Avodah Mailing List

Volume 37: Number 77

Wed, 25 Sep 2019

• 1. Re: Getting punished or rewarded in olam hazeh (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: community minhag (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Tartei d'Satrei (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: 15 Av (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: The Science Of Astrology (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: 15 Av (Akiva Miller)
• 7. Re: 15 Av (Zev Sero)
• 8. guessing at history? (Rich, Joel)
• 9. elul thought (Rich, Joel)

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 04:21:29PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> How does that work? If punishment in olam haba is much worse how does the
> punishment in olam hazeh take care of it? Likewise, if reward in olam haba
> is so much greater how can reward in olam hazeh wipe out your reward in
> olam haba?

I think things go awry when we think of mitzvos and sekhar in terms
of collecting brownie points. These things aren't fungible.

Back to the basics. We know from RH leining that Hashem saved Yishmael
because He judged him "baasher hu sham". We lein that on RH so that we
remember this point during yemei hadin.

So, we're not talking about counting mitzvos, or collecting their totral
weight. We're talking about the roshem each mitzvah made on the person.
Or ch"v, each aveirah.

If a punishment in olam hazah makes the person regret their actions,
then baasher hu sham changed. If they follow through, it changed more.

It might be that in the olam ha'emes, it takes much more to effect change.
Especially since the onesh can't followed up by teshuvah, in the same
sense of the word "teshuvah".

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Worrying is like a rocking chair:
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   it gives you something to do for a while,
Author: Widen Your Tent      but in the end it gets you nowhere.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 05:58:44AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
> Community plays a large role in halacha (ex. community minhagim,
> rabbinic leadership acceptance of Shabbat, responsibility to
> educate...) Historically these started out geographically defined but seem
> to have morphed to include family, prior culture, geography etc. Given
> the proliferation of virtual communities will virtual community membership
> also be a factor in halachic determinations?

I think minhag is by definition regional, because the idea is that one
isn't exposed to conflicting practices. See Pesachim 51a -- when you
permanently move, you are supposed to adopt the local minhag.

So ther would be no role for family and prior culture minhagim. If it
weren't for the fact that we've been moving around a lot since WWI, to
the point that the new locale almost always does not have a regional
minhag to switch to.A They are only now emerging. Things like Yekkes
who no longer only wait 3 hours, or Litvaks making upsherins. The rise
of kesarim on the shins on the bayis of a shel rosh. And somehow every
year it seems that there are fewer and fewer of us wearing tefillin on
ch"m. Etc... (Athough be"H the process of a Minhag America coalescing
should be halted bimheira beyameinu, amein!")

I think something similar happened when different communities converged on
Ashkenaz, and a single Minhag Ashkenaz evolved out of a mix of Provencial,
Italian and other existng minhagim

However, the notion of shelo yaasu agudos agudos does have new meaning
in the current culture.

For example, telecommunications means that you know about other locales'
minhagim by video, and it's not just some exotica we know about only by
rumor. Does it mean that "maqom" in "minhag hamaqom" should be considered
globally?

I don't think the RBSO wants only one way of practicing. If He did -- why
would He have divided us into shevatim, giving each sheivet its own
locale and its own batei dinim?

A second effect... In Israel, they found that  shul having the nusach of
"whatever the baal tefillah is most at home with" causes less fighting than
sayin "this bet keneset is Nusach X". We don't form agudos agudos over
having to be around people who do things very differently (except for
the few holdout True Misnagdim, I guess) as much as we do over being in
the minority forced to conform. What does that do to minhag?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   "I am thought about, therefore I am -
Author: Widen Your Tent      my existence depends upon the thought of a
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 08:06:29PM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote:
> RMB wonders, in my terminology, if the Sanhedrin gives only pure psak,
> and I respond by saying that in some circumstances they can't -- the
> decision of RYL requires a mixed psak, and the Sanhedrin can't just
> refuse to pasken. How, according to RMB, would they avoid this problem?

Actually, I was operating in an entirely different paradigm, so there
is no rephrasing into your terminology.

But I like your model, except for a quibble with using the term "ta'am",
so I'll run with it rather than continue that old train of thought.

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 02:09:44PM +0300, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote:
>> Of course the Sanhedrin ruled by majority, so following the Sanhedrin's
>> psak entails the same problem.

> Isn't that oversimplifying the process? If the Sanhedrin did not have
> a Mesora on the issue, then they would have a debate until they all
> (or at least a majority) agreed.
> 
> As Meforshim on the Mishna (Sanhedrin 11:2) explain:
> Yodunu Bo kFi HaSevoros veHekeshos haTorios

You see, that's the terminology quibble. I think your RDR's "ta'am" is
more commonly called "sevara", even if it is a derashah. "Ta'am" has
come to mean a lesson we can take from the mitzvah, or perhaps even
some aspect of Hashem's Intent in commanding it. I found RDR's use
confusing.

But in any case, what I was thinking was closest to RDS's point:
> I would assume the debate took into account the Tartei d'Satrei
> aspects. We're talking about The 71 Gedolim of the generation, after all.

That would mean that the Sanhedrin would try for consistency in sevara,
as per the way the mishnah is generally understood. And so you would not
get two pesaqim in case law that contradict in implication on the ta'am /
sevara level without the second ruling being an overturning of the first.

However, we know that the NbY didn't believe this was true of batei
din in his day. It's not just "the 71 gedolim of their generation", it
was also the stature of chazal, not matched by acharonim.

