Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 182

Wed, 30 Oct 2013

• 1. Re: [VBM: Before Sinai] Shiur #02: Is There an Ethic Beyond Formal Jewish Law? (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: rav benyamin lau proposes (Zev Sero)
• 3. mitzvat[?] simcha (saul newman)
• 4. Re: [VBM: Before Sinai] Shiur #02: Is There an Ethic Beyond Formal Jewish Law? (Lisa Liel)
• 5. Re: [VBM: Before Sinai] Shiur #02: Is There an Ethic Beyond Formal Jewish Law? (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: [VBM: Before Sinai] Shiur #02: Is There an Ethic Beyond Formal Jewish Law? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Hanging Our Heads in Shame (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Re: Who is Eliezer? (Kenneth Miller)
• 9. barriers come down (Ben Waxman)
• 10. Re: Who is Eliezer? (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Eating Meat After Fish (Prof. Levine)
• 12. RSRH on How to Raise Children (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Yaakov and Esav (Prof. Levine)
• 14. Re: Yaakov and Esav (Micha Berger)

On 28/10/2013 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Thus the Talmud introduces the concept of "lifnim mi-shurat ha-din," an
> expectation of conduct that lies "beyond the boundary of the law."

A side point:  This is a very common mistranslation that bugs me when I
come across it.   Lifnim mishuras hadin means the exact opposite of "beyond"
the boundary; it means *within* the boundary, i.e. not going all the way up
to the line of what is permitted but staying a safe distance within that line.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 28/10/2013 2:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 09:55:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
>> http://www.kipa.co.il/jew/54021.html
>> Rav Benyamin Lau  proposes that women be able to "meqadeish" men.
>> Rav Navon rejects the idea entirely.
>
> I don't see the other tzad. "Kol hameqadesh al da'as rabbanan meqadesh"
> (RBL's grounds for this innovation) still requires "kol hameqadesh"
> and not the rabbanan to enact a qiddushin without his actually doing
> the right rite.

He's not proposing doing away with the man being mekadesh the woman, but
rather instituting an additional setting-aside, that before or after the man
sets the woman aside as exclusively his, she should set him aside as exclusively
hers.

It still seems to contradict the whole concept of kiddushin, which by its
nature is a one-way relationship, and IMHO risks invalidating the man's
kiddushin of the woman.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

http://mrlitvak.blogspot.co.il/2013/10/guess-what-rama-was-not-br
eslover.html
interesting that a local [chassidic] rov  was asked by a visitor , why the
  chassidishe kollel  seems to have   people therein learning from many
different  eidos-across the board- but the litvishe one , is purely
litvaks....  his one word asnwer was 'simcha'....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131028/be004a7b/attachment-0001.htm>

On 10/28/2013 3:25 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 28/10/2013 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Thus the Talmud introduces the concept of "lifnim mi-shurat ha-din," an
>> expectation of conduct that lies "beyond the boundary of the law."
>
> A side point:  This is a very common mistranslation that bugs me when I
> come across it.   Lifnim mishuras hadin means the exact opposite of 
> "beyond"
> the boundary; it means *within* the boundary, i.e. not going all the 
> way up
> to the line of what is permitted but staying a safe distance within 
> that line.

Literally, perhaps.  Idiomatically, no.

Lisa

On 28/10/2013 4:40 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Literally, perhaps.  Idiomatically, no.

On the contrary. And in fact as I read on in the essay I realise this
is not such a side point. The whole premise of the essay seems to
be based on a confusion deriving from this mistranslation. "Lifnim"
never has and never can mean "beyond", in any sense at all. And when
one starts with this false premise one is left without guidance as to
where and how far one should go "beyond" the line.

But when one realises that "lifnim" means *within*, it becomes obvious
that the definition of "chassidus" as staying "lifnim mishuras hadin"
does not require seeking values in foreign fields, but davka staying
within the four amos of halacha, and in fact only within the inner
three-and-a-half amos. It's about leaving a *safety margin* between
oneself and the edge, so that one will not accidentally stray over it.
One who goes up to the line is not a chossid even if he never crosses
it, because he shows that he doesn't consider the prospect of crossing
it that terrible, and he's willing to risk it.

And since it's about staying within the line, it becomes clear that the
only values relevant to it are those that already define the line, i.e.
those that are found within the Torah.

