Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 202

Wed, 11 Dec 2013

• 1. Eating Out (Richie)
• 2. definition of 'shabbosdik' (M Cohen)
• 3. Re: Rashbam and peshat (Arie Folger)
• 4. Re: Eating out (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: Eating Out (Kenneth Miller)
• 6. Re: Eating out (Meir Shinnar)
• 7. Re: eating out (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: Eating Out (Ben Waxman)
• 9. Re: Eating Out (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Eating Out (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Yosef, a despot or a brilliant strategist and educator? (Micha Berger)
• 12. criminal's tzedaka (saul newman)
• 13. Re: Yosef, a despot or a brilliant strategist and educator? (T613K@aol.com)

You ask a good question. 

An example of being scrupulous in the observance, as opposed to simply
observing it, is the following:
Glatt kosher could be considered scrupulous, as opposed to kosher--
but not Glatt which would still be considered observing kashrut. As for
the term strictly kosher, it really is an advertising gimmick.

[Email #2. -micha

> You can* believe him, but you don't *have* to, and the more scrupulous
> will reserve judgment and not eat, just in case it's not true.  This isn't
> required, but it is an admirable practise.

An admirable practice not to believe someone you trust?! 

That is convoluted logic. On the contrary, if you do not believe someone
you trust, it is an insult.

We are not talking about any Tom, Dick or Harry. If you do not trust
the person to begin with, you would not even consider eating at his home.

RLK asks ... What about sledding would not be allowed on Shabbat assuming
one is in an Eruv?

I find that many activities (even when no melacha involved) are not done on
Shabbos because they are not 'shabbosdik'

Ie sledding / skating / kite flying / tennis / basketball / roller blading
etc

What exactly is the definition of 'shabbosdik' activities?

Anything besides eat/sleep/pray/learn?

Shabbos walks are ok. Why are Shabbos walks different than kite flying?

Mordechai Cohen

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> On the contrary, as the LR showed at length (see _Klolei Rashi_),
> Rashi's derech is to cite medroshim only when he can't fully explain
> the text without it, and even then he only cites so much of the medrash
> as is necessary to resolve his problem with the text.

We are talking about two separate matters. You are talking about when Rashi
deviates from peshat, and I am trying to define what Rashi considers to
fall under the purview of peshat. When Rashi cites midrashim that Rivka was
three at the well, the twelve stones around Yaakov's head became one, Moshe
was 10 amot tall, Og's ankle was a full 30 amot tall, with Og by
consequence about as tall as the Eiffel Tower, etc., are those peshat? Are
those written anywhere in the text of TSBK? No, they are midrashim and yet
Rashi incorporates them without second thoughts, not because they are
peshat, but because in Rashi understanding of peshat, those interpretations
do not violate peshat. How could that be? Because those are only non-peshat
if you insist on using common sense and common experience as a source of
what is a reasonable interpretation of the text. Many Roshonim insist on
that, but Rashi doesn't.

RSZ cited my post:
>> Finally, there is a literary school of peshat, which will pay
>> attention to all kind of attitional textual clues as literary
>> devices.

RSZ then suggested:
> Perhaps you would count Malbim here.  I see his derech as the ultimate
> in "ballebatish", straight as an arrow

Indeed, Malbim fits well into that category and can be seen as a precursor
of sorts of Daat Mikra.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 15:38:06 -0500 David Wacholder <dwachol...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> In contrast to his avowed Pshat agenda, Rashbam in Parshas Shmos refers
> to Sod several times. Did he deviate from Pshat?
<SNIP>
> How does  this - exceptional - "Rashbam-generated Sod" affect Arye
> Folger's argument regarding Pshat in Rashbam?

That is a very interesting exploration and what you wrote is fascinating in
its own right, but not that strongly related to our topic. Indeed, you
adjusted the subject line to read "Rashbam and peshat [also Names of Hashem
also Metargeim also Midrash]." However, what I was remarking was, when
Rashbam suggests what is peshat, what does he mean by peshat? What are the
sources and standards by which we decide whether or not something fits
peshat?

