[Avodah] Seforim Niftachim
Henry Topas
htopas at canpro.ca
Sun Oct 5 23:24:52 PDT 2008
In several exchanges in 2000, the chevreh discussed the notion of the
seforim niftachim referred to in our tfillot this time of year, RGD and RSBA
leave us with a great questions, yet no conclusion appears to have been
reached:
Example:
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 13:31:09 +1000
From: SBA <sba at blaze.net.au>
Subject: seforim niftachim
> From: Gershon Dubin
> We ask, in Avinu Malkenu, to be written in many different
> seforim. What is the source of all these or is it just an idiomatic
> expression? The only seforim I am aware of are the shelosha seforim
> niftachim, tzadikim, resha'im and beinonim.
Interesting question.
The only place I have seen this mentioned (till now) is the Siddur Otzar
Hat'filos in the peirsuh 'Achris Lesholom" via a Zohar - Ayin Shom,
and the Peirush Etz Yosef (even more intriguing) as he explains Sefer
Chaim is Bereishis, S. Geulah Veyshuah is Shmos, Parnoso V'Chalkolo is
Bamidbor, Zechuyos is Dvorim and Slicho u'Mechilo is Vayikro. A"S- and
a good pshat will be appreciated by all. (I mean, why are we asking to
be writtten into the Chamisho Chumeshei Torah??)
SBA
Question (perhaps repeated from then): When we end with Besfer Chaim,
Brochah v'sholom, upharnossah tovah why wouldn't the lashon open up to
include more bakashot? Is there no room for asking for personal bakashot
such as chilutz atzamot suggested by the lashon of birchat hachodesh or for
that matter, other bakashot made in the Katvaynu lines within the Avinu
Malkinu?
GCT and an easy fast,
Cantor Henry Topas
-----Original Message-----
From: avodah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org
[mailto:avodah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of
avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 4:30 PM
To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 351
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah at 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 at lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Pat palter (kennethgmiller at juno.com)
2. Re: Pat palter (Arie Folger)
3. Re: What does hamelech hakadosh mean? (Jay F Shachter)
4. Developing Bitachon (Cantor Wolberg)
5. Haazinu "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to
repeat it." George Santayana (Cantor Wolberg)
6. Re: Additional Tefilos for Parnoso etc (T613K at aol.com)
7. Re: Praying to angels (Yitzhak Grossman)
8. Re: Praying to angels (Jonathan Baker)
9. Ran's theory of secondary justice system to handle cases not
covered by halacha (M Cohen)
10. Re: Praying to angels (Danny Schoemann)
11. Gentiles in Torah (Michael Makovi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 01:37:01 GMT
From: "kennethgmiller at juno.com" <kennethgmiller at juno.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Pat palter
To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Message-ID: <20081004.213701.18567.0 at webmail05.vgs.untd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
R' Joel Rich wrote:
> I think I remember once learning that we assume all their keilim
> (including stoves I guess) are assumed not ben yomo but I don't know
> why or if so, was there an attempt to see the local teva.
Ditto. It's hard for me to imagine that in a society which was so much less
afluent than ours, they had so many kitchen utensils that any random item
was probably not used in the past day.
And actually, this applies not only to pas palter/akum, but also to *bishul*
akum. I've asked this before, but I'll repeat it now: If certain foods were
prohibited by the legislation of bishul akum, those foods must have been
mutar prior to that enactment. But how *could* they have been allowed? With
absolutely zero Jewish involvement in the cooking, how confident could they
be that a vegetable soup had only kosher ingredients? (I specify
"vegetable", on the possibility that Basar Shenisalem Min Ha'ayin was
already forbidden when Bishul Akum became forbidden.)
> why isn't factory bread which has neither of the issues not "pat
> yisrael" much the same as milk per R' Moshe (and why was R' moshe
> later say yeshivot should drink chalav yisrael other than for "salute
> the flag" reasons.)
My impression has been that indeed, factory bread is mutar lechatchila, and
that everyone agrees Pas Yisrael to be only a beyond-what's-required sort of
chumra, in contrast to Chalav Hacompanies, which is a machlokes such that
some poskim call it treif. Am I wrong?
