Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 13

Tue, 15 Jan 2013

• 1. Re: Is Panentheism Heresy? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Is Panentheism Heresy? (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Hasagat Gevul of a bus company (Poppers, Michael)
• 4. Re: economics 101 (Akiva Miller)
• 5. What is Meshal haQdmoni (David Riceman)
• 6. Re: What is Meshal haQdmoni (Arie Folger)
• 7. Re: economics 101 (Lisa Liel)
• 8. HKBH to Change His Mind, The Superiority of Commons Sense, LaMa LK (Meir Rabi)
• 9. Maharal - MeValey Olam, SeVara etc. (Meir Rabi)
• 10. economy101 (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: economics 101 (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Re: Is Panentheism Heresy? (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 13. Re: Nedarim - bilshon benei adam (Micha Berger)
• 14. CONTEMPORARY KITCHEN ISSUES (Prof. Levine)

I wrote:
> According to the Litvisher understanding of the Gra (the LR's take on the
> Gra aside), the Gra taught that there was an actual tzimtzum, but of the
> Retzon Hashem, not of HQBH Himself. Thus, G-d is unchanging, but the world
> is a relative "vacuum" of Divine Will. See Mikhtav meiEliyahu, vol 5, pp.

Pp 484-485.  I left it blank until I could check my notes, but forgot to
go back to it before hitting "send".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 10/01/2013 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> R Masmid wrote of R' Dessler's position to the LR

"R Masmid"?!  That's like calling the GRA "R Gaon".  He was R Itche, or
R Yitzchok, or if you want to get all formal R Gurevitch.

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

In Avodah V31n11, RZS responded to RDMI:
>> But, in any case, I don't see what this case has to do with the
>> case of the CC. In that case the post office didn't provide any
>> service at all, and there was no obligation to use their service.
>> If I walk home, do I have to send the bus company a fare? If my
>> wife bakes her own challah, should I pay the baker? I don't even
>> see how this is warranted even lifinim mishuris hadin. <<
> The Post Office has a legal monopoly on the delivery of letters.
Thus technically when you deliver a letter for someone you're infringing
that monopoly. I assume the CC was concerned about this, because of DdMD,
but at the same time would rather entrust his mail to someone he knew, so
he reconciled it by tearing up a stamp, so the Post Office wouldn't
be harmed by the infringement, and therefore it would no longer be their
business what he did. <
The USPS has a monopoly which (with certain exceptions) excludes _private
organizations_ -- that monopoly does not exclude individuals.  Details
available via http://en.m.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes . 

A gut'n Shabbes and all the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

R' Ben Waxman asked:
> So would the rules of tzedaqa apply? If I spend 300 shekels
> on groceries in the TC's store, and the same groceries would
> cost me 200 shekels in Rami Levi, does this mean that I spent
> 100 shekels on tzedaqa that could be applied to my chiyuv?

I can't imagine why not, presuming that the TC's prices are truly above the
market rate. If his prices are in line with what the expensive stores
charge, then I am less sure. But even there, if you've established a
pattern of avoiding the expensive stores, then I can certainly see the
possibility.

In fact, rather than question whether this is tzedaka at all, I could argue that it is the ideal form of tzedaka, giving him a parnasa.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2

RAF:

<<Rashi cites Meshal haQadmoni, but I never thought too much about what 
that source is. Today, I stimbled across the following page>>

Aren't they both citing Shmuel 1 24:13 (see Rashi ad. loc.)?

David Riceman

On Jan 11, 2013 3:18 AM, "David Riceman" <drice...@optimum.net> wrote:
>> Rashi cites Meshal haQadmoni, but I never thought too much about what
>> that source is. Today, I stimbled across the following page

> Aren't they both citing Shmuel 1 24:13 (see Rashi ad. loc.)?

Yes, but I hadn't realized that MhQ was a book.

