Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 156

Sun, 18 Nov 2012

• 1. what's the source? (saul newman)
• 2. Re: what's the source? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: HONORING SHABBOS LUNCH and the New Religion (Akiva Miller)
• 4. Re: corkinet (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: corkinet (Akiva Miller)
• 6. HONORING SHABBOS LUNCH and the New Religion (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Halachicly Speaking - Thanksgiving and Eating Turkey (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Breaking the mold in Jewish Education; Dvar Torah Parshas Toldos (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: corkinet (Lisa Liel)
• 10. Re: BELIEF (Poppers, Michael)
• 11. Cholent is its Name (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: Cholent is its Name (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: HONORING SHABBOS LUNCH and the New Religion (Ben Waxman)
• 14. Re: HONORING SHABBOS LUNCH and the New Religion (Prof. Levine)
• 15. Re: HONORING SHABBOS LUNCH and the New Religion (Ben Waxman)
• 16. Giving Tzedakah to Nachriim (Prof. Levine)
• 17. Re: Giving Tzedakah to Nachriim (Micha Berger)

on an online  comment  about a certain scheme a respondent  wrote--

It sounds like it was fraud to steal gov't money, which the Chazon Ish
wrote was totally permissible.


-----does anyone know this  makor?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121114/b00796df/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 07:22:22AM -0800, saul newman wrote:
: on an online  comment  about a certain scheme a respondent  wrote--
:> It sounds like it was fraud to steal gov't money, which the Chazon Ish
:> wrote was totally permissible.

The allegation is that the CI was so against the Israeli gov't's existence
that he felt they had no right to collect taxes. Gov't money *in the
State of Israel* is thus allegedly stolen money that cannot be returned
to its rightful owner, and hefqer.

I not only can't find a source for this claim about the CI, I can't find
a source for the premise. I don't think stolen items are hefker or not
based on whether or not they could be returned. Rather, it is whether or
not the owner was actively meya'eish and in addition a shinui. (CM 353:2.
This is a long sugya in Sukkah, p' Lulav haGazul. AND, according to the
Rama CM 356:7, we return stolem items in these circumstances anyway,
mikoach dina demalkhusa [DDD].) All of which would only give baalus on
the cheftah itself, and still require returning the damim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For those with faith there are no questions.
mi...@aishdas.org        For those who lack faith there are no answers.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Ben Waxman responded to my post:

> But I agree with your general point. Yahadut didn't stop
> developing with Minhag Germaniya.

It seems you misunderstood my general point. Yahadut didn't *start*
developing with Minhag Germaniya, either! My point is that it didn't stop
developing with Chasimas Hagemara.

Hmmm... Now that I think of it, Yahadut didn't start developing in Gemara days either...

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50a3f0908cb708f2907st02vuc

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 07:11:05PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
> My question is: is the corkinet more like a bike (since it used for qef)  
> or is it more like a baby carriage (in the sense that there is no chain,  
> simple wheels, very little to break down).

Well, that answers why you expected a different conversation.

The risk of requiring repairs is raised. But ROY notes that this is
problematic, because it would be effectively a new gezeira.

Another potential attempt to make a new gezeira would be banning bicycles
lest someone leave techum.

But the uvda dechol issue is more about how it's used than how it's
made. And that would lump scooters with bicycles, not baby carriages
(a/k/a "prams", to make our non-American chaveirim more comfortable).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

R"n Lisa Liel wrote:

> No chains.  Presumably solid tires.  And it doesn't go under
> its own power.

You seem to think that bicycles are problematic because of Shema Yitaken -
lest one come to repair/adjust it. Many people think this is the reason not
to use bicycles on Shabbos, but I have not ever seen any posek write that.
The only context I can recall seeing this prohibition is for musical
instruments.

hmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata distinguishes between bicycles and tricycles,
saying that tricycles are indoor toys and permitted, while bicycles are
used outdoors for Hotzaah, and hene they are a Kli Shemelachto L'Issur. I
will leave it as an exercise for the reader, to consider whether a corkinet
is more similar to a bicycle or to a tricycle.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50a3ff8e78d217f8e3fbcst02vuc

At 01:15 PM 11/14/2012, R. Akiva Miller wrote:

>Prof. Levine quoted a weekly bulletin:
>
> > Once upon a time this was accomplished through the incomparable
> > lunchtime cholent , but evidently a new religion has arisen
> > that closely resembles Judaism that includes a ritual called
> > "Friday night Cholent". Back to the drawing board!
>
>If having additional cholent the night before makes a "new 
>religion", then what about those who do additional hakafos on the 
>day before Simchas Torah (as do many Chassidim), or those who do 
>additional hakafos on the day *after* Simchas Torah (as many places 
>in Israel)? Are those new religions as well?

