Avodah EmaiList Archive http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/ Sun, 07 Jun 2026 15:06:05 -0700 micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Wed, 03 Jun 2026 04:27:02 -0700 <aiAPhloAQ7VsDOvr@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 05:57:46AM +0300, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote: > In a recent shiur, Rav Asher Weiss summarized his understanding concerning > differences between halachic reality and scientific reality. They are two > different realities where the former is set at sof hora (closing of the > gemara) and becomes a matter of mesora. The latter continues to evolve.. I think this is phrased poorly. We aren't talking about scientific reality changing as much as our knowledge of it does. But when it comes to mesorah, it might actually be the reality that coalesces. The conceptural reality is eilu va'eilu. What happened at sof hora'ah was a kind of closing of choosing which we follow lemaaseh. And that's because eilu va'eilu is the reality, but halakhah lemasseh is legislative, not which is real. There is an Oral Torah largely to enable that flexibility, which you cannot have when working off written codes. The other problem I have with RAW's position as presented is that sof hora'ah was only a comparative statement. It didn't entirely end at the end of the Sanhedrin or the acceptance of the Talmud Bavli. And not only because rishonim argue about the rules of which statement is the Bavli's conclusion so they will disagree lemaaseh. Or the gemara doesn't state a conclusion altogether. And different rishonim could have different girsa'os. But machloqesin about what the hora'ah actually was aside, there is still an evolution of the mesorah after Ravina veRav Ashi. And not just the accumulation of new dinim, like the normalization of everyone saying Pesuaqei deZimra daily during the geonic period. And there are always new applications of existing halakhah. Whether because people are doing something new, or because they are doing the old in a way that is only slightly, but halachically relevant, different way. A case of that latter clause: Once we figured out ways for deaf mutes to communicate, and thereby they became teachable, they aren't the same kind of people that the gemara assumes a cheireish would be. It looks like a change in halakhah, but really it's a change in the realia; a new case that requires getting into the weeds to see that it is indeed new. But there were also changes to which eilu va'eilu became universally accepted pesaq. Minority opinions that came to the fore, even if not universally accepted, at least from largely ignored to commonplace. The ge'onim had one definition of sheqi'ah, Rabbeinu Tam was just one of the majority of Rishonim who had a different one. And then, in the 18th cent CE, most of us switched back. Look how many fewer Americans keep two full days when in Israel for Yom Tov than just 3 or 4 decades ago. There was a sof hora'ah, but it seems thats only in comparison, and not that there is no hora'ah anymore. After all, R Asher Weiss himself has a paper somewhere that says "Yoreh Yoreh" -- literally saying that he is qualified to give hora'ah. So, halakhah evolves too. But it's legislative, not reality. Last, even our knowledge of reality changes with each chiddush. Presumably that's cumulative, and not like the scientific method and experiments that show we have to refine our theories. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. http://www.aishdas.org/asp All that is left to us is Author: Widen Your Tent to be as human as possible while we are here. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2026q2/048405.html joelirarich at gmail.com (Joel Rich) Tue, 02 Jun 2026 19:57:46 -0700 <CAE7cFpF64rJdRX9YiJvkk4DU3nyT_3D2uFUKnEmU7KGNU63ZHg@mail.gmail.com> In a recent shiur, Rav Asher Weiss summarized his understanding concerning differences between halachic reality and scientific reality. They are two different realities where the former is set at sof hora (closing of the gemara) and becomes a matter of mesora. The latter continues to evolve. It would be worthwhile to try to understand the conceptual message being delivered by this two-track system (beyond my pay grade). However, I?m particularly interested in understanding what would have happened if the Sanhedrin had continued and there had been no sof hora. Would they have halachically been required to continually updated the halachic reality to be consistent with the scientific one? Thoughts? KT Joel Rich http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2026q2/048404.html micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Tue, 02 Jun 2026 06:14:08 -0700 <ah7XIHtwOoQEuV+u@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 09:03:32PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > If I may add one point that I don't think RJIR and R'Micha raised in their > respective, excellent V44n15 responses (if one or both did, please forgive > me for not thus understanding...): if someone can positively change herself > psychologically, she becomes a different person subject to a different > (hopefully "rewarding") outcome -- compare with *t'shuvah*. I was riffing on RSRH's approach to tefillah, actually. He (as I'm sure you know) says