Jews.

David Riceman

On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 12:18:08PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> This is thoroughly anachronistic.  Provencal Jewry viewed itself as  
> independent until its culture petered out in the aftermath of the  
> Albigensian crusade.  For the Raavad in particular see Rabbi Twersky's  
> biography, pp. 19-29, and see chapter 3 of Professor Ta Shma's biography  
> of R. Zerahia HaLevi.  IIRC Professor Katz wrote something similar about  
> the Meiri, but I don't have a copy available.

It struck me recently that the loss of a lasting Provencal Jewish
community might explain the loss of the Me'iri. Ashkenazim focused on
perpetuating their manuscripts, Sepharadim theirs, and poor R' Menchem
Meiri (the son of Narbonnim but actually lived in Catalan across the
Spanish border -- minhagic "Provence" straddles a political border)
left his imprint on a community that later assimilated into others.

...
> The claim about Spain is also outrageous.  Ramban, Rashba, the Ran, all  
> were Sephardic poskim who lived in Christian Spain and who defended  
> Sephardic traditions against Ashkenazic incursions.  Not only did the  
> cultures not merge in 300 years, but, numerically, we Ashkenazim were a  
> small minority compared to Spanish Jews.

As is evidenced by the lack of diversity in the Ashk gene pool. 40%
of Ashkenazim can be traced to just four women
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10827385>. (Based on mitochondrial DNA
studies, as only the egg provides mtDNA.)

It may make more sense when speaking of Sepharadi rishonim to deal with
the Andalusians (Rambam, IE) of the Golden Age and with Catalonians
separately. What do you think?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 10:53:44AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>                                 Especially since RMF held that such a
> mode as he thought he was getting is impossible as a matter of halacha;
> why would he assume that the Star-K was ignoring RMF's psak?

A hekhsher shouldn't assume the consumer knows that RMF pasqened altogether,
never mind that he knows what RMF held.

But in general, I agree with your point that he assumed too much
before buying, and now it trying to sue because they didn't meet his
expectations. But unless we switch to talking about whether a Jewish
parallel to GE would be chayavim to forewarn him and thus BD could make
them reimberse him, that end of things is off topic for Avodah.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org        once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I wrote:
> So if there were problems with the validity of Orpah's
> giyur, there must have been problems with the validity
> of Ruth's.

R' Micha Berger responded:
> Not necessarily. Hypothetically speaking, what if Naami
> saw Orpah, the day (or the hour) after tevillah, in front
> of her idols? That would certainly cast doubt on her
> qabbalas ol mitzvos at the time of tevilah, while still
> upholding Rus's geirus.

Yes, such a scenario would certainly cause problems for Orpah but not for
Ruth. But would Naami have then allowed Orpah to live with her for the next
*ten years*?

A simple reading of the psukim suggests that Naami treated Orpah and Ruth
equally all the way until "amech ami". This leads me to believe that Orpah
and Ruth acted similarly for the whole ten years.

If there are any Midrashim about events during those ten years, which
suggest that Orpah was less serious about her Judaism than Ruth was, please
tell me about them.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4fc8f697ba10110e4st01vuc

On 1/06/2012 11:10 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:35:57AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> >  On 1/06/2012 6:13 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>>  Well, if RAM is speaking of yibum as a societal practice, halachic
>>>  parameters aren't an issue.

>>  Then why would it matter whether the marriage was valid?  There could
>>  just as easily be the same idea about giving the deceased's mistress
>>  a child in his name...

> Except that's not the societal norm. As far as we can tell.

How do you know what the societal norm was?  What do you know that would
indicate that they'd apply this concept to a wife but not to a mistress?
This entire line of reasoning is pure speculation, and once we do that
there's no reason to suppose they'd relax the halachic parameters in one
respect and not in others.


> Why turn this into a question instead of a data point?

Because there is no data point.  You're begging the question.

I'm saying there's no reason to suppose this had anything to do with
some hypothetical and long-extinct social idea of quasi-yibum, because
it can easily be understood in terms of social norms that still exist
today -- the ethical obligation to wind up a deceased relative's affairs
and take care of his debts, including to his wife/mistress/girlfriend
as well as his children if any.


