Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 151

Tue, 06 Nov 2012

• 1. Re: BELIEF (Akiva Miller)
• 2. Re: eivah (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Rav Elyashiv, Torah, and Science (Micha Berger)
• 4. What did Avraham hope to accomplish by arguing withHashem about Sdom? (saul newman)
• 5. pesticides vs bugs (saul newman)
• 6. Re: What did Avraham hope to accomplish by arguing with Hashem about Sdom? (Marty Bluke)
• 7. Re: What did Avraham hope to accomplish by arguing with Hashem about Sdom? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Geshem or Gashem (MOS...@MM.HUJI.AC.IL)
• 9. Re: [Avoda] Eivah (Marty Bluke)
• 10. Re: [Avoda] Eivah (Joseph Kaplan)
• 11. Halloween (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Eivah (Lisa Liel)
• 13. Re: Eivah (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Eivah (Lisa Liel)

Cantor Wolberg asked:

> I have a question which has always troubled me.
> One of the quintessential mitzvot is belief in G-d.
> How can you legislate belief if you don't believe?

I've seen several aswers to this. My personal favorite it that this mitzvah
is not really any different than any other positive mitzvah in this regard.
You can't simply decide to do a mitzva, and then expect it to happen by
magic; there is almost always some sort of preparation required.

You can't do the mitzvah of matzah on Pesach unless you purchase some, or
bake it yourself. You can't sit alone at home and do tzedaka; you have to
find someone who you can help. If there's no shofar in town, you need to
resolve that somehow.

And if one doesn't believe, he needs to work on that. Exactly how one does
that will vary with the individual and the situation. Again, that's no
different than the mitzvos I listed above: One person will spend Rosh
Hashana in another town where he can go to shul and hear the shofar, and
another will make his own shofar and learn to blow it properly himself. So
too, there are different ways of coming to belief: One will work through
the intellectual "proofs", and another will simply spend time among
believers and allow them to make an impression on him.

Note: There are some mitzvos where the circumstances do make a person
exempt from a mitzva. I doubt very much that a man who lacks arms would be
obliged to get a transplant just so that he can put on arm-tefillin. And
I've heard that some hold that a true and total homosexual is consequently
exempt from p'ru ur'vu. Perhaps a similar logic applies to one who lacks a
belief in HaShem, but I doubt it, because acquiring that belief is exactly
the requirement (for those who hold that it *is* a requirement).

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/509810aecf8c710ae0472st02vuc

On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 08:25:30PM +0000, Akiva Miller wrote:
: As I recall it, a rav wanted to build a mikveh for the town, but the
: only available location had previously been a shul, and although the
: shul was no longer in use, the halacha is that one may not take down a
: shul to build a mikvah. He consulted a well-known posek, who told him
: to do it anyway: "Yes, this aveirah will go on your account, but the
: zechus that you'll be giving to the community will make it worth it."

: I don't remember who the posek in the story was, but I do remember that
: it was a universally-respected one.

The story is with the CI (Pe'er haDor 2:157), a questioned asked by a
LOR of a neighborhood in Tel Aviv. But the CI added that he himself would
accept the punishment issur if the LOR were afraid to.

(RMF in IM CM 1:42 reaches the same conclusion, but argues that since
one may sell a seifer Torah to marry a woman (Megillah 27a) and qedushas
ST outranks that of a shul (prior mishnah, 25b), then qal vakhomer one
may sell a shul to build a miqvah. Thus defusing this example for the
sake of our discussion.)


:                                     And I turned the page shaking my head,
: wondering where he got the "broad shoulders" with which to second-guess
: the Ribono Shel Olam in this manner..

One might argue it's eis la'asos Lashem type reasoning. Or even asei
dokheh lav (rather than the miqvah being mitzvah hab'ah ba'aveirah). Both
are actually halachic process.

Whis is similar to where I was trying to go with pointing out that the
obligations to follow a moral code (qedoshim tihyu et al) are also
chiyuvim and issurim, and could very well outweigh the issurim in
question. It could be that cannibalism is simply more assur on these
very halachic grounds, even if not a black-letter halakhah. (Hilkhos
Dei'os trumping Ma'akhalos Asuros.)