--
mit freundlichen Gren,
with kind regards,
Arie Folger
visit my blog at http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
sent from my mobile device

Okay, how about someone who works for a day school that pays horribly.  
Far, far, far below what even other day schools pay, let alone public 
schools.  Can a person take the difference between what they make and 
what they'd make elsewhere as tzedaka?

On 1/10/2013 6:19 PM, Akiva Miller wrote:
> R' Ben Waxman asked:
>    
>> So would the rules of tzedaqa apply? If I spend 300 shekels
>> on groceries in the TC's store, and the same groceries would
>> cost me 200 shekels in Rami Levi, does this mean that I spent
>> 100 shekels on tzedaqa that could be applied to my chiyuv?
>>      
> I can't imagine why not, presuming that the TC's prices are truly
> above the market rate. If his prices are in line with what the
> expensive stores charge, then I am less sure. But even there, if
> you've established a pattern of avoiding the expensive stores, then I
> can certainly see the possibility.
>
> In fact, rather than question whether this is tzedaka at all, I could argue that it is the ideal form of tzedaka, giving him a parnasa.
>
>    

Rabbosay and Rebbetzins,

In case it slipped under your radar,

Moshe Rabbenu advised HKBH to identify Himself not as A Asher A but just as
A.

Why? One problem at a time is enough for the Jewish People to deal with.

HKBH agreed.
Rashi 3:14

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130113/fefcad39/attachment-0001.htm>

I ask a simple question - Does the Maharal say that CORRECT decisions are
not Torah [and destroy the world] when there is no Talmud  behind them?

In other words, does Maharal disagree with Rashi who says that  the problem
is limited to wrong decisions which may be reached when ruling just from
the Mishnah without Talmud?

I have summarised the first part of the  Maharal, below. I would appreciate
if rather than just telling me I am wrong or that we have already discussed
this, some useful dialogue might be promoted.


 After expanding upon those groups of inferior classes of people, Boor Am
HaAretz etc. discussed in the Gemara, the Maharal explains another even
lower class, the TanaIm - those who decide Halacha from their knowledge of
the Mishnah. The Gemara curses these people as destroyers of the world.

Maharal explains why this category is worse than the other categories. The
people who decide Halacha without understanding its foundations and its
logic, destroy the foundation of this world which is Torah. Their knowledge
and their CORRECT decisions are not Torah since they lack a clear
understanding of the Mishnah. The Torah is principally the practical
rulings for life guidance, and this is what the world stands upon. When
Halacha [even though it is correct] is not determined from a clear
understanding of its logic and its foundations but from knowledge of the
Mishna alone, the foundations of the world are being destroyed.

Maharal disagrees with Rashi?s interpretation, that wrong decisions may be
reached when ruling just from the Mishnah, in the strongest possible terms.
This destruction Maharal explains, has nothing to do with the wrong
conclusion being reached. He proves this from the Gemara?s use of the word
Halacha, ?MeVaLey Olam are those who decide Halacha from the Mishnah?. The
Maharal argues that Halacha must be referring to rulings that are
Halachically correct, otherwise it would say TaUs ? ?decide erroneous
rulings from the Mishnah?. Thus in spite of issuing Halachically correct
rulings, these people are destroying the foundation of the world. Since the
Torah is Sichlis, the Halacha must be Sichlis, which is Talmud.

Therefore, the Maharal concludes, the Gemara is irrevocably binding the
Halacha with an understanding the Talmud of the Halacha. Notwithstanding
perfectly accurate Halachic rulings, such rulings which lack Talmud are
destructive.



There is little doubt that Maharal?s opposition, his war, is equally
directed to the issues we have been discussing, which are, unquestioning
submission and acceptance of the rulings and guidance of our religious
leaders within some of our communities. This is why we see such strong
emphasis on and development of the emotional non-rational aspects of our
religious life. This includes what we have been discussing, such as adding
angelic names to Mezuzos, not learning Nittel [imagine what RaMBaM would
have said about that] etc. etc. all being defended as sacrosanct and
untouchable. As though there is a fear that if one component should be
successfully challenged the entire edifice will crumble.