On 1/06/2012 11:10 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> >  That was what motivated*Tamar*; she wanted children from the holy family,
>> >  and would do whatever it took to get some.  I don't see anything to indicate
>> >  that she cared about perpetuating Er's name.*Yehuda*  is the one who cared
>> >  about that.
> I don't see anything that limits her motive to one of the other.
>
> Yehudah didn't know it was Tamar, which kind of rules out his planning
> to perpetuate Er or Onan's lines.

Yehudah cared about it when he encouraged Onan to marry Tamar.  But
there's no indication that Tamar cared about it at all.  What she
cared about was becoming part of Yaacov's family.

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

R' Micha Berger asked:

> I should point out that most of the rabbanim signing on
> to the letter saying that #2 doesn't help do sign on to
> a number of Machon Zomet geramah-based inventions. I'm
> curious to know the difference between the cases. Why
> is Zomet's delayed causation of a desired result gerama,
> but this isn't?

I've wondered about this too. My guess is that both are grama, and those
rabbanim would say so. The difference (I'm guessing) is that they're
willing to allow this grama for the need of those cholim etc. who have a
real need for Machon Zomet devices, but they're not willing to concede this
leniency for more ordinary cases. Again, this is just my guess.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4fc8f52a55a12326st02vuc

On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:27:00AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>>  Then why would it matter whether the marriage was valid?  There could
>>>  just as easily be the same idea about giving the deceased's mistress
>>>  a child in his name...
>
>> Except that's not the societal norm. As far as we can tell.
...

> How do you know what the societal norm was?...

Because, as I continued:
>> Why turn this into a question instead of a data point?
>
> Because there is no data point.  You're begging the question.

WADR, you are. You assume that the story violates the norm, and ask why.
Why not assume that the one example we have details of conforms to the
norm, and obviate the question?

You remind me of the time a grade school rebbe asked us: How could
Re'uvein shlep Yaaqov's bed out of Rachel's tent, since he only had one
leg and needed one hand for his crutch?

And after we all went nuts trying to answer, he explained: Who said
Re'uvein only had one leg?

> I'm saying there's no reason to suppose this had anything to do with
> some hypothetical and long-extinct social idea of quasi-yibum...

It's not hypothetical, since we have Tamar and the people in Rus
performing a non-halachic quasi-yibum. In his book Ancient Israel,
Roland de Vaux writes (vol I: "Its Life and Institutions", pg 19) that
Hittites, Hurrites and Ugarits practiced it. And that Hammurabbi doesn't
mention it. Going beyond the locale, the early Indo-Europeans, Indians,
Persians, Greeks and Romans had such a concept as well. So it wasn't
"long extinct" among non-Jews until after the amoraim.

...
>> Yehudah didn't know it was Tamar, which kind of rules out his planning
>> to perpetuate Er or Onan's lines.

> Yehudah cared about it when he encouraged Onan to marry Tamar.  But
> there's no indication that Tamar cared about it at all.  What she
> cared about was becoming part of Yaacov's family.

Do you know he encouraged Onan? Do you know what Tamar was thinking?
We know Chazal say Tamar considered it an honor to stay in Yaaqov's
family. We do not know that she didn't also have other motivations. OTOH,
we know Yehudah had no noble intentions when accidentally conducting his
quasi-yibum, which was the instance under discussion, not the actual yibum
(?) to Onan.

BTW, does anyone know if real yibum requires lishmah, the way qiddushin
via bi'ah would?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 04:58:27PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: I've wondered about this too. My guess is that both are grama, and those
: rabbanim would say so. The difference (I'm guessing) is that they're
: willing to allow this grama for the need of those cholim etc. who have
: a real need for Machon Zomet devices, but they're not willing to concede
: this leniency for more ordinary cases. Again, this is just my guess.

What they signed, at least as translated by "a prominent rov and posek"
who sent it to YWN:
    In our opinion, pressing the keys on Yom Tov is strictly forbidden
    since pressing a key immediately closes an electrical circuit and
    instructs the microcontroller to carry out an action. Pressing the
    key is forbidden just as all manipulation of electricity is forbidden
    on Shabbos and Yom Tov either because of "Makeh B'patish" or because
    of "Mesaken" as described in Igros Moshe (vol.3 ?42 and vol.4 ?84)
    whereby there can be a Torah violation immediately upon pressing the
    key even if no "fire'"is created. This operation is not considered
    "Grama".