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Click to reduce wrinkles, increase energy and drive - anti-aging.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3mQmuVlKq3Jq9WVzRAP46J326U
15fAFJQkeHFExGaVkUi7fs/
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:23:33 +0200
From: Arie Folger <afolger at aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Pat palter
To: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
Cc: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Message-ID: <200810051823.33258.afolger at aishdas.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Thursday, 2. October 2008 16.50:10 Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 11:36:15PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : AIUI, at the time it was unheard of for bread to contain anything
> treif,
> : so there was no need to worry about it...
>
> My understanding is that this is still true for some breads for which
> there is a strong tradition to use a particular recipe. Such as buying
> baguettes in France. RAF?
The situation has become somewhat more murky in recent years, and one must
distinguish between large retailer bread, which likely contains additives,
and traditional baguettes, which are still eaten. Caveat: I live outside of
France, in Switzerland.
> The star-K told me the same about traditional teas. Much like beers
> that aren't dark here in the US. A brewer may use red wine to color
> beer without "losing face" or calling it anything fancy. But most
> beers do not require a hechsher. Whiskies, without the issue of sherry
casks. Etc...
By the way, I am behind on Avodah, but I understand this discussion is
related to RSBA's report that brewers in New Zealand use fish derivatives to
clarify beer. This is a well known issue with many, many fruit juices and
was dealt with in well known teshuvot. If I am not mistaken, the field was
opened by teh Noda biYhudah who ruled that products clarified with isinglas
(a fish
derivative) are permissible. Caveat 2: this is off the cuff.
--
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 10:54:29 -0600 (CDT)
From: jay at m5.chicago.il.us (Jay F Shachter)
Subject: Re: [Avodah] What does hamelech hakadosh mean?
To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Message-ID: <20081005155430.435417FF1C at m5.chicago.il.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
"Marty Bluke" <marty.bluke at gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:53:49
+0300:
>
> Rashi on the gemara comments that hamelech hamishpat is grammatically
> incorrect, it should be melech hamishpat and it is to be understood
> that way (the king of mishpat) and basically we ignore the extra heh.
> The Beis Yosef comments that the same problem should apply to hamelech
> hakadosh and yet Rashi doesn't say anything.
>
That the Beyth Yosef would say such a thing is utterly mystifying, unless he
had a different nusax that we have (e.g., "qodesh", rather than "qadosh").
"Qadosh" is an adjective, so the presence of the heh in front of both words
is exactly what you would expect. "Mishpat", in contrast, is a noun, thus
you would expect the heh, as Rashi correctly points out, only in front of
the last word (e.g., "torath nega` tzara`ath beged hatztzemer", Leviticus
13:59).
My understanding of "hammelekh hammishpat" has always been, since it appears
in direct address, that the second heh is the definite article, of which (as
in all construct forms) you would expect only one, whereas the first heh is
the vocative heh. This account for both heh's.
Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
6424 N Whipple St
Chicago IL 60645-4111
(1-773)7613784
jay at m5.chicago.il.us
http://m5.chicago.il.us
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 22:38:23 -0400
From: Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolberg at cox.net>
Subject: [Avodah] Developing Bitachon
To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Message-ID: <6D14C959-8D29-43D6-A128-2A596324D701 at cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed";
DelSp="yes"
R' Micha wrote:
"But to return to the question... If anyone has pragmatic advice for
developing bitachon, please chime in."
First, in a general sense "bitachon" is what the Torah is all about. A Jew
has to have a lot of trust in God in order to perform all the mitzvos. So
you already have more bitachon than you realize. A relationship with HKB"H
must have a parameter of bitachon. [Na'aseh v'nishma]. R' Avram, the son of
the Rambam, as well as the Chazon Ish point out that there is a baseline of
bitachon and then there are levels that go beyond. The baseline is that
everything is in the hands of HaShem. We have trust, knowledge and
conviction that there are no accidents in this world. There are no
coincidences. HaShem controls everything. That is the basic and most
fundamental concept of bitachon. The Chazon Ish explains that even that
realization has a very consoling and soothing benefit. It would be much more
scary if we believed in random occurrences and accidents. Everything would
be chaotic. He points out that there is a design, there is a controller,
hashgacha. Much of it we have no comprehension; we may even be angry, but it
offers some peace of mind in a soul that is otherwise in turmoil.
Also, on a higher level, we cannot forget that God feels our every pain and
sorrow. So therefore, there is something intuitive that gives us more
bitchon when we gain that insight.