Making HaKafos on Shemini Atzeres at night is based on the mistaken 
belief that the ARI made HaKafos on Shemini Atzeres at night in 
EY.  This mistaken belief is a result of an error in a sefer.  See 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_hakafos.pdf  for the 
details  which are brought by Avraham Ya'ari in his sefer about Simchas Torah.

As far as I am concerned,  celebration of Simchas Torah on Shemini 
Atzeres really has no place in EY, given that originally the Torah 
was read according to a 3 or 3 and half year cycle in EY.  The 
HaKafos on the night after Shemini Atzeres in EY could be based on 
what the ARI did.


>I don't necessarily support these innovations, but I do have a 
>question for those who are vehemently against them: Where is the 
>cutoff? How recent does a new minhag need to be to earn your ire?

The question of where one draws the line is a good one, and I really 
do not have a hard and fast answer.  Personally I tend to lean 
towards the old Ashkenaz minhagim that are hundreds of years old.

I also like to keep in mind that minhag spelled backwards is .....


>There was once a time when even hakafos *ON* Simchas Torah was an 
>innovation, and (compared to some other minhagim) it really was not 
>all that long ago!

In most of Germany there were no HaKafos at night on Simchas 
Torah.  RSRH instituted them in Frankfurt when he came there.  Rav S. 
Schwab instituted HaKafos at night in Shearith Israel in Baltimore 
when he came there.  There was, of course,  opposition.  [How many 
Germans does it take to change a light 
bulb?   Change?  Change?  Change?!!!! >:-} ]

For the record, I do not stay for HaKafos at night on Simchas Torah 
and certainly not at night on Shemini Atzeres if I am in a place that 
has them.  During the day of Simchas Torah I run a Hashkama minyan 
that starts at 7 AM and finishes a little after 10.  People circle 
the shulchan a few times for each HaKafa.  Order and decorum are the 
theme of the day!  Each year we have more people.  This past year 
there were between 70 and 80 men and boys at the minyan.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121114/0ebbe32a/attachment-0001.htm>

See http://tinyurl.com/aest49f

YL

See http://tinyurl.com/atda2nm

Note the heavy emphasis on RSRH's comments on how one should educate 
children.  YL

On 11/14/2012 2:30 PM, Akiva Miller wrote:
> Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata distinguishes between bicycles and tricycles,
> saying that tricycles are indoor toys and permitted, while bicycles
> are used outdoors for Hotzaah, and hene they are a Kli Shemelachto
> L'Issur. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader, to consider
> whether a corkinet is more similar to a bicycle or to a tricycle.

I don't think I've ever seen a tricycle being ridden indoors.  But just 
as a tricycle isn't used for hotza'ah, neither is a corkinet.  Also, I 
wonder what SSK would do with adult sized tricycles?

On 11/14/2012 3:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> The risk of requiring repairs is raised. But ROY notes that this is
> problematic, because it would be effectively a new gezeira.

> Another potential attempt to make a new gezeira would be banning bicycles
> lest someone leave techum.

> But the uvda dechol issue is more about how it's used than how it's
> made. And that would lump scooters with bicycles, not baby carriages
> (a/k/a "prams", to make our non-American chaveirim more comfortable).

How so?  If a bicycle is problematic because it's used for hotza'ah, a 
corkinet should be fine, just like inline skates.

Lisa

In Avodah V30n153, RAM wrote:
> ....Perhaps there is an obligation to *try* to believe, but I don't know how success there can be legislated.
> Some might respond that this is again no different than matzah -- all
> you really need to do is to try to eat matzah and your success or
> failure is irrelevant. But I think belief is in a uniquely different
> category, given the lacks of a surefire way of accomplishing it.
> Or maybe not. This is not the only mitzvah where our emotions are
> commanded. Others include: V'samachta b'chagecha. V'ahavta l'rayacha.
> Or, for that matter, V'ahavta Es HaShem Elokecha. What if I simply
> don't feel that way? How can I force myself to feel a certain way? Is
> belief really any different than those? <
Or, for that matter, limud Torah (viz. "_la'asoq_ b'divrei Torah), another example of a mitzva accomplished other than via purely physical means. 