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

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:24:19PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 28/10/2013 4:40 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> Literally, perhaps.  Idiomatically, no.
>
> On the contrary. And in fact as I read on in the essay I realise this
> is not such a side point. The whole premise of the essay seems to
> be based on a confusion deriving from this mistranslation. "Lifnim"
> never has and never can mean "beyond", in any sense at all...

Well, if you start out on the outside, then going further than shuras
hadin inward is going beyond.

And I think that's the difference in idiom. Not that they mean different
things, but that the American idiom is speaking to someone on the
outside of the law, being told to not only keep the law but go beyond,
and the talmudic idiom is speaking to someone who keeps the law, telling
him to stay further inward.

> But when one realises that "lifnim" means *within*, it becomes obvious
> that the definition of "chassidus" as staying "lifnim mishuras hadin"
> does not require seeking values in foreign fields, but davka staying
> within the four amos of halacha, and in fact only within the inner
> three-and-a-half amos...

If every lifnim mishuras hadin were of gezeira style, just staying
away from the limits of the law lest we cross them, I would agree. With
no values other than obaservance. A stance only a hyper-Brisker could
embrace.

But when it comes to paying workmen for carrying barrels they ended
up breaking, we ARE talking about seeking values. Or when we need to
define "menuval" in "menuval birshus haTorah". Not in foreign fields,
in aggadita. (And in particular the subset of aggadita that is
lower-case-m mussar.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 From http://torahmusings.com/2013/10/the-tears-of-the-oppressed/

The past few years have provided the Orthodox Jewish community with 
far too many embarrassing moments, when seemingly good members were 
shown to have acted in ways that were anything but good. Most cases 
were matters of personal greed and corruption; a few went much 
farther. But none of those painful situations come close to the 
desecration of the name of Heaven and the name of the Jewish People 
like a recent scandal in which a handful of individuals were arrested 
for kidnapping and violence in coercing a get. You may ask why I 
consider this episode to be worse than others. I say this because the 
crimes reported by law enforcement authorities and in the media do 
not represent the deeds of a few but in large part the failings of 
the community.

Given the attendant publicity there has been much confusion about the 
issues, so an important historical and halachic clarification is in 
order. There is no such thing as an ancient and ongoing tradition of 
using brute force to coerce recalcitrant husbands to issue gittin. To 
be sure there were rare occasions when rabbinic courts ordered a get 
be executed and had the legal power to ensure that it was done. That 
power was only exercised in times and places where the Jewish 
community had autonomy and was authorized by the secular authorities 
to enforce the rulings of its own courts. This was not vigilante 
action but enforcement through the power of the law. On rare 
occasions this is also seen today in the State of Israel, where 
rabbinic courts are connected to the State court system and may 
imprison a man who refuses to issue a get for ignoring a court order. 
However, this is a regulated and legal procedure. It must be 
unambiguously stated that if there is a place for any sort of 
coercion it is only when it is consonant with both halachah and the 
laws of the country and state.

See the above URL for more.

The author of this piece is Rabbi Asher Bush, who was often a guest 
in my home many years ago. See the sidebar for information about 
Rabbi Bush.  YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131028/0a32aeea/attachment-0001.htm>

Cantor Wolberg asked:

> What is quite interesting is that the second son is the Wicked
> Son and one would expect the opposite for the first son -- so
> instead of "Wise," why isn't "Good" used (as the opposite of
> Wicked)?

A fascinating question! One might ask the same question another way: Why is the second one called "rasha" instead of some form of "not a chacham"?

I don't have a complete answer, but perhaps I can get the ball rolling. We
mustn't look at these two in isolation, but must take them in the greater
context of all four.

Perhaps these four archtypes form a continuum of interestedness: The
chacham is so interested that he learns every detail of the halacha. The
tam is faithful, but simplistic. The ayno yodea lish'ol comes to the seder,
but that's all. (Nowadays, the role of that fourth child is often given a
postive spin, by comparing him to the fifth one, who - l'tzaareinu -
doesn't even show up.)

In this context, how does  the second child fit in? He is not as involved
as the chacham, but more so than the tam. And somehow, this intermediate
position has something to do with being a rasha.

The first thought that comes to mind is the saying, "A little knowledge is
a dangerous thing." The second child asks questions, but not enough of
them, or not the right ones, and ends up on the wrong path. (I am tempted
to offer examples or parallels, but I don't want to descend into a
historical debate.)

All comments eagerly invited. I think this is a great question to raise next year at the Seder.

