Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 83

Wed, 04 Jul 2012

• 1. Re: Drops of wine (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Translation of Makkos, Rav Dovid Feinstein Clarifies (Zvi Lampel)
• 3. Re: Drops of wine (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: confiscating property (Harry Weiss)
• 5. Re: Mechallel Shabbos to destroy a non-kosher phone (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Mechallel Shabbos to destroy a non-kosher phone (Allan Engel)
• 7. Re: Mechallel Shabbos to destroy a non-kosher phone (Akiva Miller)
• 8. Re: Who is a Talmid Chacham (David Riceman)
• 9. Re: Why four? (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: Moshe and the Rock (Poppers, Michael)
• 11. QUESTION RE: FASTING (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 12. single mothers (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: confiscating property (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Mechallel Shabbos to destroy a non-kosher phone? (Chanar Luntz)
• 15. Re: Drops of wine (Lisa Liel)
• 16. Re: Drops of wine (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Mechallel Shabbos to destroy a non-kosher phone (Zev Sero)
• 18. Re: Mechallel Shabbos to destroy a non-kosher phone (Micha Berger)

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 05:24:39PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> What are Hashem's "Emotions" altogether when they are not lessons for
>> us to learn from?

> You're learning the wrong thing.  What we learn here is that we don't  
> rejoice when one of our own falls.

Isn't that the whole discussion, whether "one of our own" ends with
BY, or if "zeh sefer toledos Adam" tells us otherwise?

>> And where do we ever find that we aren't supposed to be in alignment with
>> G-d's desiderata? If it's bad from His "Perspective" that they died, we
>> should be elevating our perspective to that we too see the bad.

> You're dropping context.  It isn't bad from His perspective that  
> Egyptians died.  It's bad from His perspective that His maasei yadayim  
> died.  We too should see the bad in our children or fellow Jews falling.  
...

We should also want HQBH's Will to be done, and therefore share joy in His
triumphs and sadness when He allows free will to temporarily thwart them.
The notion that there is something He is "mourning" that we should not
is an anathema to me. If it's "Bad" for Him, it's bad for us and all of
existence.

>> That what, that it's for the Jews who died in the Yam Suf? Chatzi Hallel
>> is what we're saying, not Him.

> No.  Hashem just lost children.  We can still sing praises to Him, but  
> to include parts that condemn Hashem's children is tasteless and tacky,  
> so we don't do it.  That's what we omit in Chatzi Hallel...

That works for omitting the first half of 115. But 116? The only person
David comes hard on is himself, when he says "Ani amarti bechadzi, 'kol
ha'adam kozeiv.'"

...
>> If all Jews are brothers, all humans are first cousins. Ben Azzai omer,
>> "'Zeh seifer toledos adam' -- zeh kelal gadol mizeh."
>>    
> Meh.  We make a major distinction between us and them.  You can't turn  
> Judaism into some sort of universalist pap...

Which is why I said brother vs first cousin. You're turning it into
black-and-white, whereas I see it as ever fainter and broader circles of
connection. But it's not me making this claim, all I did in the piece
you reply to is quote Ben Azzai. It's also inherent in the vision of
yemos hamashiach in Yeshaiah and in the second half of Aleinu. It's
seifer Ovadiah and Yonah.

...
>>> It's an interesting vort, but I don't think that sort of distinction
>>> exists in the Beis Yosef.  When they tie binfol oyivcha to chatzi
>>> hallel, they're saying what I wrote above.

>> Which is what? You said we people aren't supposed to connect the two. So
>> how does that fit Chatzi Hallel, expression our praise of G-d for giving
>> us a joyous occasion?

> I honestly don't see what I said that's so ambiguous.  You know, maybe  
> what I need to do is what Rabbi Bar Hayim asked me to do a couple of  
> years ago, and write the whole thing up with inline sources quoted, so  
> that there's no confusion.

I didn't say you were ambiguous. I said your take on the Beis Yoseif
doesn't fit his words -- or those of anyone else who follows the
Shibbolei haLeqet.

