Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 126

Thu, 17 Sep 2015

• 1. Re: Administrivia: Moderator Vacation (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: How does Prozbul work? (Lisa Liel)
• 3. Re: How does Prozbul work? (Micha Berger)
• 4. prosbul question (Lisa Liel)
• 5. Re: How does Prozbul work? (Zev Sero)
• 6. Mitzvah Kiyumit (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Re: prosbul question (Zev Sero)
• 8. Li Nir'eh (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Mesora only through Rashi (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Mesora only through Rashi (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: How does Prozbul work? (Akiva Miller)
• 13. Re: How does Prozbul work? (Zev Sero)
• 14. How does Prozbul work? (Akiva Miller)
• 15. Re: How does Prozbul work? (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: How does Prozbul work? (Zev Sero)

 

It is much easier when my mechutan's work address is "1 Kotel Plaza"
-- Yeshivat Netiv Aryeh. 

Thanks for the _berakhos_. _Gemar chasimah
tovah_! 

On 2015-09-16 2:50 pm, Zev Sero wrote: 

> On 09/16/2015 01:49
PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> 
>> Tomorrow I will be leaving for
3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q.
> 
> Mazal tov. Even if Moshiach doesn't
come in the next week or so,
> you can still fulfil a zecher to hakhel.
I was there 14 years
> ago at the "hakhel" rally at the kotel, but
unfortunately I was
> unable to be there 7 years ago, and barring either
Moshiach (and
> the real hakhel) or a lottery win I will not be able to
be there
> this year either.
> 
> (Actually I'm not aware of any source
that Moshiach will provide
> transportation, so even if he comes today
it may be impossible
> for everyone to get there in time for
hakhel.)

_Tir'u baTov_!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger Here is the test to
find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org on Earth is
finished:
http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270)
514-1507 - Richard Bach
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150916/4aafbabd/attachment-0001.htm>

On 9/16/2015 8:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote:
> : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were
> :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on
> :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority
> :> of Benei Yisrael.
>
> : How do you know?
>
> (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa
> ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.)

Actually, I meant your last sentence.  How do you know that the area of 
the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael?

Lisa

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:54:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote:
: Actually, I meant your last sentence.  How do you know that the area
: of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael?

Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei
miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled
for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. (See
Rashi Bamidbar 35:14 which is based on Abayei Makos 10a, and the Maharal
on the Rashi to explain that Rashi [and Abayei] assume that the number
who need galus will be greater whent he number of murderers does.)

Notice the answer was NOT "because HQBH knew there would be at least
as many people Mei'eiver haYardein before bayis rishon ended".

It would also take a notable statistical anomaly for the largest
population to grow out of a small initial state, and yet never get a
navi telling them anything, etc...

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook:

 > Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking 
around at books and online. I see no
 > discussion whatsoever on whether the concept of shemittat kesafim 
applies to in-kind loans, e.g. books
 > I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that addresses whether 
the shmittah year cancels an
 > obligation to return a loaned sefer, kli, whatever?

I have no answer for her.  Does anyone here?

Thanks,
Lisa

On 09/16/2015 05:47 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei
> miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled
> for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture.

Do you understand that question and answer?   How do the population
*or* the number of manslaughterers affect the number of arei miklat
needed?  Surely the only determinant is geography.   A manslaughterer
has to cover the same distance regardless of how sparse the population,
or how careful they are.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were considered kiyumit.  Does anyone know of  such a list?
GCT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150916/3213584b/attachment-0001.htm>

On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook:
>
>> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking
>> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on
>> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans,
>> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that
>> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return
>> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever?

> I have no answer for her.  Does anyone here?


Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah.  English uses the
same word, but they are very different transactions.   It's actually
strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does
not distinguish them.

A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects
the borrower to return it.  Thus it is not at all affected by shemita.
It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there
absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff,
the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah.

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

In AhS YD 39:48, RYME draws a conclusion from the fact that the Rama
in Darkhei Moshe says "nir'eh li" rather than "veli nir'eh". "Veli
nir'eh" implies he is choleiq with the BY?

Anyone hear before of a distinction between the two idioms?

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org        Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:06:16AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
:> I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed
:> in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread.

See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean

: And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what
: to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic,
: because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of
: the section applies to the whole...

Well, that's sort of it, isn't it? You're making a distinction between
learning in a semichah shiur and learning how to pasqen. I don't think
RYBS would.