RDW then tried to define midrash, apparently citing from Darkei Ha'Agada of
Heineman, [5759, Masada/Magnes] Chapter 12 - Drasha based on Words:

> Midrash had to fit into a Shabbat afternoon lesson, for many listeners
> who were  concerned with both Torah and Hashkafa, but lacked literacy
> and available texts. The Doreish needed to create  a narrative that was
> both meaningful and novel and fit into the Pshat of the Pesukim.
> Meanwhile the medium and long-term effect must be the raising the level
> of  understanding of the listeners.
>
> This was the only weekly or regular Drasha aimed at the larger public.
> Separate daily lessons, which allowed debate,  had a smaller audience,
> the Hillel types, broadly speaking.

This is fascinating. Indeed, when reading Midrash, I sometime feel it is
very clear that I am facing a well structured homily in full bloom.
However, does Heineman bring sources to buttress his claims, particularly
that the intended audience was "concerned with both Torah and Hashkafa, but
lacked literacy and available texts?" I actually have the feeling that the
listeners were great beqiim in Tanakh, for example, and that whenever the
doreish veered from peshat, the audience knew that well.

Back to what prompted my initial post, Ma'ase Reuven, RDW wrote:

> Minchas Shai lists Aseres Hadivros and Maaseh Reuvein as having
> "duplicate sets of cantillations".  Sheivet Reuvein may have  been
> red-faced at either Pshat.

The existence of another set of te'amim here is of little import, unless we
want to posit a totally different breakup of the pessukim, which leads into
kol passuq delo passqei Moshe ... In fact, I did not argue much from the
te'amim, but from the 'haluqat haparshiyot, which should not vary from one
community to the next and definitely not from one meturgeman to the next.

However, reading further what you wrote, you seem to suggest that indeed,
pessuqim breaks were flexible and depended on the meturgeman:

> So the Metargeim refused to be quoted as criticizing Reuvein, and the
> Baal Korei had to continue to the next paragraph.
>
> The same "Metargeim" refused to interrupt Hashem's message "I am
> HVYH who is your Permanent Watcher who just as I removed you
> from Mitzrayim I will always watch you! Don't you dare trust worthless
idols..."
>
> Therefore, with no choice the Baal Korei made one long passuk from each
> one. [Now known as Taam Elyon].

That surely surprises many of us and I would appreciate that you elaborate
how you square that with our understanding that kol passuq delo passqei
Moshe lo passqinan.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Berichte ?ber die CER-Konferenz in Berlin
* Media Reports from the Latest CER Conference
* Should we Circumcise the Children of Non-Members?
* Another Reason for More Widespread Use of Halakhic Prenups
* Kann man die Beschneidung nicht mit einem symbolischen Ritual ersetzen?
* I Made the Front Page?
* Sind innerreligi?se Ehen altmodisch und vorbei?
* Die ware Entstehungsgeschichte der Hatikw?-Hymne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131210/da0a5df4/attachment-0001.htm>

At 11:24 PM 12/9/2013, R Meir Shinnar wrote:
 >1) the fact that there is a hezkat kashrut does
 >NOT mean that there aren't problems - the
 >existence of scandals does NOT invalidate the
 >hazaka - unless one is arguing a fundamental
 >change in the metziut. Hazaka does not mean
 >infallibility - and scandals with kashrut Are
 >not a modern invention - which did not lead to
 >wide scale abrogation of the Halacha of hezkat kashrut..
 >2) wrt being more complicated, etc - see
 >Rav  Moshe (igrot Moshe yd 4:6h)e . About the
 >use of hashgachot that one is not familiar with
 >- and is (under a broad range) mattir them - and
 >raises issue that maybe the caterer could fool
 >the mashgiach, or maybe the mashgiach doesn't
 >know how to do hashgacha - your primary issues -
 >and answers that midina there is NO safek - as
 >the Torah believed them from din of Ed echad ne'eman be'issurim.
 >
 >Unless u have specific knowledge that the people
 >lack knowledge or lack reliability - how is not
 >trusting them NOT hoshed biksherim??? My point
 >is that being machmir in kashrut leads to kulot
 >in other areas - and a disintegration of the
 >communal model that Halacha is supposed to foster
 >

 >Meir Shinnar

I have posted this before.