HE does invoke "binfol" and "maasei 'Yadai" to explain CH. To the BY the
two are the same, and do apply to human beings.

I'm not confused. You're simply wrong. (And RDBC's notion of halachic
process is so avant garde, dropping his name to imply he agrees with
you doesn't help your case with most of us.)

> <sigh> Again?  Really?  What part of what I've explained is unclear?   
> The Beis Yosef is saying this:

> We say Chatzi Hallel (omit the parts of Hallel that are condemnations of  
> Hashem's children) on Shevii shel Pesach because this is the day when  
> Hashem had to drown His children in the Red Sea, and it would be crass,  
> crude, and just plain mean spirited to include condemnations of others  
> of His children in our praises of Him on that day...

That's not translation. He doesn't say "crass, crude, and just plain
mean spirited" -- he quotes Mishlei. You claim something is in the BY, so
point to the line where you see this. (And then we can agree to disagree
about how to read that line, as this time we can't someone over to the
author to ask...)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

On 7/3/2012 4:38 PM, Zvi Lampel wrote:
> All Reb Dovid would comment is that it is to be understood the 
> conventional way that we spill the wine because of the suffering of 
> the Egyptians.

There's also the possibility that Reb Dovid, shlita, regards the risk of 
embarrassing the translator a greater concern than the technical issue 
presented. This of course, would cancle out the whole thing, although, 
as the translator, I would rather stand corrected.

Zvi Lampel


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120703/d1675793/attachment-0001.htm>

On 3/07/2012 5:39 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> The notion that there is something He is "mourning" that we should not
> is an anathema to me. If it's "Bad" for Him, it's bad for us and all of
> existence.

It's precisely what the gemara means by "hu eino sas aval acherim mesis".

-- 
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

> From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
> On 3/07/2012 3:36 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> I don't see how this addresses my question. Accepting someone as one's
>> rebbe is different than walking into their court.
>
> Yes, it's greater.  He's not a posek, he's a melech.
>
Which Sanhedrin appointed him melech for Klal Yisroel.  he may have
similar authority to those that accept it from him, but to a person who
does not consider him bound by the Rebbe he has no authority whatsoever.

On 3/07/2012 5:14 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> On 7/3/2012 3:54 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 3/07/2012 3:36 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> I don't see how this addresses my question. Accepting someone as one's
>>> rebbe is different than walking into their court.
>>
>> Yes, it's greater. He's not a posek, he's a melech.
>
> Not halakhically.

That's your opinion.  Chassidim tend to take "man malki rabanan"
pretty literally.

-- 
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

Only to people who wish to sublimate their their will to his authority. And
almost by definition, anyone who defies that authority  has withdrawn his
or her consent.


On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
>
> No, I'm being precise.  He has exactly the authority he needs to make
> such a takanah.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120703/d07f7bee/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> This has nothing to do with psak halacha. Smicha is irrelevant.
> His authority as rebbe is precisely what is at issue, and what
> gives him the right to issue such an edict.

RZS is understanding the issue very differently than how I understood it. I
based my post on how it was presented in Avodah Digest 30:80, by R' Marty
Bluke, who wrote:

> Continuing the discussion from Areivim. The Toldos Avraham
> Yitzchak Rebbe made a series of statements against non-kosher
> phones. One of the things that he is reported to have said was
> that if they find a non-kosher phone on Shabbos they can be
> mechallel shabbos to destroy it. He also said that the
> destroyers would not have to pay for the destroyed phone.

RSZ seems to understand that the TAY Rebbe was speaking specifically about
a situation where the owner of the "non-kosher phone" was a member of that
kehillah, and had been warned that this could result from his "non-kosher
phone" being found. This would be very similar to what R' Toby Katz is
writing about students who are fully informed about school rules on
confiscations; in such cases, one does not need the halacha of a "beis din"
or a "melech", *IF* one's actions constitute a surrender to a
well-publicized rule.

