Avodah Mailing List

Volume 42: Number 18

Thu, 14 Mar 2024

• 1. Re: klalei psak (Danny Schoemann)
• 2. Re: Do dogs have free will? (Michael Poppers)
• 3. Re: klalei psak (Micha Berger)
• 4. 2 Qs re Tochacha - Ongoing Forever; Diff Degree of Tochachah for Different Situations (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 5. historical mtziut? (Joel Rich)
• 6. mazal? (Joel Rich)
• 7. Re: What is it that HKBH asks of us - Students Teachers (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: 2 Qs re Tochacha - Ongoing Forever; Diff Degree of Tochachah for Different Situations (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: mazal? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: kol nidre (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: klalei psak (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: historical mtziut? (Micha Berger)

Another approach.

I recently read a (Hebrew) 500+ page sefer titled "HaRif bein Sefarad
l'Ashkenaz" by R' Emanuel Elalouf (rify...@gmail.com) of Har Nof.
(Never heard of him before - nothing useful on Google.) He promotes a
Rif Yomi program.

His approach is that the Ashkenaz and Sefard psak diverged due to
geopolitical reasons.

Since the Geonim and the  "Spanish" Jews lived under the same rulers,
they were able to communicate relatively easily. They would send their
questions to Bavel, the Geonim would discuss it at the Yarchei Kalla
and send back a response. (Since the mail route passed through Cairo,
these Teshuvoth were copied while passing through and eventually
landed in the Genizo, which is why we have copies of them.)
As can be easily proved, the Geonim paskened each question on its own,
irrelevant of prior psakim.

Since Ashkenaz was under "enemy rule", there was no easy way for them
to communicate with the Geonim. Communication was tedious and rare.
That is what forced them to figure out new questions based on earlier
psak and similar concepts. (The ball being rolled from place to
place.)

Chodesh Tov,

- Danny

RMB wrote in part:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 04:29:47PM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> > Rav Asher Weiss-The Rules of Rendering a Halachic Decision
> > https://torahanytime.com/lectures/283345
>
> R Ashar Weiss opens by making a contrast between Sepharadi Rishonim and
> Baalei Tosafos. The Maharshal says the latter make shas into a "ball"
> and they "rolled it from place to place", referring to how they will
> understand one sugya in light of the other. While Sepharadi rishonim
> stayed much closer to the geonim.
>
> WADR to RAW, given comments in Teshuvos haRambam, I don't think the Rambam
> felt all that compelled to follow the geonim.
>
> Talmud Reclaimed, by R Shmuli Phillips (who is easily reachable on Facebook),
> gave a different explanation of the Sepharadi position. They would take the
> masqanah from the primary sugya on a topic. And if that means they ruled in
> ways the Baalei Tosafos would deem inconsistent, so be it.
>
> RSP feels that this makes the whole Brisker project suspect, as it is
> looking for the Rambam's "ball" of Talmud, and the Rambam never tried
> to make one.
>
> I disagreed. Compare to physicists -- some are experimentalists,
> others are theoreticians. The Rambam's approach to pesaq parallels the
> experimentalists. Tosafos -- theoreticians. That doesn't mean that when
> all is said and done, there shouldn't be a theory unifying the disparate
> "experiments" / pesaqim. Since the Rambam's Derekh is Emes, one of the
> Shiv'im Panim, there has to be an explanation for it. Even if the Rambam
> himself didn't seek one.
>
> But, it does require being much more strict in chiddushim, in not
> reshaping the Rambam's ruling with an uqimta or such in order to make
> it fit your theory.
>
> In any case, back to RAW, he holds that this Sepharadi perspective is
> found ad hayom hazeh. That a Sepharadi poseiq is more likely to cite
> sources than write his own sevara. (R Ovadiah Yosef came to my mind
> when he said that.)

In Avodah V42n17, R'Micha responded to RAMiller:
>> On Shemos 22:30, Rashi explains that treifos are given to the dogs
>> specifically as "s'char" (reward - Rashi uses this word twice) for
>> fulfilling "lo yecheratz kelev l'shono".  Does this s'char prove that the
>> dogs had free choice in the matter? If not, then why would they be rewarded?