  From http://torahmusings.com/2012/05/audio-roundup-35/

<http://downl
oad.bcbm.org/Media/RavWeiss/Sefer%20Vayikra/Tazriah/Rav%20Weiss%20Tazria%20
5772%20English%20Kashrus%20Verification.mp3>HARav 

Asher Weiss -Metzora 5772: ?Kashrus
Verification?  This link does not work for me,  but the recap is below. YL

Why can?t we rely on eid echad neeman b?issurin
(one witness is sufficient in cases of ritual
prohibition) in kashrut supervision? (ironic to
me ? this was the starting point of R?N Alpert?s
Z?L response to me when I asked him about a kashrut supervision).

R?AW?s opinion is that eid echad is not a rule to
neemanut (trustworthiness) but in hanhaga (how to
act) ? that in case of doubt you can rely on a
single witness (proofs include there is no testimony and no beit din).

However, over the years the Rabbis make
fences/judgments (e.g. requiring a ritual
slaughterer to show his knife). So today (see
chachmat adam 200 years ago) we don?t rely on
anyone who has a monetary interest (me ? but then
what about the agency being paid?).
Then discussion of one of my favorite topics ?
Chazal and statistics. R?AW says out loud what
I?ve whispered to my chaburah ? Chazal did not
engage in statistics! First he discusses why a
miyut shachiach (normally found minority?) is of
concern (why not just say rov [majority] is
sufficient?) ? Perhaps because of concern for
margin of error. Then on to miyut hamatzui
(material minority) and the famous 10% rule of
the Mishkinot Yaakov ? he feels tshuva is
misread; while it does mention 10% with some
?interesting? proofs, the conclusion is that it?s
just about what?s ?common? ? and the real problem
is defining ?common? in age where a shocheit may
shecht 100X as many animals in the old days.
That?s why we steer clear of doubt!!!!! Oy, if only they would ask an actuary?


At 11:24 PM 12/9/2013, R Meir Shinnar wrote:
>1) the fact that there is a hezkat kashrut does 
>NOT mean that there aren't problems - the 
>existence of scandals does NOT invalidate the 
>hazaka - unless one is arguing a fundamental 
>change in the metziut. Hazaka does not mean 
>infallibility - and scandals with kashrut Are 
>not a modern invention - which did not lead to 
>wide scale abrogation of the Halacha of hezkat kashrut..
>2) wrt being more complicated, etc - see 
>Rav  Moshe (igrot Moshe yd 4:6h)e . About the 
>use of hashgachot that one is not familiar with 
>- and is (under a broad range) mattir them - and raises

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131210/7ae6464c/attachment-0001.htm>

R' David Riceman asked:
> RMB and RYL both discuss "standards" as something distinct from
> minhagim.  I don't know what a "standard" is.  What term would
> the SA use for "standard"?

As I understand it, the root nun-heh-gimel has two distinct meanings:

1) It can refer to a minhag of the sort to which the halacha of "Al Titosh Toras Imecha" applies.

2) It can also refer to a personal practice which would not be halachically binding upon one's children.

I understand the word "practice" to refer to the second category.

I deliberately avoid giving examples of these, because I really don't know
the exact dividing line between them. If one eats, or avoids eating, chalav
hacompanies, or non-glatt meat, or heter mechira produce, is that a minhag
or a personal psak or a personal practice?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Surf Like a Hawaiian
Cruise Like a Norwegian. Hawaii cruise starting at $899. Book now
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/52a71a473e3361a4636b4st02vuc

> rYL
> Sadly we have seen all too often that hashgachas 
> given by those who are supposed to be reliable 
> turn out not to be.  The money issue is a real 
> one.  I personally am not comfortable relying on 
> any private hashgacha save for two...

> Kashrus today is much more complicated than it 
> was in ancient times,  even than it was 20 years 
> ago.  Ask those involved in hashgachas...

> The following is from page 89 of Timothy Lytton's 
> book Kosher.  (Dr. Avram Pollak is President of 
> the Star-K.  See http://www.star-k.org/cons-abou-support.htm)

> Furthermore, Dr. Avrom Pollak of Star-K doubts 
> that Hasidic rabbis who are granting superkosher
> certification actually have such high standards to begin with.
> "Sometimes we'll ask them questions, and it's very evident that all they're
> doing is certifying the owner of an establishment that they personally
> may know. And they've agreed to give him a certification based on his say-so.
> But the rabbi has very little independent knowledge of what goes on
> in the company."