But based on the way R' Marty Bluke reported it, it sounded to me like the
TAY Rebbe said this action could be taken regardless of who the "sinner"
might be, or where this "sin" occurred, and I hope that is an adequate
explanation of why I wrote what I wrote.

R' Zev -- Would you agree that the Rebbe would NOT be able to authorize
such actions in cases where the owner of the cell phone was unaware of the
community policy?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
5 Diet Pills that Work
2012's Top 5 Weight Loss Pills. Updated Consumer Ratings. Free Report.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4ff36d36e94f96d3606a7st54vuc

I started following this discussion in the middle, and I don't know the 
context in which the original question was asked.  But I don't think 
anyone's mentioned RYS's hiluk between the aspect of Talmud Torah qua 
study and the aspect of Yedias haTorah.  Loosely speaking, someone who 
is engaged full time in the former is what the Rambam calls a "Talmid 
Hachamim", and someone who has accomplished the latter is what the 
Rambam calls a "Hacham" (see Rashi on Devarim 1:13 s.v. "Hachamim").

The author of the Tanya (in H. Talmud Torah) is extremely strict about 
the prohibition of forgetting divrei Torah one has learned, and that may 
be influencing RZS's stated opinion.  Nonetheless, someone who spends 
his life reviewing the same mishnah may be fulfilling one aspect of the 
mitzvah of TT, but he is not even attempting to fulfill the aspect of 
YhT, and so his study is qualitatively lacking.

David Riceman

RHB:

<<why the fascination with four??>>

There's a nice essay on the significance of various numbers (including 
4) in Rabbi Tzuriel's little book "Otzrot Maharal".

David Riceman

In Avodah V30n79, RCRW wrote:
> I've seen a commentary that says Moshe was commanded to
speak to the rock but was never told what to say. Now certainly,
he wouldn't ask the rock "How ya doin?" So if he wasn't told what
exactly to say to the rock, was he supposed to just say "Hey rock,
give us some water!" Also, how would he know which rock to speak
to? <
Data points:
-- This parasha is the first mention of "sela'" in the Torah, so we can't yet give a precise translation (like "rock"). 
-- just as Moshe Rabbeinu was to take "the mateh," a specific mateh (and
there is much commentary on which mateh, and NB that H' did _not_ command
him to take "mat'cha," your mateh), he was to speak to "the sela'," a
specific sela' (and ibn Ezra indicates either he knew or he was going to
find out which sela'; NB that RaShY d'h' pa'amoyim indicates that Moshe
v'Aharon spoke to "a different [i.e. the wrong] sela'"!). 
-- Moshe Rabbeinu 'hit' ("vayach").  We see from Shmos 2:11-12 that while
"vayach" can indicate physical striking, it also (as RaShY indicates there,
d'h' halhorgeini) can refer to verbal activity (in Moshe Rabbeinu's case,
the Sheim haM?forash). 
-- Moshe Rabbeinu 'hit' "b'mateihu," with his mateh, not necessarily with "the mateh" he was told to utilize. 

From the above, one can suggest that Moshe (and Aharon) generally knew how
to utilize their verbal powers to effect physical changes which humans
nowadays (and for some time) can hardly accomplish with physical power;
what words they used is meant to be a secret.  It also would seem,
according to RaShY, that their failure to properly utilize that verbal
power (in re to what they said and/or where they directed their words) in
public led to chillul H'; and it would seem from the pasuq that Moshe
Rabbeinu didn't utilize "the mateh" properly, so perhaps he failed to use
the verbal power H' wanted him to use (and NB that the Targum for
"lo-he'emantem bi" is "la heimantun _b'meimri_," which can perhaps be seen
[not only as a failure to follow the words of H' but also] as a failure to
display emunah with words provided by H'). 

Happy 4th* to all!

*) and also Happy 2nd :) -- see 
h
ttp://www.aspentimes.com/article/20120703/NEWS/120709966/1077&;Paren
tProfile=1058

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

The following question was posed to me and I gave an educated guess.
However, I'd like an halachic response with sources.
Thanks.