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

 From http://tinyurl.com/bosmhhm

Ahh! Nothing smells more geshmak than the awesomely redolent aroma 
emanating from the kitchen and wafting throughout the house on a 
Shabbos morning. If you are like most of us, you just can't wait 
until you sink our teeth into that piping hot, special for Shabbos, 
delicacy, Cholent. This exceptional meat and potato, barley and bean 
(and whatever else you decide to throw in) concoction of a stew has 
been around for a very long time. In fact, the Ohr Zarua, in the mid 
1200s, already mentioned Cholent by name[1]!

The origins of this humble dish lie in the words of the Ba'al 
HaMaor[2], Rav Zechariah HaLevi from Gerona, who lived in the 
mid-1100s. He writes that it is a Takanas Chachamim to enjoy the 
Shabbos with a hot dish. He adds that whoever does not do so is 
suspect of being a 'Min' (heretic, a.k.a Apikores)! The reason being 
that the heterodox Tzdukim (Sadducees), who denied the Rabbinic 
Mesorah, prohibited eating any hot food on Shabbos. The Ba'al HaMaor 
explains that one who refuses to eat a hot dish on Shabbos (cooked 
before Shabbos), is suspect of following their heretical 
interpretation of the Torah and not those of our Chachmei HaDoros.[3]

See the above URL for more including the halachos related to serving 
cholent on Shabbos. YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121115/7a23b18b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:13:51PM -0500, Prof. Levine quoted R' Yehudah
Spitz from <http://ohr.edu/5294>:
> The origins of this humble dish lie in the words of the Ba'al HaMaor[2], 
> Rav Zechariah HaLevi from Gerona, who lived in the mid-1100s. He writes 
> that it is a Takanas Chachamim to enjoy the Shabbos with a hot dish. He 
> adds that whoever does not do so is suspect of being a 'Min' (heretic, 
> a.k.a Apikores)! The reason being that the heterodox Tzdukim (Sadducees), 
> who denied the Rabbinic Mesorah, prohibited eating any hot food...

The Ba'al haMa'or was R' Zerachyah (with a ches, as in "zerichas
hashemesh"), not Zekhariha. (I happen to have both a Zekharia ["Zack"]
and a Yisrael Zerachyah ["Izzy"], so I am very aware of the difference.)

I would think the origins are in the chamin of the gemara itself,
rather than the rishon who mentions it. It's seems from the story with R'
Yehoshua ben Chanania and Caesar (Shabbos 119a) that there was a special
tavshil that was standard for Shabbos. Otherwise, why would Caesar have
thought that "shabos" was a specific ingredient for the dish?

The Maharsha writes that shevet is dill. Which implies that the
conversation occured by mail, and the RYbC replied in Hebrew -- since
the vowels would show in Latin or Greek.

So, Jews have been making a special hot dish for Shabbos lunch since at
least the early 2nd cent CE. Unless you think the story is apocryphal,
and then we only push the date back to R' Ashi (d. 425) and Ravina
(his grandson, not his baal pelugta; d. 499). Still well before the BhM.

Getting back to what brought us to the topic of chulent... The BhM
writes that the predecessor to chulent was enacted in order to separate
the Perushim from the Tzeduqim. Not in order to make lunch more special
than dinner. So, it would seem that there is nothing wrong with Fri
night chulent, as long you do something else to give lunch more kavod.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 11/14/2012 11:39 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> As far as I am concerned,  celebration of Simchas Torah on Shemini 
> Atzeres really has no place in EY, given that originally the Torah was 
> read according to a 3 or 3 and half year cycle in EY.  The HaKafos on 
> the night after Shemini Atzeres in EY could be based on what the ARI did.

So you are of the opinion that we (people living here) should drop our
minhagim and go back to Minhag Eretz Yisrael, using minhagim from the
time of the Talmud?

Ben

At 01:15 PM 11/15/2012, Ben Waxman wrote:
>So you are of the opinion that we  (people living here) should drop 
>our minhagim and go back to Minhag Eretz Yisrael, using minhagim 
>from the time of the Talmud?

I really do not understand why when Jews returned to EY they did not 
adopt at least the three year cycle for reading the Torah.  This was 
still practiced by some  in Egypt in the 12th century.  See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah_reading#Triennial_cycle  The 12th 
century is, of course,  much later than the time of the Talmud.

I note that many people who moved to EY adopted minhagim of the GRA 
(such as not putting on tefillin during Chol Moed).  So in a sense 
people who live in EY have dropped their minhagim.   Why adopt these 
and not the "original" minhagim of EY?

YL

On 11/15/2012 8:35 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> I really do not understand why when Jews returned to EY they did not
> adopt at least the three year cycle for reading the Torah. This was
> still practiced by some  in Egypt in the 12th century. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah_reading#Triennial_cycle The 12th
> century is, of course,  much later than the time of the Talmud.