> My understanding of someone being considered 
> reliable when it comes to hashgacha is that he 
> has the necessary knowledge to make informed 
> decisions.  If he does not, and one does not rely 
> on his hashgacha,   then I do not consider this 
> to be hoshed biksherim,  because they have no business giving hashgacha.

1) the fact that there is a hezkat kashrut does NOT mean that there aren't
problems - the existence of scandals does NOT invalidate the hazaka -
unless one is arguing a fundamental change in the metziut. Hazaka does
not mean infallibility - and scandals with kashrut Are not a modern
invention - which did not lead to wide scale abrogation of the Halacha
of hezkat kashrut..

2) wrt being more complicated, etc - see Rav Moshe (igrot Moshe yd
4:6h)e . About the use of hashgachot that one is not familiar with - and
is (under a broad range) mattir them - and raises issue that maybe the
caterer could fool the mashgiach, or maybe the mashgiach doesn't know
how to do hashgacha - your primary issues - and answers that midina
there is NO safek - as the Torah believed them from din of Ed echad
ne'eman be'issurim.

Unless u have specific knowledge that the people lack knowledge or lack
reliability - how is not trusting them NOT hoshed biksherim??? My point
is that being machmir in kashrut leads to kulot in other areas - and a
disintegration of the communal model that Halacha is supposed to foster

I would add that the notion that the metziut has changed enough to
require drastic changes in Halacha is the other end of the coin from
Reform - with the difference being whether one is machmir or meikil -
but either way, one is unhappy with the Halacha....

[Email #2. -micha]

>  From http://torahmusings.com/2012/05/audio-roundup-35/

> ht
> tp://download.bcbm.org/Media/RavWeiss/Sefer%20Vayikra/Tazriah/Rav%20We
> iss%20Tazria%205772%20English%20Kashrus%20Verification.mp3
> HARav Asher Weiss -- Metzora 5772: 'Kashrus Verification'
> This link does not work for me, but the recap is below. YL

> Why can't we rely on eid echad neeman b'issurin 
> (one witness is sufficient in cases of ritual 
> prohibition) in kashrut supervision? (ironic to 
> me ? this was the starting point of R'N Alpert's 
> Z"L response to me when I asked him about a kashrut supervision).

> R'AW's opinion is that eid echad is not a rule to 
> neemanut (trustworthiness) but in hanhaga (how to 
> act) ? that in case of doubt you can rely on a 
> single witness (proofs include there is no testimony and no beit din).

> However, over the years the Rabbis make 
> fences/judgments (e.g. requiring a ritual 
> slaughterer to show his knife). So today (see 
> chachmat adam 200 years ago) we don't rely on 
> anyone who has a monetary interest...

RAW kvodo bimkomo munach. but..
1) wrt to ne'emanut of ed echad ne'eman be'isurim -- the fact that Rav
Alpert,w hen asked about kashrut, answered ed echad ne'eman be'issurim
-- is not ironic, but a reflect that he was the talmud muvhak of rav
moshe.... Rav Moshe clearly held that (in his own language in YD 4:6
-- talking about the rav and the mashgiach -- shehatorah he'eminatam
midin ed echad ne'eman beissurim -- for rav Moshe,it is a question
of ne'emanut......You can go with Rav Moshe and Rav Alpert or with
Dr. Avrom Pollak....

2) WRT monetary issues -- yes, it is a major issue, but it cuts both ways
-- given the current sociodynamics, there is an economic incentive for a
kashrut agency to declare others trafe -- and this is specifically dealt
with in a famous tshuva of rav moshe -- roughly saying that a hechsher
A that declares another one (B)not reliable and therefore refuses to
use its products -- in a bid to try to get the business -- HAS to bring
its evidence to a bet din -- and otherwise one should not use hechsher
A......( someone I knew in graduate school, her father was a butcher in
Brooklyn who refused for many years to go glatt -- because he thought the
glatt providers were actually less reliable than the standard ones --
and that the main motivation for stores going glatt was economic...as
advertisement....)