IOW, his whole point about needing mesorah is because he denies your
premise. Leshitaso, you pasqen more from lomdus than from codes; or
to put it more clearly -- you need a Rashi and a Tosafos to teach you
how to fill in between the data points of a Yad or SA.

For that matter, this is clearly the AhS's approach to pesaq.

And the entire school which runs from Gemara to Rambam vs Rosh
(at al) to Tur, BY, SA, Rama, Shach, Taz (et al)...

This is how pesaq comes to be. Not from deciding between codes but
from using the flow of mesorah to decide between them. Otherwise,
shu"t would read like surveys; and even ROY doesn't end with his
survey.

: RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just
: using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so
: (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) -
: thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of
: the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even
: above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi).

Actually, RYBS said that.

: This is unquestionably true.
: 
: The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of
: Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to
: do so).  His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and
: people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the
: Rambam's, Code instead...

Not really. His code is mishnah, not gemara. He tells beginners to do
their shelish bemiqra in his code. And then you should be able to
graduate from it, and from the whole need to divide one's time into
thirds.

...
: Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it
: comes to smicha students).  We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children
: using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following
: Rashi.

Huh? Rashi didn't expect kids to start with Tanakh? Where does this come
into the whole discussion?

: The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise
: from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in
: the discussion regarding Open O and feminism.  And they are not the same
: thing at all.  Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being
: set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general
: way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to
: Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that.

I do not believe the closing sentence. RYBS was giving one shiur to
cover both. But that's RYBS, not my own leanings. I do see lomdus,
in which the goal is to justify every opinion, and pesaq, in which the
goal is to decide which opinion is most justified, to be different.

But again, one doesn't pasqen from codes without the tools learned from
lomdus.

For that matter, if it's a halakhah pesuqah, one isn't pasqening at all.

: What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on
: the page.
: What Tosphos did ...

And the Me'iri opened the gemara in a third way. That seems to be a
pretty complete taxonomy of parshanim.
Then there are codes.
Then there is shu"t.
And most recently, encyclopedias / collections.

...
: On the other hand, RET is correct:

:> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against
:> the concept.
:> Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own
:> interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text.

: Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any
: text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora
: (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that.

The Maharal's actual objection:
    To decide halakhic questions from the codes without knowing the logic
    of the ruling was not the intent of these authors [Rambam, Tur, SA,
    et al]. Had they known that their works would lead to the abandonment
    of Talmud, they would not have written them. It is better for one
    to decide on thebasis of the Talmud even though he might err, for a
    scholar must depend solely on his understanding. As such, he is beloved
    of God, and preferable tothe one who rules from a code but does not
    know thereason for the ruling; such a one walks like a blind person.

See Nesivos Olam, Nesiv haTorah ch 15.

(I invoked the above thought about shelish bemishnah only being for
beginners [from Hil TT] and the MT only being a replacement for the
hoi palloi to justify the Maharal's statement WRT the Rambam. See
RMRabi's and my months-long discussion.)

Actually, what I think won the day for the SA was that the SA stopped
being a code when they started publishing everyone on the sides. That's
what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel
Shelomo, would agree.

...
: And RMB replied:
:> Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we
:> discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh
:> contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one
:> found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather
:> than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then
:> some shu"t or parshan could as well.
: 
: But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak
: went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within
: the same Tosphos.   The Codes are far less open...

But they only cover specific cases. They don't teach how to extent
beyond those cases. So in general, the codes are more open than Rashi,
the Ri or Rabbeinu Tam who help you by providing a why that tells you
how far to take the point. A code is way open except for the cases they
covered.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:01:11PM +0300, RCK via Avodah wrote:
: It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on
: Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur.

Since you clearly saw it, and some of us are kind of busy (and about to
take leave of my library), could you please summarize the discussion there?

GCT!
-Micha

On 09/16/2015 07:20 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
>   That's
> what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel
> Shelomo, would agree.

The Maharshal was not a brother of the Maharal!   AFAIK they were not
related.

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

R' Eli Turkel quoted Wikipedia:
> ...According to this theory, Prozbul, like
> `eruv <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv>, is a rabbinic exception
> to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the
> Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get
> around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain.

As few days ago, I was thinking about comparisons between Prozbul and Eruv,
and it seems clear to me that while Eruv *is* an exception to an enactment,
Prozbul is a whole 'nother thing.

I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment",
because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa,
then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for
Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things
simultaneously:

1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans
2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done
3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul

Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let
Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level?