And yes, that kind of assessment requires breite pleitzos. But it's not
"second guessing the RBSO".

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

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 08:36:32AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: There are others who say that Chazal did not know the actuality of
: nature but knew it only via the best science of their era. Among them
: are Rishonim like R' Avraham ben HaRambam.

And the gemara itself. The tannaim accepted Persian astronomy, that the
sun went behind the raqia at night. Rebbe points out that the umos ha'olam
have accepted Greek astronomy, that the sun goes around the earth --
"VENIR'IN DIVREIHEN MIDIVREINU". Pesachim 94b.

Irony of it is, Rebbe's proof to this claim is just as far from Greek
astronomy as the "divreinu". He says that the sun going below the
earth is why ma'ayanos get hot at night. This means Rebbe thought the
Greeks believed in a flat earth, such that the sun was closer to the
(underside of) the springs at night than when it was over the sky.

The author of the mishnah says befeirush that the umos ha'olam could
get science more accurately than we do. So why the discussion today?

As I see it, what was debated historically is whether Chazal's statements
were intended to be scientific. And if not, then even where they got
the science wrong, they were not in error about their true topic.

The Gra on Seifer haYetzirah is medayeiq from R' Yehudah haNasi's use
of the word "nir'in" in the above quote to conclude that Chazal were
indeed not really discussing astronomy. And therefore it *looks* like
their words are more accurate than ours if you erred and took them as
the same topic. See also R' Aqiva Eiger ad loc.

So Rebbe admits the metaphor is broken, but it doesn't change a thing
in terms of the real topic of conversation.

: One of the more famous ones is the idea that lice do not sexually
: reproduce. This fact impacts on Halacha...
: Now it should be said that there are still ways to allow for Chazal to
: not be mistaken about this. ...
: Another way to look at it is that only lice that one can see with the
: naked eye sexually reproducing is forbidden. If one needs a microscope
: to see it, then for Halachic purposes it is still considered asexual
: reproduction.

By starting with the assumption that science and empirical reality are
the important yardstick, one unnecessarily creates problems. Let's say
Chazal are interested in refining souls, and science (or Natural Philosophy)
has nothing to do with it.

It's not that we ignore certain scientific realia. It's that we do not
look at the scientific realm altogether. Which goes hand-in-hand to
assuming that chazal spoke at times in scientific metaphor, and weren't
discussing science altogether.

What we care about is refining human souls, not abstract info about the
world in which they live.

People do things "at sunrise" even centuries after it became common
-- but abstract -- knowledge that the sun doesn't rise. The world we
experience isn't the one we know in the abstract.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

why did not  avraham argue, give me six  months  there and i will make
 BT's  ?
do we say he was too  disgusted with their  chessed-free derech to give it
a try?
he didn't flip the  argument to [melech sdom] ten LI  hanefesh veharechush
kach lach,,,,
how did he know  they were inherently unsavable , moreso  than  'hanefesh
asher assu becharan?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121105/455cda5d/attachment-0001.htm>

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4300133,00.html

a psak that kosher  veggies  are not, as  pesticide ingestion is also assur
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121105/c40175c4/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:
<HQBH wanted Avraham to fight for obtaining Din and Rachamim for the people
of 5 Cities in order to make that more <manifest in AA's character. Perhaps
that factor -- the effect of the appeal or distruction on Avraham's
development -- <would be the straw that broke the camel's back on the
cities' fate in either direction.

So Avraham failed (as Sdom was destroyed)?

Basically what you are saying is that all davening is not real, we aren't
asking for anything we are simply trying to become better people. That
sounds great but then why do we go out and explicitly ask for things? How
does the shemoneh esrei as structured help us become closer to hashem?
Couldn't you imagine a better nusach to do this?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121106/83a81c8b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 10:35:29AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: Basically what you are saying is that all davening is not real, we aren't
: asking for anything we are simply trying to become better people...
: ...                                                                   How
: does the shemoneh esrei as structured help us become closer to hashem?
: Couldn't you imagine a better nusach to do this?