So on a practical level, RDR's question would still hold. We could end up
enshrining two pesaqim from acharonim as precedent and halakhah lemaasah
that are based on conflicting sevaros.

I simply don't think you should be knowingly following both.

Unkowingly, though... Yeah, I see the issue.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 It's nice to be smart,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   but it's smarter to be nice.
Author: Widen Your Tent                      - R' Lazer Brody
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 08:12:16AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
>> Rus Rabba (parasha 2:9[4], 7:7[1], 7:10[5]) attributed to Ploni Almoni
>> in Meg' Rus a lack of belief in the brand-new derashah. And besides, what
>> will happen to my descendents if a later Sanhedrin pasqens differently?

>> I think the medrash also uses the idea to explain that Rus did indeed
>> convert twice -- once before the derashah, and once after.
...
> But exactly what halacha(s) would that drasha have related to?

> My understanding is that "Moavi velo Moavis" concerns the halachos of who a
> Moabite Jew is allowed to marry; is this person restricted like a mamzer or
> not?

Me too, but:

If they are not allowed to marry, then why assume they converted in
anything like a kosher geirus before marrying Machlon and Khilyon? After
all, we're resigned to the idea that they were sinning either way.

And further -- although this isn't where I was coming from then -- if a woman
converts for marriage, and the marriage is assur, is there any way to say the
conversion was valid? I mean, there are pretty loose definitions of qabbalas
ol malkhus Shamayim compared to what a beis din would hope for. But converting
for the sake of being able to do an issur???

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
Author: Widen Your Tent      Kippur with that intent.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 10:03:12PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote:
> > Astrology was taken as science for centuries beyond their day.  The
> > IE, a rationalist, was an astrologer because in his world there was
> > no contradiction between the two.
> 
> The idea that nearly all of our Sages believed in something for which
> there is zero empirical support, bothers me greatly...

Why do you assume Chazal invented science?

Believing te world works some way because it's consistent with "common
sense" and is philosophically coherent is normal Natural Philosophy,
and thus all I would expect from anyone who lived before the invention
of the Scientific Method.

I put "common sense" in scare quotes because something what we think
it obviously true is simply accepted truth in our locale. It is hard to
wipe the mind clean enough to really consider things things with a true
clean slate.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   exactly the right measure of himself,  and
Author: Widen Your Tent      holds a just balance between what he can
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

.
Continuing about Rus and Orpah, R' Micha Berger wrote:

> If they are not allowed to marry, then why assume they converted
> before marrying Machlon and Khilyon? After all, we're resigned
> to the idea that they were sinning either way.

Me, I'm not resigned to that idea. I would prefer to presume that the sons
of a gadol like Elimelech would not marry women who were assur to them. In
other words, Rus and Orpah must have had a valid conversion AND (contrary
to this idea of changing the halacha via a brand-new drasha) Machlon and
Kilyon were privy to Elimelech's insider information that female Moabite
converts were muttar for marriage. ("Boaz permitted nothing new; he merely
popularized a law that had been forgotten by the majority of the
population." - ArtScroll pg 47)

> And further ... if a woman converts for marriage, and the
> marriage is assur, is there any way to say the conversion was
> valid? I mean, there are pretty loose definitions of qabbalas
> ol malkhus Shamayim compared to what a beis din would hope for.
> But converting for the sake of being able to do an issur???

These are great questions, and their answers are far above my level. But
I'll say this: It is not at all unusual to come across a gemara that says,
"You're not allowed to convert in this manner, but if you did, then it is
valid." And some of those leniencies raise the exact question that RMB is
asking, because if the gerus was done is a forbidden manner, where is the
qabbalas ol malkhus Shamayim?

By the way, where did they find a Beis Din in Moav? Yes, that was a
rhetorical question, intended to point out that if Rus and Orpah did have a
valid conversion at the beginning of the story, the procedure must have
involved some pretty serious leniencies.

Hmmm... Actually, if Rus converted at the end of the story, that is pretty
problematic too, because even if there isn't any "conversion for the sake
of marriage" to worry about, the Beis Din is even more surprising. (Someone
*might* make a case that two brothers could be a Beis Din for gerus, but
when Naami and Rus were alone they didn't have any Jewish men around at
all.)

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190922/26456393/attachment-0001.html>

On 22/9/19 2:09 am, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
>
> Hmmm... Actually, if Rus converted at the end of the story, that is 
> pretty problematic too, because even if there isn't any "conversion 
> for the sake of marriage" to worry about, the Beis Din is even more 
> surprising. (Someone *might* make a case that two brothers could be a 
> Beis Din for gerus, but when Naami and Rus were alone they didn't have 
> any Jewish men around at all.)

I don't understand the problem. They arrived in Beis Lechem, where there 
was surely no shortage of botei din.

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 5780 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

I recently heard a shiur where the presenter described the "bad
scholarship" of the Torah Tmimah when offering the "misread abbreviation"
explanation (e.g. v'hazmanim really means fill in the holiday name). I
thought it a bit unkind since ISTM the guessing about the historical
circumstances of practices is what poskim do all the time (e.g. why some
women have a minhag not doing mlacha on rosh chodesh)
Kvct
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/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190925/2b387522/attachment-0001.html>

"To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all." - Oscar Wilde
Kvct
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/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190925/cc88cb34/attachment.html>

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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)