And this leads to irrational and shrill defence of these practices since
there is simply no other way to defend them. The problem is not with the
practices themselves [so what?s the big deal if you cut your finger-nails
in a different sequence ? which BTW Reb Y Hillel told me is nonsense, or
use a red rooster for Kapparot?] but with the type of thinking they
cultivate, the mindscape that is being constructed in our upcoming
generation. When people begin to see the religious life, inculcated from
their birth, and their thinking, is not rational, might they become
somewhat disillusioned? The plan appears to be, that by then, they are so
deeply enmeshed that it is too late to escape.

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130113/86be3e6e/attachment-0001.htm>

Some comments on the gemara in Baba Mezia 40b

1) Shmuel says that one who profits from selling staple commodities should
not make more than 1/6 profit

Shmuel does not justify his 1/6 so I agree with Micha that this probably
comes from Onaah even though they are different halachot
note that Rabbenu Chananel adds and not less than 1/6 .
So according to him the price is fixed.

Western society has learned over the years that price fixing never works.
In Israel when bread products were price controlled it was found that
people used bread for many other things simply because bread was cheaper
than other alternatives because its price was fixed.

So I again come back to my original question that the takanah of Shmuel
goes against basic economic in a modern capatalistic society.

2) Rashi says that this applies to "Chaye Nefesh" ie not all foods just
basic ones. I once heard from R. Zilberstein that he felt this included
medicines.
The gemara says that 1/6 includes the cost of the material and expenses
(Rabbenu Chanenl says "tirchah" means he could have doing other work while
giving customers a little to drink - didnt understand)

Drug companies charge a lot because they investigate many options 99% of
which don't work.
Accordingly this would not be an accepted expense since it is not directly
connected to the drug one buys. I would hope that all the testing done for
this drug can be included.

While it is true that drug companies make huge profits I assume that if one
tried to fix the cost of drugs it would put many out of business and set up
a huge bureauracy to determine what could be charged.
As a stated earlier  it simply is not realistic.

So a general question is that the are many economic takanot that no longer
make economic sense in a modern society. Would a Torah society still follow
these takanot?
I once saw an article from Haym Soloveitchik where he argued that there is
a difference between OC/YD and CM. While no observant Jew would argue that
one can drive a car on shabbat because life changes that the rabbis during
the ages did indeed change monetary laws (either directly or by
reinterpreting old ones) to make them fit the conditions of that society.

As a completely different example one is not allowed to export shmitta
products from EY so that there is more left for the local residents. In
todays society Israel food industry lives greatly off of the export market
see http://m-central.org/factsheets/FactSheetShmitta.htm
not allowing exports would probably destroy much agriculture in Israel

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130112/f784b50e/attachment-0001.htm>

In modern terms, wouldn't this be called "made work", a type of welfare? 
It isn't like I find him a job programming or building or whatever and 
than he is economically independent. Rather, his continued parnasa is 
dependent on people willing to pay a higher price.  Therefore it is more 
akin to tzedaqa than parnasa because the normal rules don't apply.

Ben

On 1/11/2013 2:19 AM, Akiva Miller wrote:

I can't imagine why not, presuming that the TC's prices are truly above the
market rate. If his prices are in line with what the expensive stores
charge, then I am less sure. But even there, if you've established a
pattern of avoiding the expensive stores, then I can certainly see the
possibility.

In fact, rather than question whether this is tzedaka at all, I could argue that it is the ideal form of tzedaka, giving him a parnasa.

On Jan 10, 2013, at 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> So, as I said, it seems to me that the Gra too did not believe in Hashem's
> literal tzimtzum, and therefore existence is of Him -- albeit not His
> Will or perhaps not His Or Ein Sof. But in any case, panentheism.