Not "we can't rely on gerama". The translator adds (braketed on
the web pg):
              [Furthermore, according to a number of authorities,
    "Grama" does not apply to situations where the eventual outcome
    is intentional.]

Furthermore, from the comments with the signatures that add substance:
    There is no Heter for the above, nor will Grama accomplish here.
    I affix my signature, awaiting the redemption. -- (HoRav) Shmuel
    Wozner

    Surely, surely one is obligated to protest this leniency with all
    our might. Such leniencies are a great degradation in the foundation
    of Shmiras Shabbos and those that are careful with the honor of
    Shabbos will bring an eternal Brocho upon themselves. -- (HoRav)
    Yechezkel Roth, Head of Karlsbad Bais Din

    Aside from the actual prohibition, there lies herein a breach in the
    wall of Shmiras Shabbos and Yom Tov through which the Jewish nation
    is sanctified thoughout the generations. -- (HoRav) Yaakov Horowitz,
    Rav, Telz Minyan

Also, I noted already that Shabbos mode:
1- Disables the 12 hr safety timer
2- Gramafies, maybe, the keypad.

I now see that it also
3- Disables the door switch. When not in Shabbos mode, many ovens
   immediately shut off heating elements when the door opens.

Thus there is value to Shabbos mode ovens even if one wouldn't use the
keypad on Yom Tov.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:10:16PM -0600, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
: As far as your first point, who says that what Elimelech's sons did
: was right? Perhaps they married after a sham conversion. We know this
: happens today...

And Shimshon and Shelomo haMelekh. Yad, Hil Issurei Bi'ah 13:14-17.
I was thinking the complicated halakhah in 16-17 that we've argued here
at length exactly what the Rambam means is the line between Orpah and Rus
as well.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

R' Daniel Israel wrote:

> who says that what Elimelech's sons did was right?
> Perhaps they married after a sham conversion.  We know
> this happens today.  Notice that they didn't marry until
> after their father died, perhaps he kept them from
> stumbling to that extent.

I had *not* noticed that the marriage was not until after he died. This is an excellent point. Thank you very much.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
DYNAMICDMA Do NOT Buy Car Insurance
Learn the 1 simple trick that agents don't want you to know...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4fc8f78bad9f9101bst05vuc

On 1/06/2012 1:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> It's not hypothetical, since we have Tamar and the people in Rus
> performing a non-halachic quasi-yibum.

No, we don't.  In the case of Tamar we have actual halachic yibum,
and *nothing else*.  In the case of Rus there's no need to suppose
yibum at all.


>> Yehudah cared about it when he encouraged Onan to marry Tamar.  But
>> there's no indication that Tamar cared about it at all.  What she
>> cared about was becoming part of Yaacov's family.

> Do you know he encouraged Onan?

Um, yes.  "Bo el eshet achicha veyabem otah, vehakem zera le'achicha".
It wasn't Onan's idea.


> Do you know what Tamar was thinking?
> We know Chazal say Tamar considered it an honor to stay in Yaaqov's
> family. We do not know that she didn't also have other motivations.

Nor do we know that she did, and there's nothing in the story that
requires us to suppose any such other motivations.


> BTW, does anyone know if real yibum requires lishmah, the way
> qiddushin via bi'ah would?

No, it definitely doesn't.  Even if he fell off a roof and somehow
landed in her, it's a valid yibum.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

I just came across the following which is beautiful and will make Naso even more powerful.

Rabbi Shmuel Greinemann explains that it was no accident that Nesanel ben Tzuar of Yissachar chose, 
on the second day, to bring precisely what Nachshon ben Amminadav brought the day earlier. He knew 
that each of the tribes could engage in one-upmanship, compensating for and taking advantage of going 
later in line to bring something greater than the other Nesi'im had brought so far. Instead, Nesanel ben Tzuar 
chose a path designed to avoid any hint of jealousy, and to generate feelings of love and brotherhood. 
And every Nasi followed suit. That was what was so precious about each and every offering, warranting 
that it, too, be described with the same level of detail in the Torah itself as all the others.

My two cents: Instead of trying to BE better than someone else, we should try TO BETTER someone else.
In doing that we will be FAR BETTER than had we tried to BE BETTER.