Again, the economic incentives of kashrut are not a modern innovation
-- and while there are safeguards in place, it does NOT undermine the
fundamental issue of ed echad ne'eman beissurim

3) hazal and statistics -- how much hazal were aware of statistics can
be debated -- but the real question is whether hazal were interested
in statistics -- there are clearly cases of safek where we know one
out of 10 pieces was trafe -- and we kasher ALL 10 -- allowing one to
eat one piece that started out (before some mixup) as clearly trafe. I
would also say that tt is interesting that we are basing a humra on the
notion that we know better than hazal....where the issue is not a clear
scientific issue, but rather defining the question.

4) Steering clear of doubt is a middat hasidut -- praiseworthy -- but
one needs to distinguish between middat hasidut and normative peak --
and hoshed biksherim is also part of halacha that one needs to be strict
about....

5) Issues of shechita ARE different -- a 10% chance of error on a run
where one sheets one hundred animals means that one has almost surely
(depending on variance) some trafe animals on a given run -- while for
a shochet who slaughters much less, the likelihood for any given run is
not common. Extrapolating this to all of kashrut is problematic..

Meir Shinnar

RZS:

<<It ["strictly kosher"] means not relying on the heterim that are 
available to eat something that you're not sure is really kosher, even 
if you're mostly sure, and al pi din that's good enough.>>

That doesn't conform with the usage I've seen.  Take meat, for example.  
Hazal list 18 treifos, and yet halacha requires that we check for only 
one of them; for the other 17 we rely on rov.  I have never heard of a 
shochet or slaughterhouse which checks for all 18 treifos (though, 
admittedly, my only connection to the kosher food industry is as a 
consumer).

It follows that no commercial meat can possibly be "strictly kosher" 
according to RZS, and yet I have seen meat described as "strictly 
kosher".  I suspect it's an advertising slogan without content.

David Riceman

Isn't the answer to all of your examples dependent on why you are 
avoiding? (I am assuming the avoid means "I do NOT eat these).
A Litvak avoiding chalav hacompanies is different from a Chabadnick 
doing the same.   Some who holds like Rav Elyashiv believes that heter 
michira tomatoes are treif, pure and simple. Etc.

Ben


On 12/10/2013 3:41 PM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> I deliberately avoid giving examples of these, because I really don't 
> know the exact dividing line between them. If one eats, or avoids 
> eating, chalav hacompanies, or non-glatt meat, or heter mechira 
> produce, is that a minhag or a personal psak or a personal practice? 

On 9/12/2013 2:25 PM, David Riceman wrote:

>> You *can* believe him, but you don't *have* to>>
>
> Are you claiming that one is permitted to be hoshed ksheirim?

Kabdeihu vechashdeihu.   Choshed biksheirim is when you positively
suspect someone of wrongdoing, not when you're simply open to the
possibility that he *might* do wrong.

-- 
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 Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 01:41:20PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: As I understand it, the root nun-heh-gimel has two distinct meanings:
: 
: 1) It can refer to a minhag of the sort to which the halacha of "Al
: Titosh Toras Imecha" applies.

: 2) It can also refer to a personal practice which would not be
: halachically binding upon one's children.

We have existing idioms for #2 to make it easy to diambiguate. I suggest
leaving "minhag" for #1, and calling #2 a "minhag chassidus" or "hanhagah
[tovah]".

And a hanhagah could end up binding because a chazaqah could create an
effective neder.

...
: I deliberately avoid giving examples of these, because I really don't
: know the exact dividing line between them. If one eats, or avoids eating,
: chalav hacompanies, or non-glatt meat, or heter mechira produce, is that
: a minhag or a personal psak or a personal practice?

There is a third usage you're giving here:

1a) An accepted practice by a community that they don't consider iqar
hadin, eg glatt meat.

1b) An accepted pesaq that defines iqar hadin, eg Bet Yosef chalaq.

We've discussed the origin of minhagim numerous times. The conclusion I've
come to is that the canonical form of minhag is minhag avos. "Al titosh
toras imekha -- al tiqri... ela 'umasekha'" is about conforming. As
is the geonic derashah (?) of "lo sasig gevul rei'akha" as a biblical
source for the authority of minhag.