We're talking about all of tefillah, which is better definedin scope than
speaking of all of davening. IOW, the roll of prewritten an prescheduled
prayer. In contrast to Tachanunim, the raw turning to one's Parent
in heaven as a child in naw. Such as in those Yiddish collections
of Techines that were common for women of Eastern Europe to own. Or
Breslover hisbodedus.

We're trying to not simply "become better people" but more specifically
become better people by learning to turn to G-d with our problems, and
learning which problems aren't "the small stuff". Thus we have Anshei
Keneses haGedolah specifying what issues we should bring to our tefillos,
and we minimize our straying from the words developed over the next
1,500 years to express them.

If I wrote my own prayers, I would be *ex*pressing how I already relate
to HQBH. That's tachanunim, by definition. Relying on the siddur is
*im*pressing how generations from the last of the nevi'im through the
ge'onim related to Him.

Davening should be a fusion of the two. "Kol ha'oeseh tefilaso qeva,
lo asah tefilaso tachanunim." And on the other hand, we are given
E-lokai Netzor and Tachanun as trellises around which we must grow
our own tachanunim.

See also
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/01/prayers-and-requests.shtml
where I provide the basis for the above.


But looking at the first clause of that bit about what kind of better
people we're talking about... The excercise of tefillah is to practice
turning to HQBH with our problems. Thus one would end up in a paradox
if one took that as far as you did when you wrote (jumping back to
the ellided bit in the middle of my earlier quote):

: sounds great but then why do we go out and explicitly ask for things?

Because the whole thing of fixtured tefillah is to practice the art
of turning to G-d. As an end in itself. Just as I call my wife or my
mommy when things get too stressful and I need someone to share my
burden (nosei be'ol im chaveiro). Not to get any other result but the
relationship itself. Even tefillah and tachanunim should not be al menas
leqabel peras.


In any case...
Applying the norms of tefillah in particular to Avraham's prayer is iffy
to begin with. The verb used is "vayigash" which doesn't specify. The
content appears to more clearly be Avraham's outrage, a natural response
to the moment, rather than an idealization.

But the question asked wasn't why Avraham prayed, but why HQBH would
illicit and put up with such a negotiation-style prayer.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:45:22 -0400
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
> See http://tinyurl.com/bt99r6q for a discussion of this issue.  YL

Thanks.

My question is: Why is this discussion limited to "GEshem/GAshem"?
Shouldn't the same resonings apply to "TAl"? At least for Ashkenazim
who differentiate between "kamatz" and "patach".

--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.

R' Joseph Kaplan wrote:
> I would phrase it differently.  I think what most people would say,
> and I believe it is hones to say this, is: "I did what I had to do
> although I was taught that the halacha says to do otherwise.  I will
> defend myself before God at the appropriate time, and if my action is
> found to be improper I will accept the consequences."

That is a very slippery slope, where does it stop? When do we say no more
and observe the halacha? The Conservative movement used similar reasoning
to allow people to drive on Shabbos, everyone here agrees that they went
too far, but how do we know that? How do we know that driving on Shabbos is
too far, but eating non-kosher food instead of human flesh is not?

[Email #2. -micha]

Your mikva question seems to be the age old question raised in Shabbos 4a
of chateh bishvil sheyizkeh chavercha. See Tosafos there who explain that
we we allow you to violate an aveira to accomplish a mitzva raba (like
having children) or a mitzva d'rabim like davening with a minyan.

The point being that there are in fact halachic rules that govern when you
can do an aveira to do a mitzva and it is not just the posek's intuition.

I wrote:
> I would phrase it differently.  I think what most people would say,
> and I believe it is hones to say this, is: "I did what I had to do
> although I was taught that the halacha says to do otherwise.  I will
> defend myself before God at the appropriate time, and if my action is
> found to be improper I will accept the consequences."



RMG responded:


That is a very slippery slope, where does it stop? When do we say no more
and observe the halacha? The Conservative movement used similar reasoning to
allow people to drive on Shabbos, everyone here agrees that they went too
far, but how do we know that? How do we know that driving on Shabbos is too
far, but eating non-kosher food instead of human flesh is not?