Akiva Miller

(Note: After writing the above, I googled that saying, "A little knowledge
is a dangerous thing," to verify that it means what I thought. The first
page that I happened to read (www.phrases.org.uk) connects it to
this quote from Francis Bacon, in 1601: "A little philosophy inclineth
man?s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men?s minds about
to religion.")

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

[Topic: Why R' Aviner rejected women dancing with the seifer Torah
on Simchas Torah as an innovation that Hashem didn't command. -micha]

I sent my question to Rav Aviner and he answered in short video (Hebrew).

The text of the question and the rav's answer can be found at:

http://maale.org.il/index.php/ser/show?vidid=134546

Ben

On 10/28/2013 9:22 PM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> In this context, how does	the second child fit in? He is not as
> involved as the chacham, but more so than the tam. And somehow, this
> intermediate position has something to do with being a rasha.
>
> The first thought that comes to mind is the saying, "A little
> knowledge is a dangerous thing." The second child asks questions, but
> not enough of them, or not the right ones, and ends up on the wrong
> path. (I am tempted to offer examples or parallels, but I don't want
> to descend into a historical debate.)
>
> All comments eagerly invited. I think this is a great question to raise next year at the Seder.
>    

I think the four sons reflect reality, rather than a theoretical 
schema.  I think I saw this attributed to the Malbim.  The Chacham 
represents the leaders of the Torah community, and the Tam represents 
their followers.  The Rasha represents the leaders of the anti-Torah 
community, and the She-Eino Yodea Lish'ol represents their followers.

The Rasha may be educated, so you can't say he has no chochma, but he 
turns away from it, and turns others away from it, so he's a Rasha.

Lisa

 From http://tinyurl.com/l4s85v3

<https://www.dailyhalacha.com/Play.aspx?clipID=2584>
[]
    Clip Length: 3:22 (mm:ss)
[]

<https://www.dailyhalacha.com/Save.aspx?t=m&;ID=2584>
[]
  (File size: 792 KB)
<https://www.dailyhalacha.com/Save.aspx?t=w&;ID=2584>
[]
  (File size:1.57 MB)
Eating Meat After Fish

As most people are aware, it is forbidden to eat 
fish together with meat or chicken, because, as 
the Gemara comments, this could pose a medical 
risk. Few people, however, are aware of the 
procedure that is required after one eats fish 
and then wishes to eat meat or chicken. First, 
one must wash his hands, and according to Hacham 
Ovadia Yosef, this requirement applies even if 
one ate with a fork and knife and did not touch 
any fish. One does not have to wash the formal 
Netilat Yadayim as is required before eating 
bread, as this washing is required for 
cleanliness purposes, to ensure the removal of 
all fish residue. Secondly, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav 
Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) rules (Parashat 
Pinhas, Shana Sheniya, 8) that one must wash the 
outside of his mouth after eating fish before 
eating chicken or meat. Additionally, one must 
rinse the inside of his mouth ? such as by 
gargling some water ? and according to the Ben 
Ish Hai, one should also drink something to 
ensure that the fish and meat do not mix in his 
stomach. Finally, one must eat something in 
between the fish and the meat. These Halachot are 
presented in Yalkut Yosef ? Berachot (vol. 2, p. 
23; listen to audio recording for precise citation).

Many people customarily eat fish as an appetizer 
at the Shabbat meal, but, unfortunately, they are 
not aware of this procedure which must be 
followed afterward before proceeding to eat meat. 
It is therefore important to review these 
Halachot and ensure to perform the necessary 
measures before eating chicken or meat after the fish course.

Summary: After one eats fish, he should not eat 
meat until he does the following: washes his 
hands, washes the outside and inside of his 
mouth, eats something and drinks something.

Compare this with the article Eating Fish and 
Meat at 
http://www.kof-k.org/articles/040208110455W-32%20Eating%20Fish%
20and%20Meat.pdf

There it says

"Washing Hands/Mouth

"One who wants to eat fish after eating meat 
should wash his hands and clean out his
mouth. In order to be considered ?cleaning one?s 
mouth? (kenuach) he should eat and
drink something.  A person can do whichever one 
he wants first.27 If one eats fish first
like is common today then one should still do the 
above. One should remove any meat
that might be between his teeth as well.

"Some say there is no need to wash one?s hands 
today, because one does not eat with his
hands, rather with a fork. This seems to be the custom."

Drinking Water after Fish

Some say it is a danger to drink water after 
eating fish;33 therefore, one must be careful
with this. Soda is not considered like water 
whereas coffee and tea are. Many people
have the custom to drink schnapps between fish and meat.

