Volume 63 Number 69
Produced: Mon, 05 Feb 18 15:36:57 -0500
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Birchat Cohanim
[Susan Buxfield]
Blame
[Susan Buxfield]
Brisker Methodology
[Susan Buxfield]
Chazakot (2)
[Perry Zamek Susan Buxfield]
Conflict of Interest
[Susan Buxfield]
Going to shul when not feeling well
[Dr. Josh Backon]
Neural networks and halacha
[Susan Buxfield]
Psak recognizing human nature?
[Susan Buxfield]
Telling the truth (2)
[Bill Bernstein Susan Buxfield]
Was Rav Soloveichic "Orthoprax"? (3)
[Orrin Tilevitz Joseph Kaplan Susan Buxfield]
Zemanim
[Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Tue, Jan 30,2018 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Birchat Cohanim
Joel Rich (MJ 63#68) wrote:
> If one is in Eretz Yisrael and davens shacharit in a minyan which often does not
> have any Cohanim present to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has
> Cohanim?
This question is relevant also to outside Israel on the Yomim Tovim but one is
certainly not required to!
> If it is optional, but not required, is it preferable to do so?
Bircat Cohanim is a mitzvah, so if you can go to a another minyan - why not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Tue, Jan 30,2018 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Blame
Joel Rich (MJ 63#68) wrote:
> In my "other" world, I noted quite a few folks whose first reaction to a problem
> was to find someone (or something) to blame it on. I tried to encourage my
> teammates to first find a fix, there's always plenty of time later to apportion
> blame! Please look at the Yosef story in this context and share your thoughts on
> all the players' reactions
It is a normal human reaction in "both worlds" to try and shift blame but to
"encourage my teammates to first find a fix" may well cause your alienation.
Nobody likes to hear how to live their lives unless its from a paid psychologist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Tue, Jan 30,2018 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Brisker Methodology
Joel Rich (MJ 63#68) wrote:
> I'd welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker
> dialectics sometimes seem to me like Newtonian physics
Newtonian! If you really understand Gemara, you will see that in many cases
Brisker methodology is not much different to the normal talmudical conceptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perry Zamek <perryza@...>
Date: Sun, Jan 28,2018 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Chazakot
Joel Rich (MJ 63#68) asked:
> Is anyone aware of any social psychology experiments which would inform on the
> current status of chazakot (presumptions) of chazal? (e.g., ein adam choteh
> v'lo lo, ein adam meiz panav lifnei bal chovo). [A person won't sin if he
> personally receives no benefit, a person doesn't have the gall to deny a loan to
> the lender's face.]
I don't know about these, but Dr. Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, in The Edah Journal,
analyzed the presumption of Tav Lemeitav Tan Du Mi-Lemeitav Armalu [a woman is
presumed to prefer to be married rather than to be alone]
http://rackmancenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Tav-lemeitav-tan-du-mi-lemeitav-armula-The-edah-journal-2004.pdf
In the abstract, she writes:
"Early sources indicate the underlying rationale for negating the possibility of
a claim of mistake is the woman's irrepressible desire for sexual relations.
However, more recent responsa reflect a change in the deterministic approach and
construe it more flexibly."
I suspect that general societal changes may indeed impinge on such chazakot.
Perry Zamek
Translator and MS-Access Database Developer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Tue, Jan 30,2018 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Chazakot
Joel Rich (MJ 63#68) wrote:
> Is anyone aware of any social psychology experiments which would inform on the
> current status of chazakot (presumptions) of chazal? (e.g., ein adam choteh v'lo
> lo, ein adam meiz panav lifnei bal chovo). [A person won't sin if he personally
> receives no benefit, a person doesn't have the gall to deny a loan to the
> lender's face.]
Chazaka has absolutely nothing to do with psychology.
If a person has worked a field for 3 years after claiming he bought it from the
original owner who does not have a document or witnesses to disprove his claim
then that field belongs to him by chazaka.