Dovid Hamelech said in a posuk: "Chesed umishpot ashira." The gemara
asks: Al Chesed ashira, or al mishpot ashira? So the answer is: I say Hallel
when He is kind to me, and I say Hallel when He judges and punishes me. In
my mind and in my heart He is Kol kulo chesed to the extent that if He give
me something positive or if he hurts me and punishes me, it's the same thing
because I so deeply and emotionally know, feel and sense His kindness, that
a slap in the face is as much an expression of His kindness as His kiss is.
Now this is certainly a very lofty level. We don't know too many people on
this level, and if fact, if you look at the m'chaber in the S.A., he says
that on something good you make a "Hatov v'hametiv" and conversely on
something bad you make a "Dayan Ha'emes." But he says you should make a
"Hatov v'hametiv" on everything because everything is for the good.
That's a "y'sod hadaas"; everything that HaShem does is for the good.
But you can't always see it and you can't always feel it. So we can't make
hatov v'hametiv on a tzara because we don't understand it at all and we
certainly don't feel any goodness. So all we can say is Dayan Ha'emes. We
trust that God is the true God and He knows what He is doing even though we
cannot relate to this as a blessing, as a kindness or as a benefit. In fact,
to tell someone that is an insult to their finite human comprehension.
But a level that we can relate to is a clear recognition that everything is
from HaShem and the sometimes feeling of inspiration that I know that not
only is He in control but that He knows what He is doing and ultimately will
not let me down ('ultimately' is the operative word).
The rishonim amongst others say: "Kol haboteach ma'amin, avol lo kol
hama'amin boteach." Very interesting. Why? If I believe in Him, why don't I
trust in Him. The answer is that I believe in His power, but I don't feel
worthy and don't deserve it. So the baal bitachon not only believes in
HaShem but he trusts that God will use His powers to favor him EVEN if he is
not worthy.
I heard a beautiful vort: What is a baal tzedaka? A baal tzedaka is not a
person that money doesn't mean anything to him. On the contrary.
To a baal tzedaka money is the most precious thing he ever has and still he
gives it. What is a baal bitachon? A baal bitachon is no one who is
impervious to danger. A baal bitachon is one who is acutely focused on the
danger. He is aware that terrible things are going on, but he rises above
that with his bitachon BaShem.
The Gaon says that the whole shoresh of tefillah is rooted in bitachon.
ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081004/
872db99d/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 20:59:50 -0400
From: Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolberg at cox.net>
Subject: [Avodah] Haazinu "Those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
To: Avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Message-ID: <F22FB273-C099-4308-B980-B3F18F4BF341 at cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed";
DelSp="yes"
32:7 "Remember the days of yore, understand the years of generation after
generation. Ask your father and he will relate it to you, your elders, and
they will tell you."
This implies historical tradition being imparted to each generation in a
predominantly oral culture. Many people are foolish and refuse to believe
that the past is quite relevant.
Hence, much human suffering and error is caused by moral myopia and a
refusal to connect the dots of the past to the exclamation points of
the present. Generation after generation were brought down for sins
of immorality, cruelty, hatred and bigotry. We always think of history as
the story of the past, but more important, it should be a guide for the
present!
English historian, James Anthony Froude, eloquently stated: "History is a
voice for ever sounding across the centuries the laws of right and wrong.
Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is
written on the tablets of eternity. For every false word or unrighteous
deed, for cruelty and oppression, for lust or vanity, the price has to be
paid at last; not always by the chief offenders, but paid by someone.
Justice and truth alone endure and live."
rw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081004/
ac998b5f/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 21:30:44 EDT
From: T613K at aol.com
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Additional Tefilos for Parnoso etc
To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org, sba at sba2.com
Message-ID: <bfc.468edc85.361972c4 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In a message dated 10/3/2008, sba at sba2.com writes:
>> "Vechol Maaminim shehu oneh lochash". Any particular pshat in this?
>> <<
GCT
SBA
>>>>
IIRC ArtScroll translates "lachash" as "prayer" but I think it also has the
connotation of a whisper. "He answers whispered prayers, the prayers no
one hears."
--Toby Katz
GCT
=============
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081004/
3bf942c2/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 22:03:26 -0400
From: Yitzhak Grossman <celejar at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Praying to angels
To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Message-ID: <20081004220326.ff8d6288.celejar at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:59:35 -0400
Zev Sero <zev at sero.name> wrote:
> Micha Berger wrote:
>
> > : So where does that leave us with "machnisei rachamim" and "shlosh
> > : esre midot"? All I can say is that this was dealt with over the
> > : centuries by those well above my pay grade, and the overwhelming
> > : majority concluded that it should be said. My bottom line is that
> > : if R Amram Gaon and R Shrira Gaon wrote to say it, it can't be wrong.