that tefillah doesn't work because begging Hashem for something will get Him to cave. After all, with or without tefillah, kol man de'avad Rachmanah letav adav. So RSRH says that tefillah changes the self, and the changed self has a diferent "tav". And simanei milsa are basically physical tefillos. From there, to segulos. Although many things we call segulos aren't actually. Many are expations of a mida-keneged-mida reward. The above is only purely true when speaking of practices that aren't actual halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns http://www.aishdas.org/asp G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four Author: Widen Your Tent corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2026q2/048400.html micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Tue, 02 Jun 2026 06:52:39 -0700 <ah7gJyhrl9FiXEvy@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 10:58:33AM +0300, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Of course, I fully support what R' Micha Berger and R' Harry Maryles wrote > about this story. I only want to suggest that while this may appear to be a > problem per se, it is more accurately a *symptom* of a problem. > > For more information on the actual problem itself, I refer everyone to R. > Dr. Soloveitchik's famous "Rupture and Reconstruction", available online at > https://www.bjpa.org/content/upload/bjpa/rupt/RuptureAndReconstruction.pdf I don't think this is the whole problem. Yes the cultural Ruptures caused by the Holocaust and the expulsion from Arab lands gave our culture a tenuousness that allowed for fundamental change. But it doesn't explain why this particular change. Why the shift from the pursuit of Ehrlakeit and Menchlachkeit to the pursuit of Frumkeit. For that I blame the fact that the majority of our people were non-O. Which means that we within O were defining our religious identity by the issues which highlight how We aren't Them. Ritual mitzvos come to the fore. Nowadays, with contemporary Western values drifting so far from what was called 60 years ago "Judeo-Christian Values", we have difference in being adam lachaveiro and morality as well. But that's after the Reconstruction. When I say "frumkeit", I mean not only a focus on ritual mitzvos, but also coming from a place of what REED in Qunterus haChessed would call "Koach haNetilah". As per R Wolbe's section of Alei Shur vol 2 (pp 152-155), titled (logically enough) "Frumkeit" (tr. R Ezra Goldschmiedt): On the narrow path to Truth in serving G-d there is a major impediment which is called frumkeit (religiosity) a term which has no clear and exact translation. Frumkeit is the natural urge and instinct to become attached to the Creator. This instinct is also found amongst animals. Dovid said, The lion cubs roar for their prey and ask Gd for their food (Tehilim 104:21). He gives to the beast his food and to the young ravens who call to Him (Tehilim 247:9). There is no necessity why these verses should be understood as metaphors [and therefore they will be read according to their literal meaning]. Animals have an instinctive feeling that there is someone who is concerned that they have food and this is the same instinct that works in man but obviously at a higher level. This natural frumkeit helps us in serving Gd. Without this natural assistance, serving Gd would be much more difficult. However this frumkeit, as in all instinctive urges that occur in man, is inherently egoistic and self-centered. Therefore frumkeit pushes man to do only that which is good for himself. Activities between people and actions which are done without ulterior motivations are not derived from frumkeit. One who bases his service of G-d entirely on frumkeit remains self-centered. Even if a person places many pious restrictions on himself he will never become a kind person and he will never reach the level of being pure motivated. This is why it is necessary that we base our service of G-d on commonsense (daas). (Study Sotah 22b lists 7 types of activities which it labels as foolish piety. Each one of them is a manifestation of frumkeit without commonsense). Commonsense has to direct our service of G-d. From the moment we desert commonsense and act only according to frumkeit, our Divine service becomes corrupted. This is true even for a person on the level of a Torah scholar. Which gets us back to the thread about segulos. People are embracing them as though Avodas Hashem doesn't mean "serving Hashem", but closer to a way to get "the serice Hashem does" for us! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, http://www.aishdas.org/asp but when a prophet dies, his influence is just Author: Widen Your Tent beginning. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Soren Kierkegaard http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2026q2/048402.html micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Tue, 02 Jun 2026 05:44:43 -0700 <ah7QO5vIytpIK/6f@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 03:58:13PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Joel Rich asked: > > Fascinating, is he saying that the only reason contemplating > > yirah during learning is that it is intrinsic to learning because > > it causes his torah to be remembered, not as an independent value. > > I think you translated it well, and understood it correctly. To take a > *short* break during one's learning... > is not a hefsek in the learning, and does not constitute > Bitul Torah. Rather, it is a tafel which *enhances* the ikar. Or, to use > your translation, it *sustains* his learning! ... > But if one treats this hisbonenus as an "independent value", then I daresay > that the Nefesh Hachayim would hold that he has gone beyond the "me'at" > limitation. (Note that the Nefesh Hachayim used that word *twice* in this > snippet!) I understand "independent value" to mean that he treats it as its > own ikar, and no longer batel to the learning. (Long quote, because for an email list, Feb 19 was eons ago.) I would also point out that there is nothing in NhC vol 4 that says that hisbonenus and deveiqus aren't an independent value. Just that the value isn't high enough ranking to interrupt learning. It might even be high enough to delay learning if you didn't start yet. > For more information I suggest Pirkei Avos 3:9. Admiring and praising > Hashem's handiwork is a wonderful thing. But if one interrupted his > learning to do it, and it is unrelated to what he was learning, then it's > *not* so good. (3:7 in my edition) There are lots of acharonim who give the derash-y explanation that the problem isn't admiring the tree, but doing so as an interruption from their learning. If one is admiring the tree to note Nifla'os haBorei, one wouldn't be mischayeiv benafosho. Which would turn the interruption to the short hisbonenus RCV permitted. (Also, I want to point out that this is one of the few times it is pretty compelling that RCV was presenting an alternative to the Chassidish position, which wouldn't merely permit a short hisbonenus rather than recommending a less short one.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Imagine waking up tomorrow http://www.aishdas.org/asp with only the things Author: Widen Your Tent we thanked Hashem for today! - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2026q2/048399.html micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Tue, 02 Jun 2026 07:17:50 -0700 <ah7mDlM8lIs82aK3@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 06, 2026 at 06:37:15AM +0300, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote: > From the recently published Aggadot HaRav ... > There was another commandment at hand: Joseph, the old grandfather, had > commanded his family: "When God will indeed remember you, then you shall > bring my bones up out of here" (Gen. 50:25). Moses was fulfilling this > commandment. > Now a learned Jew with a sharp head would stroke his beard and say: Let us > see, which commandment should one preferably fulfill? The command to borrow > from Egypt is a Torah commandment, and a valuable one at that. > On the other hand, obeying the words of the deceased is a Rabbinic mitzvah. > Furthermore, according to some Rishonim, this applies only to the children > of the deceased... I want to blend this discussion with another post. On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 03:51:46PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > [R Joel Rich:] >> "Looking for a write up of the classic question of whether one should eat >> human flesh or pig meat in a pikuach nefesh situation, in particular the >> supposed positions of R Amital and R Lichtenstein, > Rav Amital's opinion appears in print. Though the opinion of Rav > Lichtenstein is quoted many times, I have not found any original source > for that opinion... R Amital quipped that both would eat the pork, but the difference is, RAL would feel guilty afterwards for violating halakhah. RYA eating pork is a close parallel to Moshe's taking Yosef's bones, choosing what our innate morality screams is the better choice despite the technical reasoning of halakhah. The difference is, Moshe is a navi. And even not in his own unique sense of being a navi, he would have far more right to make an eis laasos Lashem exception to the rules. But then you get to the following... On Wed, May 06, 2026 at 06:31:57AM +0300, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote: > From the recently published Aggadot HaRav (p. 76) ... > However, there are questions about honoring parents, educating children, > giving charity, helping others, guarding one's tongue, general questions > about faith, as well as various questions concerning thought and feelings, > that were not necessarily ruled on by rabbis. Simple Jews would render > decisions in such cases. Do you think that they knew how to learn Gemara? I > knew Jews who were incapable of reading even one line of Gemara without the > vowel signs. Nevertheless, I saw their conduct. As a child, I knew a > certain craftsman. In retrospect, if I visualize his conduct, I see that he > acted according to the Torah! And that Jew could barely get through the > weekly Torah portion. Somehow, there was a feeling inculcated in him from > generations ago, practically an instinct, telling him: Such-and-such is > Jewish, such-and-such is not Jewish. It would seem to be a peon to mimeticism, halakhah conveyed culturally, rather than as a set of formal / textual laws. Mimeticism lacks the certainty of a navi who we know from that very ability must have an instinct that is in line with the Divine Will. And therefore there must be checks and balances when we cannot in retrospect, see that they are acting in accordance with textual law. RYME in the Arukh haShulchan often got creative finding how we are acting in accordance with halakhah even if it means that we -- quite implicitly -- were following a unique understanding of one rishon or another. But he too had limits beyond which he will talk about what we do baavoseinu harabbim and what we have to teach people to stop doing. Whether it's teaching people not to pick up chickens on Shabbos or women covering their hair (even though one may say Shema in front of them because in a culture where it's commonplace it isn't distracting). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow http://www.aishdas.org/asp man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries Author: Widen Your Tent about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Yisrael Salanter http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2026q2/048403.html micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Tue, 02 Jun 2026 06:29:34 -0700 <ah7avkFbKFXhnQeN@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 12:35:58AM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote: > The mlacha of kotzer on Shabbat is generally defined as taking a living > organism and detaching it from the ground which is its chiyut (source of > life). The Yerushalmi (shabbat 48b) and many rishonim use this definition Daf Yomi reference (not that I learn DY): the same is true of shechitah. This is why it is defined as cutting qaneh and veshes, as an animal's literal chiyus comes from air, food and drink. Whereas fish only require asifa from the water, as the water is their chiyus even beyond consumption. Shechitah isn't killing, and in fact an animal that is still twiching is assur to nakhriim as eiver minh hachai, because their question is "is it alive?" But because the chiyuv of shechitah means we aren't using death as one criterion for what is permissible, a shechted chicken that is still running around is kosher. (Plus-or-minus bal teshaqtzu.) > It occurs to me that one could see this as a metaphor for the Jewish people > outside of Israel. We can certainly stay alive there but we are cut off > from our chiyut.... Our chiyus is Torah and mitzvos. IMHO, living in the land is but one of many mitzvos. It's one of the 7 or 8 mitzvos hashequlos. (See R Wolbe's book by that title.) Still there are other mitzvos that outrank it. Going to learn bemaqom shelibo chafeitz. Finding a spouse. Even avoiding to take tzedaqah is a reason to permit (not require) leaving Israel. I cannot see how that could be true if it really meant that one go to merely surviving without real chiyus. 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 http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2026q2/048401.html micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Tue, 02 Jun 2026 05:25:20 -0700 <ah7LsJ8uefzsF3wU@aishdas.org> On Sun, Feb 15, 2026 at 08:02:07AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> https://torahinmotion.org/classes/electricity-and-shabbat-the-views-of-rabbi-nahum-rabinovitch >> and any other parts of the discussion you care to comment on. > Disclaimer: That's a 75-minute video, and I watched only the first 6 > minutes. Then I googled "Nahum Rabinovitch electricity shabbat" to *read* > how he holds, and this post is based on what I read... One of the foud possible approaches: > C) Nevertheless, even if we cannot point to a specific reason to forbid a > given device, ever since these things were discovered and invented, Klal > Yisrael has accepted - for whatever reason - not to use them on Shabbos, at > least not l'chatchila. I would love it if someone could check the citations, as I am giving over an old memory of something I saw in books I don't currently own. R SZ Auerbach takes this one step further. He says that just as the Sanhedrin is meqadeish the chodesh in their role as representing Klal Yisrael, the same is true for gezeiros. (I do not recall if this applies only to gezeiros or to taqanos and other legislation as well.) A gezeirah only has power because it was made by the representatives of Kelal Yisrael. Which is why it's only binding if KY takes it on when first legislated. And not "she'ein hatzibbur yakhol laamod bo". (Sorry for the double negative, but that's how the idiom goes.) Therefore, RSZA writes (Me'orei haEish; Minchas Shelomo vol 1, 9:7) since Kelal Yisrael consider electricity to assur, not just as minhag, it's assur "mideRabbanan". Since that's where rabbanan get the authority to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man http://www.aishdas.org/asp is how he treats someone Author: Widen Your Tent who can do him absolutely no good. - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Samuel Johnson http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2026q2/048398.html akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Sun, 31 May 2026 03:27:50 -0700 <CABiM0cKkmRJfE90up-+GQHxDJLTjCqt=GuUWEnhgickjtNbt3g@mail.gmail.com> . R' Joel Rich asked: > Do you have an underlying approach as to when chazal used some > kind of normative standard and said that we ignore individual > deviation (batla dato) such as kviat