 

Me:  RYBS often referred to the fifth chelek of the SA: common sense.  I
would amend that somewhat for this discussion and speak about moral sense.
Will some people abuse this?  Probably.  But that shouldn't stop others from
acting, in the extenuating circumstances we are discussing, acting  in a way
that their moral conscience demands.  So my answer (FWIW which probably
isn't much) to your question would be when you moral conscience doesn't
allow you to act differently.  While this may violate halacha, if used
seriously and honestly it wouldn't apply to too many situations and would
not result in any significant broad non-observance of halacha.

 

RD Gerald (Ya'akov) Blidstein has told an interesting story about RYBS whose
student Prof. Blidstein was .  A story had been printed in the Israeli press
about a frum Jew who wouldn't help an ill non-Jew on Shabbat.  (The story
proved to be completely false, as it turned out.)  This became an issue in
the US and was brought up in shiur.  RYBS immediately said that the frum Jew
had acted improperly and that he should have helped mishum eivah.  Prof.
Blidstein asked (I'm paraphrasing but the story can be found, I believe in a
Tradition article) but rebbe does that answer satisfy you morally?  RYBS
thought and replied "no."  

 

Joseph

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121106/12cdbe2e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 04:53:13PM +0200, Rafi and Shifra Goldmeier wrote
on Areivim:
> On 6/11/2012 3:17 PM, M Cohen wrote:
>> http://matzav.com/rav-and-rebbetzin-pam-and-holloween
...
>> "It was October 31st....
>> "While they all chatted with Rav Pam in the dining room, his Rebbitzen  
>> was in the kitchen working the hot-air popcorn popper and preparing  
>> plastic baggies of popcorn to give out with a smile to all the local  
>> non-Jewish kids who knocked at their door.
...
>> Is there a difference if the door knockers are Jewish or nJ?

> I dont get the premise. Is there something wrong with giving candy or  
> treats to trick or treaters? Do people think there is something wrong  
> with it? I am not talking about celebrating Haloween, just giving candy  
> to a kid that knocks on the door...

If Halloween is AZ, then we can't enable the kids who are celebrating it.

If it is derekh Emori, given that kim'at no one relates to the original
AZ, then perhaps it's still assur to give to those kids you know are
Jewish.

It would seem from the story that RAPam held it was neither. Personally,
I do not understand when a practice with roots in AZ would /not/ be derekh
Emori.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 11/6/2012 8:11 AM, Joseph Kaplan wrote:
> RMG responded:
>> That is a very slippery slope, where does it stop? When do we say no 
>> more and observe the halacha? The Conservative movement used similar 
>> reasoning to allow people to drive on Shabbos, everyone here agrees 
>> that they went too far, but how do we know that? How do we know that 
>> driving on Shabbos is too far, but eating non-kosher food instead of 
>> human flesh is not?

> Me:  RYBS often referred to the fifth chelek of the SA: common sense.  
> I would amend that somewhat for this discussion and speak about moral 
> sense.

I think it should go without saying that if your moral sense conflicts
with the Torah, you need to adjust your moral sense. Again, asei retzono
retzonach, and not the other way around. It's the meaning of kabbalat ol.
Why use the term ol? Why talk about a yoke, as if we're oxen? Why not
say kabbalat brit, or kabbalat Torah? Because we know that there are
going to be times that the requirements of the Torah conflict with what
we want or what we think is right and good. The concept of kabbalat ol
means that we don't -- ever -- say that our personal, finite, subjective
moral sense trumps what Hashem says is right and wrong. Not even if
we find ourselves unable to violate our own moral code for the sake of
the Torah. That even then, we refrain from trying to justify what was
an incorrect choice.

As R' Akiva Miller pointed out, can you even begin to imagine what would
have happened had Avraham Avinu shared the view that you're recommending?
Common sense says that if Hashem says Yitzchak is going to be the one
through whom all your promised descendants will descend, then if He
tells you to kill him, you say no. Moral sense -- or the moral sense
of most people I know -- says that if He tells you to kill Yitzchak,
you simply don't do it. Because it's wrong. Because it's immoral.

But it isn't wrong and it isn't immoral, because it's what Hashem
commanded. Hashem isn't dependent on our definitions of right and wrong.
He *defines* right and wrong.

I'm honestly at a loss, here. I don't get how anyone can argue that
moral sense should override halakha.