> >
> > Not sure why the 13 middos are included. I assume this is a
> > reference to something in a piyut that I missed. As middos of how
> > Hashem acts toward us that we should emulate (cf Tomer Devorah), where
is the implied middleman?
>
> The piyut "shlosh esre midot", which addresses "kol midah nechonah"
> directly, asking it to put in a good word for the speaker.
I think that you may be confusing two different piyyutim centering on the
thirteen middos. The one beginning "hashem, hashem ... ezkerah elokim
ve'e'hemayah" [0] contains the line "midas ha'rahamim aleinu hisgalgeli",
which the Karban Nesanel [1] did indeed find theologically objectionable.
The one beginning "shelosh esreh midos" [2], which contains the line you
mention "na kol middah nechonah ahaleh pnei malki betehinah", does not face
any opposition, AFAIK, since the grammar of all the stanzas makes it clear
that we are not actually addressing the middos; they are all written in
either the first person ('ahaleh', 'avakesh', 'eshanen'), or in the second
person but addressed to God ("na kol middah nechonah deheh osam Hashem
lehastirah"), meaning (as translated by Weingarten, who appears to be
correct) that we are beseeching God by invoking His attributes, but not the
middos themselves.
[0] said on the second Monday of a Bahab cycle [1] RH, #3 at the end of the
first Perek [2] said on Erev Rosh Ha'Shanah
> Zev Sero
Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 23:02:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker at panix.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Praying to angels
To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Cc: Jonathan Baker <jjbaker at panix.com>
Message-ID: <20081005030231.B645A13805 at panix1.panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
RZS:
> Micha Berger wrote:
> > RZS:
> > : majority concluded that it should be said. My bottom line is that
> > : if R Amram Gaon and R Shrira Gaon wrote to say it, it can't be wrong.
> The piyut "shlosh esre midot", which addresses "kol midah nechonah"
> directly, asking it to put in a good word for the speaker.
> > All your bottom line shows is that it's appropriate RAG and RSG.
> > What about for someone who can't resolve the question? If I
> > personally can't
>
> Whatever RAG and RSG intended. Just like in the yehi ratzons after
> tashlich, where we ask that what we've read go up "as if we understood
> all the secrets and combinations of Holy Names that come out of them..."
Hm. I just looked into some of these things, and found some interesting
tidbits.
#1 Do you have a Siddur of R' Shrira (I thought the other Geonic siddur was
R' Saadia)? I just went through the Seder R' Amram (1861, well, a 1950s
reprint), and his idea of slichot is very different from ours.
He has a sequence of 15 nights leading up to RH, and then slichot for the
two days of RH, Shabbat Shuva, and YK.
a) I didn't see the piyut "13 Middot" there, although it's in the Chabad
online Slichos, as well as the 19th-century Vilna Kol-Bo.
b) R' Amram doesn't have Machnisei Rachamim either.
So I don't know, really, what "RAG and RSG intended."
#2
a) The siddur Eizor Eliyahu says that the Gaon didn't say tashlich at all.
b) The siddur of the Alter Rebbe with Raskin's notes attributes that yehi
ratzon to Chemdas Hayamim, which should instantly raise fish-colored flags,
but at any rate, indicates that it's a late addition to our services. R'
Raskin further notes that the Yehi Ratzon is not present in the early Ari
siddurim.
c) the siddur Otzar Hatefillos attributes the whole sequence after
Tashlich to "Sefer Avodas Hakodesh", but I have no idea if it's the Rashba
(probably not), the Chida, or R' Meir ibn Gabbai.
d) the idea seems to be kinda Chassidish, too, esp. Chabad (acc.
to RYGB's explanations of Chassidish approaches to the Ari's Kavvanot), that
we don't have to use the kavvanot themselves because saying the correct Ari
Text brings the benefit of the kavvanot along automatically.