> Does "sekhar" mean reward? Does "hasokheir es hapo'el" reward his employee?
> It could even be contractual.

And how does this explain the frogs who chose to go into the ovens not
(as per Da'as Z'qeinim <https://mg.alhatorah.org/Full/Shemot/8.9#e0n6>
and Ba'al haTurim) dying when "vayamusu hatzfard'im"? If they were
human, "??? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????
??? - aval osam sheb'tanurim lo meisu l'fi shebatchu b'hQbH v'nichn'su
batanur cham b'tzivui haSheim." (quoting Da'as Z'qeinim) surely would
be considered *s'char*.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 1:41pm Israel, R Danny Schoemann wrote:
>> R Ashar Weiss opens by making a contrast between Sepharadi Rishonim and
>> Baalei Tosafos. The Maharshal says the latter make shas into a "ball"
>> and they "rolled it from place to place", referring to how they will
>> understand one sugya in light of the other. While Sepharadi rishonim
>> stayed much closer to the geonim.

>> WADR to RAW, given comments in Teshuvos haRambam, I don't think the Rambam
>> felt all that compelled to follow the geonim.

>> Talmud Reclaimed, by R Shmuli Phillips (who is easily reachable on Facebook),
>> gave a different explanation of the Sepharadi position. They would take the
>> masqanah from the primary sugya on a topic. And if that means they ruled in
>> ways the Baalei Tosafos would deem inconsistent, so be it.

>> RSP feels that this makes the whole Brisker project suspect, as it is
>> looking for the Rambam's "ball" of Talmud, and the Rambam never tried
>> to make one.

> Another approach.

> I recently read a (Hebrew) 500+ page sefer titled "HaRif bein Sefarad
> l'Ashkenaz" by R' Emanuel Elalouf (rify...@gmail.com) of Har Nof.
> (Never heard of him before - nothing useful on Google.) He promotes a
> Rif Yomi program.

> His approach is that the Ashkenaz and Sefard psak diverged due to
> geopolitical reasons.

> Since the Geonim and the  "Spanish" Jews lived under the same rulers,
> they were able to communicate relatively easily. They would send their
> questions to Bavel, the Geonim would discuss it at the Yarchei Kalla
> and send back a response. (Since the mail route passed through Cairo,
> these Teshuvoth were copied while passing through and eventually
> landed in the Genizo, which is why we have copies of them.)
> As can be easily proved, the Geonim paskened each question on its own,
> irrelevant of prior psakim.

> Since Ashkenaz was under "enemy rule", there was no easy way for them
> to communicate with the Geonim. Communication was tedious and rare.
> That is what forced them to figure out new questions based on earlier
> psak and similar concepts. (The ball being rolled from place to
> place.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The day you were born is the day G-d decided
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   that the world could not exist without you.
Author: Widen Your Tent                  - Rav Nachman of Breslov
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

The duty to provide guidance and correction is described in the Torah -
HoCheAch ToChiAch

Chazal explain, the repetitive terminology indicates 'even one thousand
times'
Why is this necessary? If one checks numerous Esrogim or blows countless
Tekios, and all are Passul, might one think that the duty no longer exists?

If I alone witness someone, a Frum Yid, damaging property and verify that
compensation has not been paid, need I continue, perhaps forever, to
reprimand until he pays? or until he insults, curses or is prepared to hit
me?

Is it the same if he has insulted someone and has refused to request and
gain Mechilah? or perhaps since he is no longer engaging in that behaviour,
one need not continue to offer Tochacha?


Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240313/d5b253ff/attachment-0001.htm>

The mishna in chulin (100b) features a machloket as to whether gid hanasheh
applies only to kosher animals (tanna kama) or all animals (R Yehuda). In
the Mishna itself R Yehuda brings a proof from the fact that bnai yaakov
were commanded in gid hanasheh even though non-kosher animals were
permitted to them. The response to him was that the prohibition was given
at sinai but written in its place by the yaakov story.