What all this shows is that none of us, nor our predecessors, nor our descendants
have the definitive answer. Also, shivim panim baTorah and eilu v'eilu... 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130112/3f31b11b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 2:48pm EST, I wrote:
: I just started Nedarim pereq 6, and something about this pereq and the
: next one eludes me.
: 
: According to R' Yochanan and the Bavli takes this is the default, nedarim
: are bilshon benei adam (LBA). R' Yoshiyah argues and says that nedarim
: are in leshon haTorah (LHT), which the Y-mi takes to mean in addiiton to
: benei adam....

: But here's what I don't get... Why is Rebbe spending two peraqim spelling
: out examples of this principle? After all, he knew that different regions
: have different idioms, and that LHT differs from LBA. So, he knew that
: all these mishnayos wouldn't remain true over time.
: 
: E.g. if someone in EY today is "noder min hamevushal" (6:1), the mishnah's
: list -- "mutar betzeli ubeshaluq" would not be necessarily true. We would
: have to check out modern Israeli idiom and see whether most people would
: include fried and stewed food when they say "mevushal"....

Still in this general sugyah (Y-mi Nedarim 7:1, vilna daf 24a). Stam
mishnah says that someone who swears off yereq may eat dilo'im (some
breed of squach). R' Aqiva oseir. They ask RA: But when a person asks
his messenger to go pick up "yereq", he is likely to come back and say
"I didn't find but dilo'im".

I would usually translate "lo ... ela" as "only", but here I think that
the specific words "lo matzasi ela", including "I didn't find", could
be relevant. R' Aqiva takes the reply in the opposite sense. After all,
the messenger wouldn't come back and say "I didn't find but beans". So
you see that yereq implies dilu'im.

Kind of like a fuzzy set -- a messenger would feel compelled to check
if dilo'im are close enough, but would actually think to check.

So the machloqes is in substance -- does yereq including dilo'im in
such a tenuous way mean that they're intended when someone makes a
neder off yereq or not?

Which made me realize the contrast.

Last week I asked on the grounds that we're nitpicking over things that
are subject to change.

I realized I missed phrasing my question in terms of the primary issue
-- this are peraqim of machloqesin in metzi'us! All these mishnayos are
examples of "What do most people think when they say X?"

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The thought of happiness that comes from outside
mi...@aishdas.org        the person, brings him sadness. But realizing
http://www.aishdas.org   the value of one's will and the freedom brought
Fax: (270) 514-1507      by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook

From today's Hakhel Emial Bulletin


CONTEMPORARY KITCHEN ISSUES

PART II

The following questions were posed to Rav Shmuel Fuerst, Dayan of Agudath
Israel in Chicago at a kashrus symposium in Detroit on December 30,
2012. Some of the answers below have been edited and modified to reflect
the position of the Vaad Harabbonim of Greater Detroit.



Which stringency is more important to observe?the stringency of eating
only chalav Yisrael products, or the stringency of eating only pas
Yisrael products?

Eating only chalav Yisrael products and avoiding chalav stam is more
important. Pas palter, as opposed to pas Yisrael which is baked by a Jew,
refers to bread and other baked goods that are kosher but were baked
in a non-Jewish bakery. Pas palter is permitted to be eaten according
to the Shulchan Aruch and most major poskim. While it is certainly
meritorious to partake of pas Yisrael only, it is only a chumrah,
above and beyond the strict letter of the law. The permissibility of
drinking chalav stam, on the other hand, which is milk that was milked
by non-Jews without Jewish supervision but under government regulation,
is a subject hotly debated among the poskim. While there are prominent
poskim who allow drinking chalav stam in the United States and one is
permitted to rely on their ruling, the vast majority of poskim do not
agree with this leniency. According to the majority opinion, therefore,
chalav stam is not merely a chumrah but is strictly forbidden.



Which stringency is more important to observe -- the stringency of eating
only yashan products and refraining from chadash or the stringency of
eating only chalav Yisrael products and refraining from chalav stam?