Lisa

On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 09:24:19AM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
: I think it should go without saying that if your moral sense conflicts
: with the Torah, you need to adjust your moral sense...
: I'm honestly at a loss, here. I don't get how anyone can argue that
: moral sense should override halakha.

Notice your rephrasing. You open with moran sense vs Torah, and close
with moral sense vs halakhah.

But what if it's the Torah's moral sense vs halakhah?

On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 10:44:50AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: That is a very slippery slope, where does it stop? When do we say no 
: more and observe the halacha? The Conservative movement used similar 
: reasoning to allow people to drive on Shabbos, everyone here agrees 
: that they went too far, but how do we know that? ...

Actually, I think their error is more subtle than implied here.

There are a number of kiruv organizations that got real bonofied-O
pesaqim to take a don't ask don't tell attitude toward people who drive
to their programming on Shabbos. Your poseiq may not like their pesaq,
but can you call a position taken by Lub and Aish to be beyond the limits
of legitimate halachic process?

It would seem the C movement's error was not in allowing driving to shul
on Shabbos and YT for those who otherwise would never go to shul, but
in making it sound like this was a lakht-chilah rather than permitting
one sin for the sake of many -- a halakhah ve'ein morin kein situation.

Back to our topic, what /is/ done in the name of kiruv does show that
there are times we walk out on the slippery slope.

Halakhah is a creative process, not an algorithm. That makes the existence
of dangerous gray area unavoidable. And I presume that even those of
the chevrah who blanche at mention of "daas Torah" must agree with the
existence of emunas chakhamim and the daas that such emunah depends upon
when we limit outselves to the realm of pesaq.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Brains to the lazy
mi...@aishdas.org        are like a torch to the blind --
http://www.aishdas.org   a useless burden.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Bechinas HaOlam

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Brains to the lazy
mi...@aishdas.org        are like a torch to the blind --
http://www.aishdas.org   a useless burden.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Bechinas HaOlam

On 11/6/2012 10:03 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 09:24:19AM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
> : I think it should go without saying that if your moral sense conflicts
> : with the Torah, you need to adjust your moral sense...
> : I'm honestly at a loss, here. I don't get how anyone can argue that
> : moral sense should override halakha.
>
> Notice your rephrasing. You open with moran sense vs Torah, and close
> with moral sense vs halakhah.
>
> But what if it's the Torah's moral sense vs halakhah?
>    
I noticed that when I was writing.  I left it that way deliberately.  
Don't you think the Torah's moral sense conflicts with the Akeda?  If 
not, I'm not sure what the Torah's moral sense is, or how it can be 
defined in any objective way.  Halakha *is* the Torah.  Lo bashamayim hee.


> On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 10:44:50AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
> : That is a very slippery slope, where does it stop? When do we say no
> : more and observe the halacha? The Conservative movement used similar
> : reasoning to allow people to drive on Shabbos, everyone here agrees
> : that they went too far, but how do we know that? ...
>
> Actually, I think their error is more subtle than implied here.
>
> There are a number of kiruv organizations that got real bonofied-O
> pesaqim to take a don't ask don't tell attitude toward people who drive
> to their programming on Shabbos. Your poseiq may not like their pesaq,
> but can you call a position taken by Lub and Aish to be beyond the limits
> of legitimate halachic process?
>    
Saying, "We aren't going to turn away tinokot she'nishbe'u if they show 
up in an assur way" isn't in any way saying, "It's okay if they do that 
issur".  In other words, the positions you ascribe to Chabad and Aish 
aren't what the Conservatives did.  Aside from everything else, I assume 
you're aware that the Conservative "responsum" says you can drive to a 
Conservative synagogue that's outside walking distance even if there are 
Orthodox shuls within walking distance.

> It would seem the C movement's error was not in allowing driving to shul
> on Shabbos and YT for those who otherwise would never go to shul, but
> in making it sound like this was a lakht-chilah rather than permitting
> one sin for the sake of many -- a halakhah ve'ein morin kein situation.
>    
But they didn't.  The way they put it was b'dieved as well.  If you're 
within walking distance of a Conservative synagogue, their ruling 
doesn't apply.

Lisa


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 151
***************************************

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..."