So too unless you can prove with a document or witnesses that a particular
person would sin if no benefit is involved or that he would deny a loan to the
lender's face, then even today I think we would hold by such concepts of
chazaka. Innocent until proven guilty is usually the guiding chazakah in most
court cases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Tue, Jan 30,2018 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Conflict of Interest
Joel Rich (MJ 63#68) wrote:
> I recently heard a Rav say that one who is considering retirement should not ask
> their local Rav about retiring if they are a major contributor to that Rav's
> institutions, due to the concept of noge'a badavar (interested party). I
> couldn't help but wonder where one draws the line (i.e., why isn't it always a
> case of noge'a badvar in the paid rabbinate model?)
I don't understand what's "noge'a badvar" here. If you are going to hurt him
financially, surely it is the right thing to let him know as soon as possible so
that if necessary he can make appropriate arrangements. Just to drop it on him
when he is least expecting it, is very unfair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dr. Josh Backon <backon@...>
Date: Sun, Jan 28,2018 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Going to shul when not feeling well
Carl Singer asked [MJ 63#68]
> When someone is not feeling well should they go to shul?
The Nishmat Avraham (Orach Chaim) prohibits someone with an infectious disease
to go to shul.
http://98.131.138.124/db/NA.asp
Josh Backon
<backon@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Tue, Jan 30,2018 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Neural networks and halacha
Joel Rich (MJ 63#68) wrote:
> Will neural networks and deep learning be used to develop an A.I. halachic
Definitely not. Halacha is between Man and his Maker and NOT machines however
human they may appear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Tue, Jan 30,2018 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Psak recognizing human nature?
Joel Rich (MJ 63#68) wrote:
> Here is an interesting example of psak reflecting human nature - Kohanim don't
> leave the duchen before kaddish because of the minhag of saying Yasher Koach
> (and thus people won't answer the required kaddish responses). So how is it
> decided when to educate and when to have workarounds?
There are no fixed rules as to how to prevent congregants from sinning. Each
case has to be decided on its own merits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Bernstein <billbernstein@...>
Date: Sun, Jan 28,2018 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Telling the truth
Joel Rich (MJ 63#68) queries the advantage of telling the truth if doing so
would result in a certain number of kids going away from Orthodoxy, and at what
point is it worth it to not tell the truth.
Frankly I find the question strange. We are exhorted many times on truth: Titen
emes l'Yaakov (Give truth to Jacob), Midvar sheker tirchok (distance yourself
from falsehood), Chosem HaKadosh Boruch hu emes (The seal of HaShem is truth),
etc. So it would seem that truthfulness, aside from some very limited and
well-defined exceptions, is part of Judaism itself. One does not protect Judaism
by moving away from Judaism.
Bill Bernstein
Nashville TN.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Tue, Jan 30,2018 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Telling the truth
Joel Rich (MJ 63#68) wrote:
> As a community, assume we know that we could tell a particular non-truth to our
> children and X% would stay frum but if we told them the truth (X - Y)% would
> stay frum. At what values of X and Y (if any) would being not truthful be
> required and/or preferred?
A non-truth is a lie which, unless there is an urgent overriding reason such as
Shalom Bayit, is forbidden.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Sun, Jan 28,2018 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Was Rav Soloveichic "Orthoprax"?
David Tzohar asks (MJ 63#68):
> I recently heard . . . [that] the Rov's wife AH did not wear a kisui rosh
> [head covering] and when asked about it he answered "So what should I do -
> divorce her?)
>
> 1- Is the story true?
>
> 2- Does it imply that Shlom Bayit trumps Dat Yehudit?
I have heard this story many times over many years. I have never heard anyone
contradict it, so I have no doubt that it istrue. From what I see online he was
not the only major figure in modern Orthodoxy whose wife did not cover her hair.
Not being a student of the Rav ztz"l, I don't know what he meant by it, but let
us examine other possibilities besides shalom bayit.