I will be flying back from Poland where I'll be teaching the day of Tisha b'Av.
Because of the time difference, if I were to go by sunset for ending the fast,
it would add 6 hours additional than were I to have remained in Poland. What
does halacha say about this? If I fast for the 25 or so hours, then it will be 
daylight where I land. 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120704/4bad1eb0/attachment-0001.htm>

In the recent issue of Techumum R. D. Senberg has an article on the
definition of fatherhood given modern technology.
Among other issues he discusses the question of freezing sperm and using it
after the death of the donor. He
bring a disagreement if the donor is consered the father of the baby
R. Yisraeli - no
RSZA - yes
He further brings other poskim that claim that even according to R.
Yisraeli there is no prohibition to bring a child into the world who has no
halachic father.

He then discusses the social (non-halachic) aspect of a single mother. In
the end he allows it under several conditions
1) the mother is the widow of the deceased
2) they had no children
3) the donor gave permission in his leietime

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120704/6b67b3c2/attachment-0001.htm>

On 3/07/2012 5:50 PM, Harry Weiss wrote:
>> From: Zev Sero<z...@sero.name>
>> On 3/07/2012 3:36 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> I don't see how this addresses my question. Accepting someone as one's
>>> rebbe is different than walking into their court.

>> Yes, it's greater.  He's not a posek, he's a melech.

> Which Sanhedrin appointed him melech for Klal Yisroel.

Who said anything about Klal Yisroel?

> he may have
> similar authority to those that accept it from him, but to a person who
> does not consider him bound by the Rebbe he has no authority whatsoever.

And that is relevant how?

On 3/07/2012 6:06 PM, Akiva Miller wrote:
> RSZ seems to understand that the TAY Rebbe was speaking specifically
> about a situation where the owner of the "non-kosher phone" was a member
> of that kehillah, and had been warned that this could result from his
> "non-kosher phone" being found.

Of course.  Didn't you read the original report?  What else did you think
we were talking about?  Roaming phone-smashing gangs?!

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

I wrote:
>> So even if there is a power of vigilantism that would allow one to
prevent
>> another person from eating treif food (and not just an obligation on beis
>>  din)

And RZS replied:

>There certainly is:  http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/7110.htm#25

As someone posted recently from Rav Shternbach, there is a dispute between
the Ketzsos HaChoshen and the Nesivos HaMishpat on this subject, one cannot
just posken from the Rambam.

Note by the way that the Rambam's source for allowing one to tear off a
kilyaim garment is (according to the Radvaz there and the Beis Yosef (Yoreh
Deah siman 303)) - this ma'asah regarding Rav Ada bar Ahava that you have
quoted previously (Brochos 20a) - ie the majority of the halachic
authorities appear to understand the issur that Rav Ada bar Ahava was
responding to was that of wearing kilyaim d'orisa, not that of wearing an
untzniusdik garment (although that is the Maharashal's understanding).  This
fits in better with the sugya that went before, and also makes more sense -
because let's face it, if somebody is wearing a garment made of shatnez, and
you take it off them, then they are no longer violating the prohibition of
shaztnez.  But if a woman is out in public wearing a bikini, and you take it
off her, that hardly exactly helps.  And it also explains why, when it was
discovered that the woman was a Cuthite woman, that there was clearly no
issue - a Cuthite woman is not commanded on Shatnez, so of  course he should
not have taken it off.  But if it was a matter of pritzus, that might cause
improper thoughts as the Maharashal suggests, then why was it so OK once it
was realised she was a Cuthite woman?  Men don't have improper thoughts from
Cuthite women? And does anybody say wearing red is a lav d'orisa (which
everybody agrees is the minimum requirement needed for any form of
viligantism to happen).