Those who have the custom to wash their hands 
after eating fish (before the meat)
should only do so after drinking whiskey. The 
reason is because the yud and shin of the
name of Shakay is represented by the name of 
whiskey in Hebrew that being yayin saref,
and the Daled of Shakay is represented by the 
daled of the fish. In order not to separate
the name of Hashem one should drink the whiskey immediately after the fish.

I note that there in no mention in the first 
piece of specifically drinking whiskey (I prefer 
bourbon)  after the fish before eating meat.  YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131030/c5e51e81/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from the new translation of RSRH's commentary on the Chumash.

Bereishis 25:27  When the lads grew up, Esav was 
a man who understood hunting, a man of the field, 
and Ya?akov was a totally dedicated man, living in tents.

Each child should be guided in accordance with the path intended
especially for him, the path that suits the qualities and tendencies latent
in the depths of his personality, and thus he should be educated, both
as a man and as a Jew. The great Jewish task is basically one, but the
ways of its fulfillment are manifold and diverse, as human character
traits and paths of life are manifold and diverse.

When the sons of Ya?akov gathered to hear their father?s blessing,
and he visualized in them the future tribes of Israel, he saw not only
Kohanim and teachers of the Law. Standing around him were the tribe
of Levi?im , the tribe of kingship, the tribe of merchants, the tribe of
farmers, the tribe of warriors. Standing before his eyes was the whole
nation, with all its manifold characteristics and diverse ways of development.
And he blessed all of them, Ish asher k'birkaso, beirach osom (below,
49:28), each according to his own special qualities. For the covenant
that God established with Avraham is intended for a healthy, whole,
and vital nation. The purpose of the covenant is to build a complete
national life with all its manifold forms, all for the one great task, leshmor
derech  Hashem la'asos tzedakah umishpot. There, 
strength and courage, no less than
thought and emotion, are to have their champions in the service of
God, and all the people, in various callings, are to fulfill the one great
common task.

Precisely for this reason, each child must be brought up al pi darko;
educate him to the one great goal, according to his own unique way,
in keeping with his potential. To attempt to educate a Ya?akov and an
Esav together in the same classroom, in the same routines and in the
same manner, to raise both of them for a life of study and contemplation,
will inevitably mean to ruin one of the two. A Ya?akov will draw
from the well of wisdom with ever-increasing interest and desire,
whereas an Esav will hardly be able to wait for the day when he can
throw away the old books and, together with them, a great life-mission,
of which he was taught in a one-sided manner, totally unappealing to
his nature.

Had Yitzchak and Rivkah delved deeply into Esav?s nature; had they
asked themselves at an early stage how even an Esav ? with the strength,
skills, and courage latent within him ? could be harnessed for God?s
service, then the future gibor would not have become a gibor tziyid but a
true gibor lifnei Hashem. Ya?akov and Esav, 
despite their different natures, would
have remained twin brothers in spirit and in way of life. Early on, the
sword of Esav would have entered into a covenant with the spirit of
Ya?akov, and who knows what turn world history would have taken!

To see Rav Hirsch's complete commentary of this Pasuk, please go to
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/25_27_28_bereishis.pdf

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131030/85203159/attachment-0001.htm>

RSRH says in his commentary on Bereishis 25:24 that Yaakov and Esav 
were identical twins.  Does anyone know the source upon which this 
assertion is based?

YL

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:00:29AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> RSRH says in his commentary on Bereishis 25:24 that Yaakov and Esav were 
> identical twins.  Does anyone know the source upon which this assertion 
> is based?

Hoshea 12:4 has Yaaqov grabbing Esav's ankle before birth -- babeten aqav
es achiv. That would imply a single amniotic sack, and thus identical
twins.

More explicitly but I have far less detail, there is a medrash that
states that Yehudah wouldn't kill Esav out of respect for his father's
image. This is a machloqes. The Yerushalmi (Gittin, Kesuvos) which says
it was Yehudah who killed Esav; as Yaaqov bentshes him, "yadekha be'oref
oyevekha". Targum Yonasan (on Bereishis 50:13), Pirqei deR' Eliezer
(pereq 39) and Sotah (13a) says it was Chushim. Tosafos ad loc resolve
the two versions by saying that Chushim struck a fatal blow, after which
Yehudah gave him "final mercy" and hastened his death his death.

One version of the Chushim story the kibud av reason, but I do not
recall where.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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


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 182
***************************************

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