--
name: jon baker web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
address: jjbaker at panix.com blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 00:18:42 -0400
From: "M Cohen" <mcohen at touchlogic.com>
Subject: [Avodah] Ran's theory of secondary justice system to handle
cases not covered by halacha
To: <mcohen at touchlogic.com>, <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Cc: micha at aishdas.org, ilanasober at gmail.com
Message-ID: <081801c926a1$738b50f0$5aa1f2d0$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I just came across a rabainu Yonah (Shaarai teshuvah, shaar 3, seif 221)
that says a similar idea.
he says that although in general a single witness should not testify
(because a single witness's testimony is useless) that in the case of
avairos ben Adam l'chavairo (ie theft, damage, pain,
etc)
a single witness SHOULD tell the appropriate authorities so that justice
will be done
Mordechai cohen
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 16:30:25 +0200
From: "Danny Schoemann" <doniels at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Praying to angels
To: avodah at aishdas.org
Message-ID:
<856f95d70810050730t184a0706kb1e614d188b3db34 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
RMB wrote:
> If I personally can't see how the prayer isn't shituf, am I allowed to say
it? What would my kavanah be?
and R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> So a Mal'ach can do not harm unless Hashem asks him to do harm, but a
> Mal'ach might have bechira within certain parameters of yetzer tov.
I've been thinking more about my "telephone operator" parable and the
reactions that angels don't have a choice but to do the right thing.
We do see cases of angels making mistakes. Some examples:
- The Bnei Elohim were supposedly angles who seduced humans
- The angels that went to destroy Sdom had to admit to Lot that all
was not in their hands, after bragging they were in charge.
- In Chagiga there's a story of the Angel of Death's gofer killing the
wrong person - and it's made to sound like a non-rare occurrence.
- In Chagiga there's even a story of the "boss" MTTRN getting lashes
for making an error in judgement.
So while I don't fully understand what I'm talking about - and I say
these prayers because I like their tunes - I think a case can be made
that the angels who transport our prayers can use some "prodding" so
they don't "drop the ball"...
Gmar Chatima Tova
- Danny
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 16:37:49 +0200
From: "Michael Makovi" <mikewinddale at gmail.com>
Subject: [Avodah] Gentiles in Torah
To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group" <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Message-ID:
<331485a50810050737s5c67d2c2l7404fac9dbfbfb22 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
It doesn't take a genius to realize that nowadays many, especially
Modern Orthodoxy, have been taking at a new, more universalistic look
at gentiles in Torah. However, I realized that while I have happened
across countless incidental and anecdotal references (especially in
Modern Orthodox works) to our loving relations with gentiles (etc.),
whether explicit or implicit, I have not yet seen anyone who candidly
and systematically examines the issue halakhically and sociologically,
tracing the references through Modern Orthodox literature and
analyzing precisely where they stand with relation to historical
halakhic literature.
Does anyone comprehensively and candidly detail such issues of
Jewish-gentile relationships, especially in an academic manner? I have
seen a reference to "A. Sagi, Judaism: Between Religion and Morals
(Tel-Aviv, 1998)", perhaps dealing with this topic, but I know nothing
of this work. Goldstein (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/meiri.cfm)
has done this to some extent, showing that Meiri is in stark contrast
to most of the literature (Rambam and sha'ar haposkim, who view the
Talmud's discriminatory civil legislation as being directed
ontologically at gentiles per se, regardless of their morality), but
he mentions barely anything of what recent authors have made of this
issue, i.e. who has or has not relied on Meiri in recent years, how
they used him or did not, etc. (In fact, he seems almost oblivious to
the fact that any Modern Orthodox authors have advocated the Meiri's
shita or one like it, save Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg.) All I have
been able to gather is anecdotal evidence from Rav Hirsch's writings,
Modern Orthodox writings on the Shahak and Feldman affairs, statements
from miscellaneous authors such as Rabbis J. H. Hertz and Ahron
Soloveichik, etc. But I have not yet found anyone who academically or
systematically analyzes the trends and pinpoints exactly what is going
on. It is all rather helter-skelter; one can easily see that Modern
Orthodoxy is inclined to emphasize the common humanity of Jew and
gentile, but few if any forthright admissions, much less analyses,
have been made, as far as I've seen. The closest I've seen is Rabbi
Eliezer Samson Rosenthal (in an article by Rabbi Benjamin Lau -
http://www.lookstein.org/articles/reflections.pdf), very briefly
admitting that one can either take a primitive and archaic ontological
view, or a modern cultured view of "sefer toldat adam". Does anyone
know if anyone has written what I am looking for?