In any event, neither the Rambam nor the essential ma'aseh says anything
about stealing or damaging the garment, only about removing it (the use of
kriya does not necessarily imply damage or stealing).  And indeed it seems
clear that Rav Ada bar Ahavah did not in fact damage the garment in any way.
Because once it was discovered that this woman was a Cuthite woman, the fine
he was assessed to pay was 400 zuz.  Now that is the fine that one has to
pay if one strips a cloak off a person or removes a woman's head covering in
the marketplace (Mishna Baba Kama Perek 8 Mishna 6) - due to shaming them
(which again provides support for the idea that this was actually a case of
shatnez, not improper clothing).  If he had actually damaged her garment
then there would have needed to be additional payments made for this over
and above 400 zuz.  So this case, while it might be able to be used to
demonstrate that certain viligantism is allowed, doesn't at all demonstrate
that one can do it by stealing or damaging the property of the person in the
process.

And Rachel stealing the terafim, even if you hold that this was a
meritorious act, does not help, because the terafim clearly have no value
being objects that are the subject of an issur hana'ah.

>And in our case, we are talking about shluchei beis din, who are certainly
>allowed to do so:  http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/7102.htm#13

But, as others have raised, the Rambam here is referring to a Beis Din of
smuchim.  What gives the Rebbe the power of a beis din, or a melech (as you
have stated), bizman hazeh to punish shelo k'din is precisely the question I
am asking?  I suspect you have again to get back to the powers of a kahal,
and takanos hakahal etc, and it may well be that Toldos Aharon Chassidim
fall into a well defined enough group to be considered a kahal for these
purposes - but then you get into the question of opt in and opt out that
others are raising.  And  again it involves putting ones head between the
mountains of Rabbanu Tam and the Maharam and the various attempts to
reconcile them in circumstances where we are dealing with an issur d'orisa
(and the Bene Banim quotes a braisa quoted by various rishonim (see Bnei
Banim Chelek 2 siman 48 p 196) which has Rabbi Meir saying that gezel is
also something that pikuach nefesh is not doche).
-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

Regards

Chana

On 7/3/2012 4:44 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 3/07/2012 5:39 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> The notion that there is something He is "mourning" that we should not
>> is an anathema to me. If it's "Bad" for Him, it's bad for us and all of
>> existence.
>
> It's precisely what the gemara means by "hu eino sas aval acherim mesis".

Well, I guess that's the case unless someone happens to be cholek on 
that gemara.

Lisa

On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 07:52:17PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> It's precisely what the gemara means by "hu eino sas aval acherim mesis".

> Well, I guess that's the case unless someone happens to be cholek on  
> that gemara.

Or one goes with the Meshekh Chokhmah's answer. (As RAM suggested May
2011, and I repeated a couple of days ago.)

We now have a stream of dissenters to what you two insist is obvious from
the Shibolei haLeqet to RDF just last Sunday. If you want to explore the
"how", there is value. But debating the proposition is simply pointless.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 3/07/2012 5:35 PM, Allan Engel wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name <mailto:z...@sero.name>> wrote:

>> No, I'm being precise.  He has exactly the authority he needs to make
>> such a takanah.

> Only to people who wish to sublimate their their will to his authority.
> And almost by definition, anyone who defies that authority  has
> withdrawn his or her consent.

Hardly.   Or else no melech and no beis din would ever have authority.

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

A rebbe might be aggadically comparable to a melekh, or have authority
that derives from that of a melekh, but to claim the Rambam's Hil'
Melakhim apply to rabbeim??? Morid bemalkhus is chayav misah? Is a
rebbe who was subject to a fight over succession annointed? Are all
rabbeim ben-achar-ben from Shelomo haMelekh? etc...

For someone who regularly insists on following the logic of the law as he
sees it even when it reaches conclusions I would considered absurdly far
from the values taught by aggadah, I find your position on this thread
remarkably inconsistent.

As for the other part... Yes, I think the objection is based on history.
Regardless of what the TAY Rebbe intended, past performance leads us to
expect that yes, those roaming squads taking phones away from people who
didn't personally choose to be his chassidim are a likely outcome. And in
fact, it happens so often, it's hard to believe the rebbe himself doesn't
know to expect this outcome. Which means he feels strongly enough about
the elimination of such phones from his qehillah to consider it worth
causing this risk.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 83
**************************************

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..."