This raises a number of questions in my mind but I?ll just pose one area.
Is this an argument in historical mitziut (did Yosef eat gid hanasheh)? If
not, was it the result of a command or a  minhag? Did the tanaim have a
mesora as to the historical facts or were they interpreting history through
the lens of a mesora or a derivation of what the halacha was as to gid
hanasheh?s application to non-kosher animals?

Bsorot tovot

Joel Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240313/6bfa0cee/attachment-0001.htm>

The genara (Shabbat 146) disputes whether yesh or ein mazal lyisrael. The
overwhelming majority say ein mazal which is interpreted as meaning that
good deeds and prayer can overcome what was otherwise predestined (AIUI).
Most of the proofs seem based on cases where the amoraim knew what the
result was supposed to be but somehow it did not occur. I always thought
that ein mazal was a slam dunk, but now it occurs to me that there?s a very
strong reason for saying yesh (that at least sometimes a future result
can?t be changed by human efforts.)

If every decree can be changed by human effort, it would seem to me that it
would be theoretically quite possible that HKBH could not promise us
anything with 100% certainty since there would always be a combination of
human efforts, even though extremely low probability, which would not yield
that result.  Thoughts?

bsorot tovot

joel rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240313/6c1939c0/attachment-0001.htm>

I am reviving this rather old topic because a while back AhS Yomi
passed a relevant source, and today I found the email to myself
reminding me to share it.

AhS YD 242:24
<https://www.sefaria.org/Arukh_HaShulchan%2C_Yoreh_De'ah.242.24>
distinguishes between not pasqening "in front of one's rav" when the
question is halakhah lemaaseh, vs being allowed and encouraged to
disagree with one's rav when the discussion is theoretical.

RYME also cites the SA se'if 8 that limits hora'ah as unettled law.
If the even if the question was halakhah lema'aseh, the prohibition
against hora'ah bifnei rabo also doesn't apply to just stating what
the community holds. (If the community is settled on one pesaq on the
question.) But the Ran (as quoted by the Shakh s"q 15) disagrees, and
even when it comes to "din hagalui lekol" the student can't speak up
in front of the rebbe. (I assume where the rebbe didn't just tell the
sho'el to do something clearly wrong. Just to speak up first.)

Then there is a question about how settled a question much be, what
kinds of sefarim must present the ruling. See the AhS there.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   others come to love him very naturally, and
Author: Widen Your Tent      he does not need even a speck of flattery.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                      - Rabbi AY Kook

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 05:30:44PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> Chazal explain, the repetitive terminology indicates 'even one thousand times'
> Why is this necessary? If one checks numerous Esrogim or blows countless
> Tekios, and all are Passul, might one think that the duty no longer exists?

Maybe because mutav sheyihyu shogegim would lead me to conclude that if
they aren't accepting my tokhachah, I should give up rather than make
future chataim worse by adding to their bemeizid-ness.

...
> Is it the same if he has insulted someone and has refused to request and
> gain Mechilah? or perhaps since he is no longer engaging in that behaviour,
> one need not continue to offer Tochacha?

This is more like peshat in the pasuq, as explained by the Chizquni and
others, than Chazal's derashah-level explanation.

To Chazel, the nature of the sin isn't relevent to the mitzvah of tokhachah.

But to this parshanim, all three clauses in the pasuq are connected:
   Lo sisna es achikha bilvavekha
How?
   Hokheiach tokhiach es amisekha
When he did something that hurt your feelings, let him know. Give him a
chance to clear the air. Maybe he didn't realize what he did, or that it
was hurtful. Or just underestimated how hurtful it was. Or just after you
humanizing the pain you felt, he will regret a conscious decision to hate
you...
   Velo sisa alav cheit
And then you won't bear the sin of hating him in your heart because of what
he did.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 I always give much away,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
Author: Widen Your Tent              -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 05:52:51AM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> If every decree can be changed by human effort, it would seem to me that it
> would be theoretically quite possible that HKBH could not promise us
> anything with 100% certainty since there would always be a combination of
> human efforts, even though extremely low probability, which would not yield
> that result. Thoughts?

We don't have total free will. For an easy example, we cannot choose to
flap our arms until we fly.