Unfortunately, I am not in a milieu for whom such topics are of
pressing concern. Shortly before I came to my present yeshiva (Machon
Meir), I happened across an English translation of Rabbi David bar
Hayim's "Atem Nikra'im Adam"
(http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/so-daat-emet/en_gentiles1.html),
and suffice it to say, I was rather distraught. I asked one of the
rabbis of the yeshiva about this, and he referred me to Derech haShem.
(Since arriving at the yeshiva, I've gotten the impression that had I
asked anyone else, they'd have referred me to the Kuzari. Either way,
six of this, half a dozen of the other.) Thank G-d I didn't have a
copy of Derech haShem on hand at the time, and thank G-d that no one
referred me to the Kuzari (which I did have a copy of, gathering dust
on my bookshelf). Had either occurred, and I had read either one at
the time, my dilemma would have far from improved. Whatever I have
learned since then, has been pieced together by myself from whatever
I've managed to accidentally stumble
across (no exaggeration).
------------
As an aside, some random thoughts which occur to me:
Professor Moshe Halbertal has written an article,
http://tinyurl.com/3k2bh4 (which in turn links to a PDF at
http://www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/halbertal.pdf), which
analyzes the Meiri's shita, showing
1) How he systematically applied it to the entire Talmudic gamut, and
2) his philosophical basis.
To elaborate on the second: Meiri holds according to the ibn
Tibbon-ide school that one believing in four matters is one
"restricted by religion", viz. creation ex nihilo, providence,
recompense, and the existence and truth of metaphysical/spiritual
incorporeal reality. Meiri's own hiddush was not that such an
individual is "religious", but rather that a "religious" individual is
exempt from the Talmud's discriminatory civil legislation.
(That a monotheist is exempt from the Talmud's *ritual* legislation
dealing with commerce and relations with an idolater, is no
magnificent hiddush. Rambam himself held Muslims were exempt, and
anyone holding Christians to be monotheists would hold likewise. The
Tosafits, according to Halbertal, did *not* extend this to Christians,
whereas Meiri did, but in any case, this is not a monumental hiddush.
Meiri's real hiddush was in exempting moral monotheists ("nations
restricted by religion") from the Talmud's discriminatory *civil*
legislation. For Rambam, even as he held Muslims to be monotheists,
did not exclude them from discrimination in civil law. Meiri himself
uses two distinct expressions for civil and ritual law: for the
former, "nations restricted by religion" are exempt, whereas for the
latter, mere monotheists are exempt. The two are obviously related,
but even Meiri terminologically distinguishes the two.)
Goldstein points out, that Meiri's shita does not help us today:
Meiri's required beliefs would exclude atheists and polytheists (even
moral ones) alike. His solution is an interesting one: Orthodox Jews
ought to act equitably towards gentiles, and the poskim will follow
suite in their legislation. This solution would indeed work, but is it
necessary?
Here my own thoughts come in: a tentative answer to Goldstein:
Halbertal notes that Meiri required his beliefs because he felt they
were the minimal requirements for one to be moral. In fact, Meiri
excluded philosophers from his requirements, for they had alternate
sources of moral imperatives. In other words, Meiri required the
beliefs that he did, not because they were "obligatory truths", but
rather because they were "necessary truths" (Maimonidean terms which
will be clear to anyone who has read Professor Shapiro's Limits - the
former indicates the belief is actual bona-fide dogma, while the
latter is a belief that the masses/laity must hold by, in order to
achieve some societal or political aim, and the learned are exempt
from believing it). In any case, Meiri's own requirements were
borrowed from the ibn Tibbonides.
Therefore, I suggest that either:
1) We differ with the ibn Tibbonides and establish our own definition
of "nations restricted by religion", however retaining Meiri's own
hiddush that such nations are exempt from discriminatory civil
legislation.
2) We simply classify moral atheists and polytheists as
"philosophers". As long as someone has some source, any source, of
moral imperative, and does not steal, murder, etc., I (personally) am
not particularly concerned with what his source actually is. Rabbis J.
H. Hertz and Isidore Epstein both make the interesting case that the
prophets spoke against heathenism not for its false theology, but
rather, for its false morality. Rabbi Epstein continues that the first
Noachide commandment does not mandate monotheistic belief, but rather
that it prohibits heathenistic ritual practice.
This Friday, I had some spare time, so I write an article with my
thoughts on the subject, in more detail, and more rigourously sourced.
Attached.
Mikha'el Makovi
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: makovi on meiri.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 124441 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081005/
d86ba923/attachment.pdf>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah at lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 351
***************************************
More information about the Avodah
mailing list