The three year cycle and haqafot are two different issues.

According to Professor Wikipedia (http://bit.ly/TGO7Ip) the minhag of 
haqafot is relatively late, 16th century. So according to your logic, we 
should all simply drop it.

Ben

I am transferring this discussion of this topic from Areivim to Avodah.

Z. Sero wrote on Areivim

On 15 November 2012 17:43, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:
>> From http://tinyurl.com/y7bljd
>> The obligation to give tzedakah includes giving to both Jews and [nachriim].

> This is absolutely false.  It contradicts an open gemara in Bava
> Basra, and there is no support for it anywhere.  Not only is it not an
> obligation, it's not even a fulfillment of the mitzvah, and one gets no
> sechar for it.

> The source you quote is, of course, no authority on anything, let
> alone halacha, and it is not written by a talmid chacham.

>> and from http://www.jewfaq.org/tzedakah.htm
>> The obligation includes giving to both Jews and [nachriim];

> Once again, simply amhoratzus from a source of no authority.

----------
R. Micha Berger wrote on Areivim

> This isn't true. The chiyuv of tzedaqah is to give to Jews.

> The chiyuv of pursuing darkhei Shalom requires giving to [nachriim]. (Gitin
> 61a) Different mitzvah, even if equally obligatory.

> Which is why it's important to note that the Rambam (Melakhim 10:12)
> invokes "tov H' lakol" and "derakheha darkhe no'am ... shalom". We've
> seen on Avodah both R' Unterman and RALichtenstein point out that this
> means that darkhei Shalom is not simple pragmatics, but an instance of
> vehalakhta bidrakhav and a value in its own right.

> So, it's a different chiluv than tzedaqah, but still a chiyuv.

> As implied in my earlier post [on Areivim] (and in RSShkop's take on
> "im ein ani li"), it is still proper to give to those closer to you
> first. Aniyei irekha is part of a general ethic of prioritizing. Family
> comes before your home town, your city before others. And helping Jews
> should be a larger part of your tzedaqah budget than helping [nachriim].

> But still, give to the causes that move you. Second-guessing that leads
> to giving less.

> What we should be working on, if anything needs work in this regard,
> is the feeling of ahavas Yisrael that gets Jewish causes to move us more.
> Not the moment of giving itself.


----------
In light of the following from RSRH's Horeb, paragraph 573 page 403 
volume 2,  neither of you seem to be correct.

RSRH writes

Everyone in need has a claim on your charity; those poor who are not
Jewish, even those who practise idolatry, are cared for in like fashion,
as all are parts of one all-embracing mankind. However, to the ger toshav
- i.e., to a non-Jew who, not practising idolatry, has undertaken to
fulfill the seven general duties, the law accords a claim on your charity
fully equal to that of a Jew.

Based on this it seems to me that it is clear that the mitzvah of Tzedakah
applies to some non-Jews, namely, any gentile who is a ger toshav who
is in need.

Thus S. Zero is clearly incorrect when he wrote, "Not only is it not an
obligation [to give tzedakah to a nachri], it's not even a fulfillment
of the mitzvah, and one gets no sechar for it." Clearly if the gentile
is a ger toshav then there is a mitzvah to give him or her tzedakah if
they are in need, and one would presumably get sechar for this.

R. Micha was not correct when he wrote, "This isn't true. The chiyuv
of tzedaqay is to give to Jews." There is chiyuv to give tzedakah to
certain non-Jews also, namely, to a ger toshav. In light of what RSRH
wrote above, R. Micha's statement, "The chiyuv of pursuing darkhei
Shalom requires giving to non-Jews. (Gitin 61a) Different mitzvah, even
if equally obligatory." needs to be amended to The chiyuv of pursuing
darkhei Shalom requires giving to a non-Jew who is not a ger toshav.

YL

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:19:40PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
:                                             ... Clearly if the gentile
: is a ger toshav then there is a mitzvah to give him or her tzedakah if
: they are in need, and one would presumably get sechar for this.

Is it possible to have a ger toshav today? We're not simply talking about
an observant Noachide, but the observant Noachide who agreed to live as a
citizen in a Jewish Israel. Ger toshav = resident alien, quite literally.

Medinat Yisrael might qualify; perhaps someone today who came before
beis din in EY and took an oath of loyalty to the Jews in it would be
a ger toshav. But I think it's more likely that one needs a gov't that
includes a Sanhedrin to which that court answers.

Does anyone know of a discussion of ger toshav bizman hazeh?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 156
***************************************

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..."