seudah and when they said > we must look at that specific individual's' specifics such as > maaleh lugmav? (also many non-food applications Just to clarify, the starting point of this question seems to be that for "kviat seudah" (by which I presume you mean the point at which Pas Habaa B'Kisnin gets Hamotzi and Birkas Hamazon) is the same for everyone, everywhere, regardless of the individual's personal appetite and practices etc. That is certainly how I always remembered this halacha. As the Mechaber 168:6 writes: <<< PHBK is Mezonos and Al Hamichya. If one eats so much that other people are kovea, then even if he is not kovea on it, it still gets Hamotzi and Birkas Hamazon. ... And if he eats a [smaller] amount, which others are not kovea upon, then even if he *is* kovea, it is still only Mezonos and Al Hamichya, because "batla daato". >>> But I recently saw a Beur Halacha which fine-tunes this somewhat. It seems that the halacha here is NOT "batla daato etzel KOL adam" ("this individual is batel to the average human"), but rather, "this individual is batel to other people who are like him". Here are his words, Beur Halacha 186 ,"Af Al Pi Shehu Kovea": <<< ... Nevertheless, it seems clear that if he is a zaken or a naar, who naturally eats only a little, then he is *chayav* in Hamotzi and Birkas Hamazon if they ate the amount that *they* are always kovea upon, because everyone OF THEIR MIN suffices with that sort of shiur. >>> I can personally confirm what he writes about small appetites among the elderly. I'll still say mezonos on one single slice of PLAIN pizza, but about a year ago I found myself unable to finish an entire slice of eggplant pizza, and ever since that day (based partially on this Beur Halacha and partially on how I've heard Rav Asher Weiss paskening about pizza in general), I say Hamotzi even on a single slice of pizza if it has any extra toppings at all. Akiva Miller PS: Here's a three-minute video where Rav Asher Weiss explains his opinion that Kevias Seudah depends not only on the amount, but also on the manner of eating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icwAtAaUIK8 . http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2026q2/048397.html micha at aishdas.org (micha at aishdas.org) Fri, 29 May 2026 02:00:56 -0700 <10ac4891-5729-463d-9a38-43d6b402b447@Spark> Our discussion lists are moving to https://aishdas.discourse.group/ . BUT, you will all start off with email interfaces to the Avodah, Areivim and Mesorah topics as per your current subscriptions. Why? A few months back I lamented the moribund state of email lists and how it was killing our chevraschaft. There was no clear consensus, but staying on the mail server had the biggest minority. Well, the decision was taken out of my hands. Our landlords, DreamHost.com, are ending their MailMan support on July 21st. We have to move. And I don't have the time right to move the whole aishdas.org to a new host. After checking the options, both first-hand and asking a couple of AIs that can search options, Discourse was the best free option that would allow us to continue our email and relly-to-email current interface while also being close enough to social media to continue getting people's attention. Stay tuned for a one week warning once I have everything set up. Shetir'u baTov! Micha http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2026q2/048396.html micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Thu, 28 May 2026 03:03:44 -0700 <ahgTAEBZqPoT5tYM@aishdas.org> On the Lehrhaus, R Chaim Katz suggests that R Sherira Gaon's "shamda" does refer to R Aqiva's students died fighting the Romans. But he suggests it wasn't during Hadrian's suppression of the Bar Kokhva revolt. See https://thelehrhaus.com/holidays/did-r-akivas-students-die-in-the-bar-kokhba-revolt There are a number of Maamarei Chazal that wouldn't work with my collapsed timespan. To give just one of his examples: Hanina b. Hakhinai and R. Shimon b. Yochai went to learn Torah before R. Akiva in Bene Barak and stayed there for 13 years. (Genesis Rabbah 95:30 ed. Theodor and Albeck, Leviticus Rabbah 21:8) So the second round of students started 13 years before R Aqiva's arrest, or in 118 ce. 117 was Quitus's campaign against Judea. (And in M Sotah 9:16, this is when the Sanhedrin banned making crowns for brides and teaching one's children Greek.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. http://www.aishdas.org/asp In that space is our power to choose our Author: Widen Your Tent response. In our response lies our growth - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2026q2/048395.html joelirarich at gmail.com (Joel Rich) Wed, 27 May 2026 00:16:04 -0700 <CAE7cFpEwrYt2UJ8dOBnCz4c_FwwdPZVVTqoAFV7tF4hEEVzW3A@mail.gmail.com> Rav Herzog reportedly said that he has a tradition that there will not be a destruction of the Jewish settlement in Israel. The Brisker Rav reportedly responded that he has a tradition that when people shoot, we run (Be-Ikvei Ha-Tzon, p. 215). Me-might these approaches be indicative of differing world views (more focus on the individual vs collective, and, if so, how does one determine which is more appropriate in a place and a time?) KT Joel Rich http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/2026q2/048393.html