Eating only chalav Yisrael and avoiding chalav stam is more important,
even though chadash is a biblical prohibition while chalav akum is not.
Whether or not chadash is forbidden nowadays outside of Eretz Yisrael
where the fields are owned by non-Jews, is an age-old dispute among
the early authorities with no clear consensus reached. Indeed, most
European Jews did not refrain from eating chadash, in keeping with
the ruling of the more lenient opinions concerning chadash outside
of Eretz Yisrael. Those who are lenient about chadash, therefore,
are following a long-standing tradition based on the opinion of early,
classic poskim. The leniency to drink chalav stam, on the other hand,
is different. There is no long-standing tradition to permit it, as
chalav stam was not available in Europe. It was always assumed and
accepted by all poskim that unless a Jew was present at the milking,
the milk was forbidden. It is only recently in the United States,
where some prominent poskim ruled that we may rely on U.S. government
regulation to permit milk that was not supervised by a Jew, that chalav
stam became an option. This controversial ruling does not have the same
halachic force as a ruling based on a centuries-old tradition, and thus
chalav Yisrael is the more important stringency to observe.



Should a seven-year-old child be forced to wait six hours between meat
and dairy?

Using force is the wrong approach, but at the same time the child should
be taught that this is the correct thing to do. The child should be
trained to observe this halachah gradually, taking into consideration his
level of maturity and physical development. By the age of nine or ten,
the child should be ready to understand and accept that this is what
the halachah demands of him.



What procedure should be followed when baking an uncovered pareve liquid
cake batter or dough in a meaty or dairy oven?

The oven should be thoroughly cleaned from any meat or dairy particles
and residue, preferably with an abrasive cleaning agent. Some Poskim
are of the opinion that the oven should then be heated to its highest
setting for an hour and the racks should be covered with a fresh piece
of foil. [You may poke holes in the foil to allow the hot air in the
oven to circulate freely.] The oven is now ready to be used and anything
baked in it will be considered pareve. Many Poskim are of the opinion
are more stringent and wait 24 hours before using the oven for pareve.



An open bottle of non-mevushal wine was left in the fridge door, and a
non-Jew opened the door and cleaned the fridge. Is the wine permitted?

When leaving a non-Jew alone in a house, all non-mevushal wine should be
sealed with a tamper-proof seal. If the bottle is unsealed, it should
be put away under lock and key. Bedieved, however, we do not prohibit
drinking the wine from the unsealed bottle unless we have reason to
believe that the cleaning lady either drank from the bottle directly,
poured herself a drink from the bottle into a glass, touched the wine
itself (not merely the bottle), or picked up the bottle, opened or
uncorked it, and shook the wine. If we have no reason to believe that
any of the above occurred, we do not forbid drinking the wine. If an
unsealed bottle of wine was left in the refrigerator door, and the
non-Jewish cleaning lady opened the door of the refrigerator but did
not remove the bottle of wine from its place, the wine may be drunk.

All of the above halachos apply to non-mevushal grape juice as well.

Note: Contemporary poskim are divided as to whether or not the mevushal
wines and grape juices on the market today are cooked enough to be
exempt from the halachos of stam yeinam and permitted to be handled by
a non-Jew or not. In the United States it is customary to rely on the
more lenient views.



Is Challah taken from dough that is made out of six pounds of flour,
half of which will be used for challah and half for cinnamon buns? Is
the bracha recited?

Challah should be taken but the blessing for hafrashas challah should
not be recited. Although the original dough contained six pounds of
flour which is sufficient to require hafrashas challah with a blessing,
in this case it is questionable whether or not the divided dough?which
will be used for two different types of baked goods and will not be
combined?is considered as one dough or as two separate batches, each one
containing only 3 pounds of flour. Since the halachah remains unresolved,
we fulfill the mitzvah but we do not recite the blessing.



Is a kosher pizza store required to double tape pizza being delivered
by a non-Jew?

It is strongly recommended that they do so, and the kashrus agency
supervising the pizza shop should insist on it. Bedieved, if an unsealed
box of pizza was delivered by a non-Jew (or a Jew who does not keep
kosher) a Rav should be consulted. It may still be permissible to eat
the pizza depending upon the particulars of the case.



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 13
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)