The source of this is a Mishnah in Ketubot, 7:6, which lists categories of woman
who leave the marriage without receiving the value of the ketubah ("v'elu yotzot
belo ketubah"). One of the categories is "haoveret al dat yehudit" (she
transgresses "dat yehudit", however you want to translate it, but which is
distinct from "dat moshe" and therefore in any event not toraitic), and one of
its subcategories is "sheyotza verosha perua" (she goes out and her head is
"perua"). What exactly does all of this mean?
First, according to R. Sheinsaltz's footnotes on the gemara (I have no time to
do further research), most decisors hold that there is no obligation to divorce
such a woman. So taking the Rav's response at its simplest, it means "whatever
obligation she has to cover her hair and whatever I think about it personally, I
am under no obligation to divorce her for it, and that ain't gonna happen."
Second, it is far from clear that "rosha perua" means "her hair is uncovered".
This is an old debate, but the verb "para" in relation to a woman's head is used
in the parsha of sotah, where Rashi translates it as "loosen her hair". There is
a responsum of the Seridei Eish pointing this out. (I recall that he doesn't
conclude whether that is what it means lehalacha). So the Rav could have been
saying, "whatever preference I have in the matter and whatever customs there may
be, the fundamental rule is only that a [married] woman should not go out with
her hair loose, and my wife is not doing that."
Third, Tiferet Yisrael explains "goes out" as "goes out to the shuk
(marketplace)". Again, whatever customs there are in the matter, it is not so
clear that this mishna -- whatever the rule is -- applies to a woman who goes
out to any other place, public or private, and that also may have been the Rav's
point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Kaplan <penkap@...>
Date: Sun, Jan 28,2018 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Was Rav Soloveichic "Orthoprax"?
In response to David Tzohar (MJ 63#68):
I also heard the story but have no idea if it is true. But if true, all it
proves is that he was a human being like all of us. To say he was Orthoprax
based on one story, even if true, is to ignore 99.9999.... per cent of his life,
writings and teachings. No, he was not a man of Orthopraxy. He was consummate
man of Halacha as anyone who knew or studied with him knows full well.
Joseph
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Tue, Jan 30,2018 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Was Rav Soloveichic "Orthoprax"?
David Tzohar (63#68) wrote
> the Rov's wife AH did not wear a kisui rosh [head covering]
> 1- Is the story true?
That she did not wear a kisui rosh [head covering] and that he did not
want to divorce her is apparently true
> 2- Does it imply that Shlom Bayit trumps Dat Yehudit?
Certainly not.
First of all hair covering is Das Moshe which is almost considered De'Oraitha.
The very last page of mesechet Gittin discusses a similar case whether there is
a chiyuv (obligation) to divorce or just a mitzvah to divorce.
> If so "HaROV" was not IMVHO a "Lonely man of Halacha" but rather a VERY lonely
> man of Orhopraxy
Many Gedolim of mainstream orthodoxy would, despite his brilliance, describe
him as problematic. His conceptual approach may have made him lonely but I would
presume very far from what most people would consider as Orthoprax.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Jan 28,2018 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Zemanim
Perry Zamek wrote (MJ 63#68):
> ...
> More importantly, the Torah was not given to angels - if Chazal said that a
> naked eye check of tefillin was sufficient for testing squareness, then that
> is the *halachic* standard, not at the minimum (bedieved) level, but at the
> normative level. If we need to defer to computer calculations of sunrise, then
> minor algorithmic differences between different programs could (and do) lead
> to differences in the zemanim produced, and that means that two individuals
> may daven vatikin at two slightly different times, in the very same beit
> knesset!
It is not just the computer algorithms that can give rise to differences in
the calculated times of sunrise - the very formula used can also magnify
slight errors in the data used. I analysed this very problem in a paper,
"Sunrise, Sunset - a Modelling Exercise in Iteration", published in Teaching
Mathematics and Its Applications vol. 9.4 (Dec. 1990) from which I concluded
that these could produce an error of up to 30 seconds in any calculated
time.
https://academic.oup.com/teamat/article-abstract/9/4/159/1654309?redirectedF
rom=PDF
We have discussed this issue in MJ in the past (MJ 56#12, Dec. '07)
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 63 Issue 69