Shabbat shalom.
ri 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120601/be50a810/attachment-0001.htm>

  
  
>> I'd think that a tzadik like Boaz would much sooner have sat shiva over
 Machlon's intermarriage<<


>He may well have done so at the time, and if Machlon were alive he might
have treated him as a rasha; but Machlon wasn't alive, and someone had to
wind up his affairs.  One of his debts was to Ruth.  Suppose someone
marries out and then does teshuvah; he must leave his wife, but does he
not have an ethical obligation to look after her?  And suppose she
converts and demands that he make an honest woman of her, does he not
have an ethical obligation to do so?<


 .  The Mishna in Yevamos 24b states that "Hanitan . . . al hanochris v'nisgaira, harei zeh lo yichnos."

EMT

On 1/06/2012 3:29 PM, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
>   .  The Mishna in Yevamos 24b states that "Hanitan . . . al hanochris
> v'nisgaira, harei zeh lo yichnos."

That's "hanit`an".  If he marries her then he will confirm the rumours.
But ma`asim bechol yom that someone who is not just nit`an but vadai
bo`el aramis marries her when she converts.  The chiluk seems to me that
where he was publicly married to her there's no cheshad to dispel; it's
confirmed public knowledge and there's no point in trying to evade it.
(I'd even suggest that a nit`an can marry her if he's willing to publicly
acknowledge and renounce his avera.)

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

>>2) Ein HaTzibbur Yachol Laamod bo? Is that what the community currently
can do or what they want to do. Yachol Laamod seems to me what they are
capable of
doing.  I do think we are capable of a lot more than we give ourselves
credit for.  We are a strong people, look how many people stood up and send
their kids to yeshiva education at ridiculously high prices etc.  How many
people keep shabbos at a time when you would be fired (yes I know one is a
takanna and one is a dioraysa, but it is clear that we are stronger then we
think.  The word was Yachol not Rotzeh)  <<

The origin of the phrase is AZ 36a with regard to the oil of idol
worshippers. The gemara says that they checked and found that in fact the
gezerah was not kept, R, Yehuda HaNasi did not say that a people who had
survived Roman persecutions could certainly get along without the oil of
the gentiles,

In the case of oil it was harder to get rid of the decree since it had been
observed for a while but for a new gezerah it is enough if the people dont
accept it (see tosafot AZ 36b)

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120602/7e14127d/attachment-0001.htm>

I wrote:
> The two views are mentioned in ArtScroll's Overview to Ruth
> ... Page 48 cites Rabbi Meir in Ruth Rabba 1:4 that Machlon
> and Kilyon did *not* convert them, and page 49-50 cites
> Zohar Chadash Ruth 180-182 that they *did*.

Page 66 of ArtScroll (on pasuk 1:4) says that in addition to the Zohar
Chadash, Ibn Ezra also says that Machlon and Kilyon *did* convert them
prior to the marriage.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
5 Diet Pills that Work
2012's Top 5 Weight Loss Pills. Updated Consumer Ratings. Free Report.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4fcaccaec8872c3ad1st01vuc

<<Provence counts as Ashkenaz (as opposed to Sefarad), just as France does.
The line between A and S seems to correspond to that between Christendom
and Dar-al-Islam.  Communication within each empire was easier than with
each other.  When Spain became Xian its Jews might eventually have merged
with Ashkenazim, but soon after there were no Jews there. >>

In the middle ages Provence both in Jewish life and in Xtian life was
separate from both Ashkenaz and Sefard.
People like Raavad, Baal Hamaor, Meiri were neither Ashkenaz and Sefard.

see reconquista in wkipedia
By 1252 most of Iberia was back under Christian rule and the Emirate of
Granada <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirate_of_Granada> was the last
Muslim state left in the peninsula. Granada became a
vassal<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassal> state
of Christian Castile <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_of_Castile>

I am not sure what the term "eventually" meabs, but Ramban, Rashba, Ritva,
Ran etc. all lived under Xtian rule and were not merging with Ashkenazi
Jewry.
In fact Ashkenazi Jewry were kicked out of France much earlier (Rosh moved
to Spain) and by 1492 most of Ashkenazi Jewry was far away in Poland.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120602/e1b96666/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 54
**************************************

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..."