Regardless of whether one holds Prozbul to work on a d'Oraisa level, I
think everyone can agree that Prozbul was enacted specifically because (as
the Torah feared) too many people refrained from lending money as Shmitta
got near. Therefore, it seems clear to me that IF Shmitas Kesafim was
enacted as a d'rabanan, THEN Prozbul was enacted LATER, and not at the same
time.

In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to an
enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited carrying in a
karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain areas under certain
condiitons, allowing the carrying there.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150916/f1d7db77/attachment-0001.htm>

On 09/16/2015 10:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:

> In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to
> an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited
> carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain
> areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there.

An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and thus is not an
exception to the prohibition on doing so.  I don't know who prohibited
carrying in a karmelis, but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo.
Shlomo prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple owners*,
and instituted eruv as a way around that prohibition.  (It's not an
exception, it's a loophole; if you have an eruv then for this purpose
there are no longer multiple owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.)


-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and
> thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so.

My language was not precise. I apologize.

What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, one
was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either a walled
area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get confused between
the general outdoors and a main road, so the general outdoors was made into
a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following exception: Whereas a Reshus
Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to allow carrying, for a Reshus
Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to surround an area with doorways
(tzuras hapesach).

> I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis,
> but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo
> prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple
> owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that
> prohibition.

I'm fuzzy on the history too. The law as I described it above may or may
not have been part of the same legislation that RZS described here. What we
have here are two distinct - but easily and often confused - d'rabanans
within the melacha of hotzaa. It doesn't really matter which came first, or
if they came together. My point was that they are excellent examples of an
exception being built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to
Prozbul, which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment
from shmitas kesafim (because if they were done at the same time, the goal
of Prozbul could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting
shmitas kesafim).

> (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an
> eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple
> owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.)

I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". (The
wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to think that it is a
general pejorative to describe any leniency that one has an emotional
objection to.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150917/c1890000/attachment-0001.htm>

Li nir'eh the difference is that by eruv, it was all done in one sitting
of beis din -- when they assered a karmeelis, they also promulgated the
idea of eruv. IOW, explicitly they only assured a karmelis that didn't
have an eruv. (A conscious exemption more than a loophole, as I would
use the terms.)

Pruzbul was a loophole in an earlier taqanah and that was and promulgated
by a later beis di

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

On 09/17/2015 08:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
>> An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and
>> thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so.

> My language was not precise. I apologize.
>
> What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans,
> one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either
> a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get
> confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general
> outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following
> exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to
> allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to
> surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach).

Mid'oraisa a set of four tzuros hapesach works in reshus harabim too.
It was the rabanan who said "ein me'arvim reshus harabim bekach", and
only allowed it in a karmelis.   Whether they did this at the same time
that they forbade carrying in a karmelis, I don't know.  My impression
is that it was later, because the first we hear of it is in a braisa,
and it's subject to machlokes, whereas the concept of karmelis is taken
for granted by all.


> My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being
> built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul,
> which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from
> shmitas kesafim

Yes, this is clear.


> (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul
> could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting
> shmitas kesafim).

You don't need to go there.   It's obvious that shmitas kesafim
midrabanan preceded Hillel, because if it hadn't then how could he
have observed the problem that resulted?  Clearly it long predated
him, presumably all the way back to the end of shmita d'oraisa, or
at least to the return from Bavel.

But  the *efficacy* of pruzbul is not Hillel's takana at all.  It's
de'oraisa (Sifri, quoted by Tosfos Gittin 36a dh Mi Ika Midi)



>> (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an
>> eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple
>> owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.)

> I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole".
>  (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to
>  think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency
>  that one has an emotional objection to.

The WP article is seriously defective (WP:OR for one thing) and
needs to extensive a rewrite for me to bother with.    A loophole
is built into a wall; it's *meant* to be there.  There's nothing
pejorative about it.  An exception to a law is a case where the
law doesn't apply; a loophole is where the law *does* apply, and
this is how it applies.   It's not that an eruv permits one to
carry in a RHY with multiple owners, it's that an eruv turns it
(for this purpose) into a RHY with a single owner.

Similarly eruv techumin doesn't allow you to walk more than 2000
amos from your residence, it merely moves your residence.  That's
not an exception, it's a loophole.  If you want an example of an
exception, look to eruv tavshilin.  The chachamim, whether because
of kevod shabbos or kevod yomtov, forbade the ha'arama of cooking
for guests whom you aren't really expecting, *unless* you make an
eruv.  The eruv is an exception built into the original takana.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams


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



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


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


***************************************

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.)