And I concluded from pereq "Maqom sheNahagu" that when someone moves from
a place that has a defined minhag to one that doesn't, they and their
children are bound by the minhag hamaqom of their place of origin. Today
that's the norm, and so "minhag avos" became the norm (even if it's not
the classical use of that idiom).

Whereas if someone habituates in being machmir to avoid accidental
sinning, because he personally likes the sevara or taam hamitzvah of some
shitah that he knows isn't iqar hadin (e.g. many men who don't use the
eruv but their wives do), that's a hanhagah rather than an actual minhag.
A common one might be labeled a "minhag chassidus" (and those men who
don't carry could well qualify).

Minag in the sense of traditional pesaq, minhag in the community's
lifnim mishuras hadin or even a hanhagah (which could well be a neder)
have to be balanced against the bein adam lachaveiro issues of risking
alienating someone. That kind of shiqul hadaas (assessing maganitudes)
usually requires a poseiq, not a rule of thumb I could post.

(All of which is different than deciding not to trust that the host
accurately described the practices involved in producing the food.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 10:37:05AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote:
: Vayigash
: the land was exhausted due to the famine [47:13]
: 
: Yosef collected all the money in Egypt and surrounding countries [47:14] as
: payment for food [Rashi]
...
: Was this the action of a despot or the greatest programme in education? For
: what better teaches than the experience of poverty and vulnerability?

It sounds to me like Yoseif decided that a time in which the majority
of the country was threatened by death by starvation, socialism was the
correct course of action. It wasn't education or tyrrany, but a shift
in economic philosophy in an extreme situation.

From Marriam-Webster <www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism>:
    so?cial?ism
    noun ... [pronunciation key un-Avodah-able]

    : a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned
    and controlled by the government rather than by individual people
    and companies

    Full Definition of SOCIALISM
    1:  any of various economic and political theories advocating
        collective or governmental ownership and administration of the
        means of production and distribution of goods

    2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private
        property

     b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production
        are owned and controlled by the state

    3:  a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between
        capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution
        of goods and pay according to work done

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

CC-ing Zev and RnTK, just because life is slow.... <grin>

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4456536,00.html
parameters for determining of criminal gelt is kosher enough to use
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131210/cd1a775a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri,  Dec 06, 2013, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote:
: Vayigash
: the land was  exhausted due to the famine [47:13]
: 
: Yosef collected all the money  in Egypt and surrounding countries [47:14] 
as
: payment for food  [Rashi]
...
: Was this the action of a despot or the greatest programme  in education? 
For
: what better teaches than the experience of poverty and  vulnerability?

It sounds to me like Yoseif decided that a time in which  the majority
of the country was threatened by death by starvation,  socialism was the
correct course of action. It wasn't education or tyrrany,  but a shift
in economic philosophy in an extreme  situation.


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

CC-ing Zev and RnTK, just  because life is slow.... <grin>

-- 
Micha  Berger              
mi...@aishdas.org         



>>>>
 
Life is not slow for me right now but I can't resist a good poke.   
Socialism doesn't work at any time, not times of famine or catastrophe,  never.  In 
times of wealth it produces poverty and in times of poverty it  produces 
utter devastation and mass starvation.  Stockpiling food for  emergencies a la 
FEMA isn't socialism.  (But expropriating property  is.)
 
Yosef let people keep 80% of what they produced.  Halavai we should  have 
such "socialism" in America, with only a 20% tax rate!
 
 
I have to admit that it long bothered me that Yosef, such a wise man,  
would have impoverished a whole country.  But then I come back to:  he  didn't.  
He gave the farmers seed, and let them re-establish themselves  after the 
famine ended. 

 
But ps I recently read somewhere -- maybe on Avodah? I don't remember --  
that under Yosef, a great deal of wealth flowed into Pharoah's coffers, not  
only from Egyptians but from surrounding countries, so that the Bnei  
Yisrael would be able to take it all with them when they left -- in fulfillment  
of Hashem's promise to Avraham that they would leave Egypt with great  wealth.
 
 
 

--Toby Katz
..
=============




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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20131210/81f8f266/attachment.htm>

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


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 202
***************************************

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.)