And there are so many choices we aren't given to choose among.

And more so according to REED, saying that not all of our actions are
free-willed choices, only those about which we are conflicted enough
to consciously think about. Habit, reflex, "decisions" made before you
even realized it -- not bechirah chofshi. In other words, most of us
don't "choose" not to steal that nice watch from the store because the
thought never even crosses our minds.

But in any case, back to the topic...

We can choose between our options, but Hashem chooses our options.

I question whether "there would always be a combination of human
efforts, even though extremely low probability, which would not yield
that result." If one believes in universal HP, as opposed to the Ohr
haChaim discussed here in the past (or all or nearly all rishonim) one
would have to believe that Hashem can set things up that His Hashgachah
is manifest in every scenario we are capable of setting up.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 "As long as the candle is still burning,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   it is still possible to accomplish and to
Author: Widen Your Tent      mend."
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF        - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 08:31:56AM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> I wonder how many practices that seem at odds with what the pure would
> demand are due to amcha insisting on them. A delicate dance between the
> people and the gedolim?

The answer would also depend on the gadol. A gadol who doesn't place much
weight in mimeticism, eg the Gra, would find many more examples. In contrast
to the AhS, whose chiddushim are nearly always, if not always, finding ways
to justify a community's accepted practice in the meqoros. Even if it takes
a diyuq or new peshat in a maqor no one had made in print until now.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 01:41:50PM +0200, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote:
> l'Ashkenaz" by R' Emanuel Elalouf['s]` (rify...@gmail.com) ...
> approach is that the Ashkenaz and Sefard psak diverged due to
> geopolitical reasons.

> Since the Geonim and the  "Spanish" Jews lived under the same rulers,
> they were able to communicate relatively easily. They would send their
> questions to Bavel, the Geonim would discuss it at the Yarchei Kalla
> and send back a response...

There is a school of historical thought that R Rich Wolpoe used to
champion here that says that this began even before the geonim. Pointing
to cases where Ashkenazi pesaq makes more sense when one looks at the
Medrashei Halakhah or the Yerushalmi than if one expects a maqor in
Talmud Bavli.

After all, so many of those who kept Minhag EY end up in Rome, and
eventually emigrate from Italy to the heart of the Holy Roman Empire,
Ashkenaz.

Genetic testing confirms that this is likely. However, it also says that
Jews from Shamma (the Levant) are genetically closer to Ashkenazim than
Sepharadim. Which still makes sense -- Syria was a Roman province, not
Sassanid.

But do we see more similarity between the pre-Galus Sepharad versions of
Syrian, Lebanese or Turkish Jewish practice and Minhag Ashkenaz? I have
no idea.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
http://www.aishdas.org/asp    'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
Author: Widen Your Tent       'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                   - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 05:50:20AM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> The mishna in chulin (100b) features a machloket as to whether gid hanasheh
> applies only to kosher animals (tanna kama) or all animals (R Yehuda). In
> the Mishna itself R Yehuda brings a proof from the fact that bnai yaakov
> were commanded in gid hanasheh even though non-kosher animals were
> permitted to them. The response to him was that the prohibition was given
> at sinai but written in its place by the yaakov story.
...
> Is this an argument in historical mitziut (did Yosef eat gid hanasheh)? If
> not, was it the result of a command or a minhag? ...

Well, if the avos observed the Torah before it was given then they
wouldn't eat gid hanasheh either way. Maybe the question would be later,
Yaaqov's children or the Mitzrayim generations.

The historical question is therefore kind of muddied. Unless one wants
to know about the act of command itself. Did Yaaqov get such a nevu'ah
or not?

But I would propose a different model: Maybe the machloqes is whether
Beris Sinai was added atop of Beris Avos, or is a replacement for it.
So then the question isn't whether Yaaqov got the command, a historical
question, but whether that command is still in effect after Matan
Torah, and today's issur is a new thing patterned after the original in
commemoration of the same battle with the mal'akh.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life isn't about finding yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   Life is about creating yourself.
Author: Widen Your Tent               - George Bernard Shaw
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF


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



_______________________________________________
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.)